RCMP boss wants warrantless access to online subscriber information


B00Mer
#1
RCMP boss wants warrantless access to online subscriber information



OTTAWA -- RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson says the police force needs warrantless access to Internet subscriber information to keep pace with child predators and other online criminals.

In June last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled police must have a judge's authorization to obtain customer data linked to online activities.

The high court rejected the notion the federal privacy law governing companies allowed them to hand over subscriber identities voluntarily.

Police say telecommunications companies and other service providers -- such as banks and rental companies -- now demand court approval for nearly all types of requests from authorities for basic identifying information.

Paulson says he advocates an administrative scheme that would give police ready access to a customer's name and address while respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court judgment came amid mounting public concern about authorities quietly gaining access to customer information with little oversight.

source: RCMP boss wants warrantless access to online subscriber information | CTV News
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
Ummn no. That is precisely the reason we have warrants.
 
spaminator
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

RCMP boss wants warrantless access to online subscriber information

his desire to have warrantless access to online subscriber information is unwarranted.
 
grumpydigger
+2
#4
He refuses to clean up the mess in his own organization
but arrogantly wants more power and total and complete access to Canadian citizens private lives.
my guess is he is having a Harpo flashback.
 
Jinentonix
+2
#5
Well, I say give him very limited warrantless access. First, give warrantless access for all RCMP officers' personal online subscriber information and we'll see how that goes before making any further decisions.
 
Curious Cdn
#6
I thought that they always had access to warrantless information. It may not have been legal to obtain it but in the post 9-11 world, our governments did more or less any kind of intelligence gathering that they wanted to.
 
Walter
#7
Did he ask for this when Harper was PM a few weeks ago?
 
pgs
#8
Of course they do , and if you ask them they would also like warrantless search and seizure for firearms legal or not . As well warrantless search for any illegal contraband or for any records involving crime .
What else is new .

Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Did he ask for this when Harper was PM a few weeks ago?

Probably now he is trying with the new guys .
 
tay
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Did he ask for this when Harper was PM a few weeks ago?

Yes numerous times.

And let me start with a process Paulson seems to be ignoring which is 'encryption'. Encryption is why people up to no good are hard to catch and why, just snooping around your e mails etcetera will not help them catch these people......

Paulson doesn't seem to remember that we've heard this hysterical message before...

The top Mountie said Wednesday that a Supreme Court of Canada ruling curtailing the flow of basic data about customers — such as name and address — has "put a chill on our ability to initiate investigations."

Won't take no for an answer even from the Supreme Court.

In June last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled police must have a judge's authorization to obtain customer data linked to online activities. The high court rejected the notion the federal privacy law governing companies allowed them to hand over subscriber identities voluntarily.

Once the Duffy trial concludes Paulson will have a lot of explaining to do. He'll have to start with the "immaculate bribery" charge whereby the RCMP took Nigel Wright (and thereby the rest of the PMO, Harper included) off the hook. He'll have to explain why he shut down political access to his senior officers during the scandal, the investigation and trial.

I'll bet Paulson will quietly retire before he's asked too many awkward questions.

But sadly like so many other Con threats, there's the ugly rhetoric and then there's the ugly reality.

RCMP have been holding back millions of dollars from the force's vaunted program to fight online child pornography, partly to help the Harper government pay down the federal deficit.

CBC News has learned that over a five-year period, Canada's national police force Mounties withheld some $10 million in funds earmarked for its National Child Exploitation Co-ordination Centre and related projects, linchpins of the government's anti-child-pornography agenda.


So there is no money to fight the child pornographers. The Harper Police would rather fight the deficit.

And if Justin Trudeau want to restore the rule of law in this country. And restore the confidence of Canadians in the RCMP.

He should scrap Bill C-51, as soon as he can.
And fire Paulson, as soon as possible...

I think we all remember the fight against the Harper government's Bill C-30, the so-called online surveillance bill.

