WestViking wrote:Bill C-30 has not gone anywhere since first reading in February. It has not been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST). I have been watching for any movement on this Bill as it is completely unacceptable and as far as I am concenred is so bad it cannot be amended to make it accpetable.
Police need new internet surveillance tools, say chiefs
Bill C-30 would give police access to internet communications without a warrant
The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is calling on the federal government to pass its controversial internet surveillance bill so police can fight cybercrime more effectively.
Association president and Vancouver police Chief Jim Chu says he is concerned Bill C-30 will die on the order paper, meaning officers investigating criminal activity on cellphones and the internet will still have to get a warrant every time they want to intercept communications by cybercriminals.
"Law enforcement continues to be handcuffed by legislation introduced in 1975, the days of the rotary telephone," said Chu on Friday morning in Vancouver.
Section 34 of the bill essentially would give any government appointed agents, who may or may not be a police or intelligence officer, the right to access and copy any information and documentation collected by internet providers and telecommunications companies, without the need for a warrant, judicial oversight or even a criminal investigation.
It would also require those communications companies to install the surveillance technology and software necessary to enable them to monitor and gather phone and internet traffic for the government.
Where is the evidence that elected representatives are exempt?Angleland wrote:Like Obamacare, from which US House Reps and Senators are exempt, the Cop Spying Bill also exempts our elected reps. How convenient.
As for the cops, increasing rotten the higher up one goes. Should have known from some of the slugs encountered in Reeeform years ago.
He said police already have the powers they need to get information, and noted the bill would allow police to access very personal information on a computer, including medical information.
"There's no need for police to have the warrantless powers they seek. It takes a matter of hours for them to get a warrant," Eby said.
"Our concern is the police asking for new powers to access (a person's) private Internet browsing history without a warrant. We believe a warrant is a minimal safeguard that's essential to protecting (a person's) privacy on the Internet." Chu said police are using laws written in 1975, when everyone had a rotary phone and telephone directories had almost everyone's names in them.
"If a suspect lures a child using a landline, basic subscriber information is available in a phone directory," Chu said.
"But predators don't use old technology. The parent of a child who has been lured over the Internet will be told that the police search for their child is delayed because a warrant has to be obtained for basic subscriber information."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest