Here is a letter I wrote to my Member of Parliament (CC’d to Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan). It details my opposition to Bills C-46 and C-47, which will provide expanded online surveillance powers to law enforcement agencies:
Dear Mr. Woodworth,
I am writing to you in opposition to provisions in Bill C-46 (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act) and Bill C-47 (Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act). Specifically, I am opposed to provisions that will allow law enforcement agencies to obtain subscriber information without judicial oversight. I am also opposed to the provisions that will force telecommunications companies (particularly small, third-party providers) to bear the financial burden of the acquisition and maintenance of traffic monitoring equipment.
Judicial oversight is an important feature of our legal system, and removing this requirement from even something as rudimentary as subscriber information can have a negative impact on citizens’ privacy. The lack of judicial oversight on such data collection would appear to be a green light to law enforcement to commence fishing expeditions on matters that may not have passed muster before a judge. The current government, through its former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, had previously promised not to permit collection of this information without judicial oversight. The back-tracking on this matter is both puzzling and deeply concerning.
There are better ways of conducting such requests that would satisfy both privacy advocates and law enforcement agencies. One such solution to this problem would be to legislate some maximum turnaround time for search warrants of this nature, but to still maintain the vital judicial oversight. This would allow law enforcement to act quickly, but also ensure that each request is a necessary breach of citizens’ privacy and was not undertaken hastily and without due consideration.
Additionally, the provision compelling telecommunications companies to install equipment without corresponding provisions to fully fund such installations puts an unfair burden on the small Internet Service Providers to maintain the same set of equipment that their larger competitors must maintain. In such a competitive industry with such tight margins, this requirement could put many small providers out of business. As a very happy customer of one such small provider, I am extremely worried that these provisions will make their business model infeasible and provide further market dominance for the larger providers.
Sincerely,
Craig Radcliffe
