[registrars] [Fwd: Guarding our privacy on the Internet]

[Ross Rader]

Here's a piece that really describes the current state of play as it 
relates to the Canadian privacy vs. access debate. This has direct 
relevance to the policy considerations of the GNSO Council on Whois.

--------------------
Guarding our privacy on the Internet
--------------------

The Windsor Star

It took some criticism in the press, but the federal Conservatives
have thankfully agreed to open up what were closed consultations on
Internet privacy legislation and have articulated their commitment to
protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

A controversy erupted last week when it was revealed the Public Safety
and Industry departments had been conducting limited consultations on
legislative changes that would make it easier for police to get
customers' personal information from Internet providers without a
judicially authorized warrant. Civil liberties organizations were not
invited to participate in those consultations and the process was not
advertised by the government.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day distanced himself from the
kerfuffle, saying the consultation document had been distributed
without his knowledge or consent and that public input from all
quarters was welcome. The consultation process, which was set to end
Sept. 25, is now an open process and the deadline for comment has been
extended to Oct. 12, so that privacy advocates and civil liberties
organizations can weigh in.

It was the former Liberal government that introduced legislation --
called the "lawful access law" -- that would have forced Internet
service providers to turn over personal information to police without
a warrant, but the bill died on the order paper.

The legislation was decried by privacy advocates at the time and
condemned by Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, who
feared it would transform the private sector into an investigative arm
of the state.

"It's a basic tenet of our democracy that the citizen cannot be
constrained by the state except in certain circumstances," said
Stoddart. "That's why we have judges, that's why we have search
warrants."
Day appears to have heard the critics because he insisted Thursday his
government will not allow police to obtain personal information from
private businesses without a warrant.

"We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police
the power to get information from Internet companies without a
warrant. That's never been a proposal," said Day. "It may make some
investigations more difficult, but our expectation is rights to our
privacy are such that we do not plan, nor will we have in place,
something that would allow police to get that information."

Such a clear statement is welcome because Ottawa will likely face
increasing pressure from Canada's police agencies to reverse that
stance. Just one day after Day issued that unambiguous statement,
Canada's police chiefs took him to task.

Clayton Pecknold, co-chair of the law amendments committee of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said the information that
would be sought from police without a warrant would hardly qualify as
personal. He said police don't want the power to track an individual's
online movements or email history, but the power, for example, to link
an IP address to a name and an address and phone number.

"The type of information that we're asking for is not the type of
highly personal information for which the court says you need a
warrant," said Pecknold.

"It's not unreasonable for us to be able to ask Internet service
providers or the telephone company to provide us the customer name and
address." While it might not seem unreasonable, such questions
represent the tip of a very slippery slope that could lead to police
gaining access to an individual's Internet history and personal
emails. Search warrants help ensure police do not launch fishing
expeditions, but can still conduct thorough investigations.

They strike a balance between privacy rights and the protection of the
public and that balance must be kept.

(Source: <http://tinyurl.com/38a9hf>)
--------------------


--
Peter Hope-Tindall

peter at hope-tindall.org   <- New Email Address

+1 416 321-2030 Phone/Fax
+1 416 417-2700 Cell



-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492