Bill C-30, introduced by the then public safety minister Vic Toews in February 2012, would have given police, in some instances, access to information about Canadians' online behaviour — with limited judicial oversight — via internet service provider (ISPs) records.

Groups from across the political spectrum are speaking out to warn Canadians about how the government’s Online Spying Bill C-13 would give a range of authorities access to the private lives of almost any Canadian, even if they are not suspected of any wrong doing.

Bill C-13 was recently introduced by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who claimed that it related to cyberbullying. However just a few pages of the bill cover that topic, while 65 pages were lifted from former Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ failed online spying Bill C-30, which was withdrawn after over 150,000 Canadians spoke out against it. OpenMedia.ca led the successful nationwide campaign that defeated Bill C-30.

Many commentators are saying that the legislation is a missed opportunity to specifically tackle the serious issue of cyberbullying and that the government is showing a huge lack of respect for the families of cyberbullying victims by lumping in unpopular online spying proposals into the cyberbullying bill. The Official Opposition has joined OpenMedia.ca in calling for the Bill to be split , so that the cyberbullying and online spying components can be dealt with separately.

As parliamentarians return to their ridings for the winter holidays, Canadians are speaking out to tell MPs that Bill C-13’s online spying provisions are unacceptable and would undermine privacy. Here’s what representatives of organizations from a cross section of perspectives have been saying about Minister MacKay’s revival of Vic Toews’ spying bill:

“Canadians are waking up to the fact that this legislation will give a range of authorities access to the private lives of innocent Canadians, even if they’re not suspected of wrongdoing” says Internet Freedom advocate and OpenMedia.ca Executive Director Steve Anderson. “By resurrecting Vic Toews’ failed ideas, Minister MacKay is showing an appalling lack of respect for Canadians.”


https://openmedia.ca/news/groundswel...pying-legislat











 
personal touch
#10
I don't think the RCMP could handle the autonomy of "all access",history speaks volumes on this statement,
I think the RCMP would be quickly over their heads if giving free reign of information handling,the RCMP is plagued with information handling issues right now,i think all access would complicate these issues.previous information handling questions must be adddressed before allowing the RCMP advanced autonomy of decison making.
 
VanIsle
#11
Why do any of you think the police have time to sit and read silly conversations. Really, all they require is a set of guidelines - they don't need a warrant! Things from suspicious persons will be recorded and key words will cause them to listen or look. It's simply not the big deal all of you think it is.
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

Why do any of you think the police have time to sit and read silly conversations. Really, all they require is a set of guidelines - they don't need a warrant! Things from suspicious persons will be recorded and key words will cause them to listen or look. It's simply not the big deal all of you think it is.

Perhaps initially. I can see this quickly evolving from "suspicious persons will
be recorded and key words will cause them to listen or look
" to "key words
will cause them to listen or look to decide who suspicious persons are....
"

Are you familiar with the US NSA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency


 
CDNBear
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

Yes numerous times.

And they got no satisfaction?

That can't be! Harper was a dictator.

Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

Why do any of you think the police have time to sit and read silly conversations. Really, all they require is a set of guidelines - they don't need a warrant! Things from suspicious persons will be recorded and key words will cause them to listen or look. It's simply not the big deal all of you think it is.

Franklin said it best, ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
 
lone wolf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

Why do any of you think the police have time to sit and read silly conversations. Really, all they require is a set of guidelines - they don't need a warrant! Things from suspicious persons will be recorded and key words will cause them to listen or look. It's simply not the big deal all of you think it is.

They better have their "intel" in context. Otherwise, they're cherry picking and coming up with asinine accusations
 
personal touch
#15
At present,law enforcement has problems handling information,big problems,i just cannot see them taking any more on. As stated with the problems which plague them at this very moment,and their inability,laziness or incapacity,or other to change the situation.
Could you imagine where we would be at if more was taken on with information handling within law enforcement,what a mess.
i figure there has to be recognition of wrongs of information handling before liberties of further privledges can move along.
still waiting for news on Dawson creek,anyone hear anything yet?