Shaping the Net in Canada: front burner
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Last Thursday began as an ordinary, rainy, spring day in Ottawa. Canadian politicians, having just avoided an unwanted election, were only two days away from an extended summer break. Yet by the end of the day, a trio of events unfolded that could help shape the Internet in Canada for years to come.
The first took place mid-morning, with the introduction of new lawful access legislation. The bills would dramatically change the Internet in Canada, requiring Internet service providers to install new surveillance capabilities, force them to disclose subscriber information such as name, address, and email address without a court order, as well as grant police broad new powers to obtain Internet transmission data.
The introduction of the legislation by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan – accompanied by more than a dozen law enforcement representatives – generated an immediate wave of criticism. ISPs expressed concern about the cost of the program, while privacy groups lamented the government’s about-face on the issue of court oversight since Stockwell Day, the previous Public Safety Minister, had pledged not to introduce mandated disclosure of subscriber information without it.
Given the experience with misuse of surveillance powers in other countries, the bill will likely continue to attract attention as Canadians ask whether the government has struck the right balance between providing law enforcement with the necessary investigative powers, ensuring robust oversight, and preserving online privacy.
Hours later, the scene shifted to question period, where Liberal Industry critic Marc Garneau surprised Internet watchers by emphasizing the importance of an open Internet and declaring that the Liberal party now firmly supports net neutrality. The party has adopted a position opposing the management of Internet traffic that infringes privacy and targets specific websites, users, and legitimate business applications.
The move represents an unexpected shift in policy direction just weeks before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is scheduled to conduct hearings on network management practices. For months, the NDP has stood virtually alone among the major Canadian political parties in its support for net neutrality. With the Liberals onside, the door is open for a bi-partisan effort this fall to enshrine net neutrality principles into law.
Immediately after Question Period, the Standing Committee on Industry held its final hearing before the break on the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, Canada’s new anti-spam bill. Some business groups have sought to water down the legislative proposal, implausibly arguing that Canadian privacy law is sufficient to address persistent spamming activities and that the ECPA’s tough penalties could dissuade talented business leaders from taking on corporate directorship positions for fear of potential liability.
Representatives from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Competition Bureau, and CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein firmly put those fears to rest. Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham rejected the view that current privacy laws are up to the task of countering Canadian spam and welcoming the clarity of the anti-spam bill. Von Finckenstein was similarly supportive of the ECPA, expressing optimism about its potential to address longstanding spam concerns and doubt about whether the prospect of penalties would create a disincentive for would-be corporate directors.
These issues – lawful access, net neutrality, and the ECPA – will be back on the parliamentary agenda in the fall.
But on a single rainy day in Ottawa, all three moved to the fore with big implications for the future of the Internet in Canada.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Here we go!
First we had providers jumping on the DPI bandwagon, raising questions about privacy and illegal search, as well as anti-competitive practices.
Then we get “targeted marketing” companies (NebuAd, Phorm, etc.) wanting to install their DPI at the providers’ front gates.
We start to get some noise from the NDP about the wide implications of such activities as they pertain to privacy, fair competition, and net neutrality.
Now comes the BS that we somehow NEED to REQUIRE providers to snoop on us?!?
Naturally, if this goes through, we will have to simply “accept” DPI as a normal part of our lives, as that’s what would be needed for providers to perform what is being proposed.
I’m sure this would make Bell and Rogers extremely happy, as they would then have the complete freedom to install all the DPI processes they want, without any further oversight or argument from the Public. (Of course, they would only cooperate if they got to install it themselves, and they will get their way on that one.)
And, while the Government is busy trying to seal our internet’s fate with Police State policies, they also want us to believe that, somehow, NET NEUTRALITY will be given a fair shake??!?
These jokers need to be ejected from our Parliament! It’s obvious they’re free-basing something and can’t be trusted with the future of our Internet.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
But all these value-added services are “Free”!
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Logging my internet traffic and the content contained therein is no different than logging all of my incoming and outgoing phone calls as well as recording every conversation I have, followed by suing me for saying something in those conversations that some corporation doesn’t agree with. I honestly can’t see how any sane person could even remotely justify this. Just the mere idea of it is completely insane. Hopefully this “lawful access” legislation will get thrown out fast, which by all rights it should be if we are a country that cares even remotely about the privacy rights of all it’s citizens. Privacy and free speech are just two o many fundamental components of freedom. What good is freedom without them?
There has been plenty of evidence that, despite the claims of the entertainment industry, money is not being lost hand over fist due to piracy but in fact has simply shifted focus to others areas of industry (gaming for example). Hopefully the Canadian government will realize that they have a simple choice. They can either criminalize all Canadians for participating in a harmless activity (one we’ve all been doing for well over a decade now) or they can instead choose to protect the Canadian people. You know, the people who vote and choose who gets to stay in power next election? Yeah, those people… as in ALL Canadians. Oh, and don’t forget that tax we’ve been paying for a very long time now already. Downloading is a victimless crime for the most part. There is no way in hell I’d ever have spent a single dime to buy 99% of what I’ve downloaded (couldn’t afford to even if I wanted) and that fact wouldn’t change even if I didn’t have an internet connection. You can’t lose money you never would have gotten in the first place. The industry knows this even though they would never admit it and it is the sole reason they want these draconian laws; to force people to pay one way or another and keep their dying business model afloat. You know what I would like an answer to (one the government should be asking)? Given how many years pirating has been going on and the huge losses the entertainment industry claims are due to it, why haven’t they gone out of business already? Shouldn’t they have gone under already rather than be reporting record profits year after year? Something smells pretty fishy.
As for the anti-spam laws, I can only pray that they will finally do the trick. I’ve long felt that spam (both phone and e-mail) needs to be dealt with far more harshly if it is ever going to be brought under control. That opt out list was a compete joke so please do better on your next try. Pretty please? Having to wade through 200+ messages every day just to find the one or two that aren’t spam is a complete nightmare. Spam blockers are mostly useless when it comes to sheer volume and constantly changing ones e-mail address is far from an ideal fix (and a temporary one at that). Same goes with phone calls. There are days when all I can do is unplug the thing to keep from ringing for the millionth time that day. Strangely, snail-mail spam seems to be a lot better these days, at least where I live. Mostly it’s pizza coupons and coupons for other food outlets, which I don’t mind seeing as their actually useful.