The Liberals' First Bill Is Absolutely Shocking

[Dr Strangelove]

[Dr Strangelove]

Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill

[Dr Strangelove]

Very concerning. My theory is that this is intentional and that the government wants push back but can't voice that themselves as to look weak in their talks with the orange threat. They should be able to pass with bloc support but if this gets a lot of blowback and the public gets wind of what is actually going on it could fail.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yup, this smells to high heaven. This needs to be debated in the house not rammed thru far to many issues. We are relying on the Bloc to vet this?

[Dr Strangelove]

Alarm bells are ringing.

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/4 ... st-reading

PART 15 
Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act
Enactment of Act
Enactment
194 The Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, whose text is as follows and whose schedule is set out in Schedule 2 to this Act, is enacted:
An Act respecting the obligations of electronic service providers in relation to authorized access to information

Obligation to Assist
Obligation to assist
14 (1) On request made by a person referred to in subsection (2), an electronic service provider must provide all reasonable assistance, in any prescribed time and manner, to permit the assessment or testing of any device, equipment or other thing that may enable an authorized person to access information.
Requesting persons
(2) The request may be made by any of the following persons:
(a) the Minister;

(b) an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;

(c) a person appointed or employed under Part I of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act or a civilian employee referred to in section 10 of that Act;

(d) a civilian employee of another police force;

(e) a peace officer, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

It's the patriot act for Canadians.

[Canucked]

Alarm bells are ringing.

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/4 ... st-reading

PART 15 
Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act
Enactment of Act
Enactment
194 The Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, whose text is as follows and whose schedule is set out in Schedule 2 to this Act, is enacted:
An Act respecting the obligations of electronic service providers in relation to authorized access to information

Obligation to Assist
Obligation to assist
14 (1) On request made by a person referred to in subsection (2), an electronic service provider must provide all reasonable assistance, in any prescribed time and manner, to permit the assessment or testing of any device, equipment or other thing that may enable an authorized person to access information.
Requesting persons
(2) The request may be made by any of the following persons:
(a) the Minister;

(b) an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;

(c) a person appointed or employed under Part I of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act or a civilian employee referred to in section 10 of that Act;

(d) a civilian employee of another police force;

(e) a peace officer, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

It's the patriot act for Canadians.

Uhhh, what are you trying to say???

C-2 is An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/4 ... st-reading

It has to address all the sections that it may affect. It does not make it anything else.
Your imagination runs wild LOL

[Dr Strangelove]

How can you make that assessment when the wording itself is so open? If this is adopted as is how do you see this not being used to catalog all online activity at the operation system and isp level? It's there in black and white. This is smashing a fly with a sledgehammer. It is sloppy, blatant and unwarranted overreach. The need to refine the bill or pull it. This was not the mandate the Canadian public endorsed.

Note my concern here is in parallel to that of the cons when it comes to the gun registry. Expensive, poorly thought out and blatant overreach. The government bill is to swing for the fences and then pull back but that 1st point should not be so far out of the ballpark of reason to make redress pointless.

[Canucked]

How can you make that assessment when the wording itself is so open? If this is adopted as is how do you see this not being used to catalog all online activity at the operation system and isp level? It's there in black and white. This is smashing a fly with a sledgehammer. It is sloppy, blatant and unwarranted overreach. The need to refine the bill or pull it. This was not the mandate the Canadian public endorsed.

Note my concern here is in parallel to that of the cons when it comes to the gun registry. Expensive, poorly thought out and blatant overreach. The government bill is to swing for the fences and then pull back but that 1st point should not be so far out of the ballpark of reason to make redress pointless.

Clearly you are a headlines type of person. It behooves one to read the entire document to understand the nuances and meaning of the Bill.

[Dr Strangelove]

You are not paying attention.



Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.

Bill C-2 gives power to pause, cancel and suspend immigration documents

Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill

First, the bill creates a new “information demand” for law enforcement that does not require court oversight. This is the government’s response to the Supreme Court decisions as it seeks to carve out warrantless access to information about an Internet subscriber. It states:

487.‍0121 (1) A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.‍0011 to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:
(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client, or to any account or identifier, specified in the form;

(b) if the person provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier,
(i) whether the person possesses or controls any information, including transmission data, in relation to that subscriber, client, account or identifier,

(ii) in the case of services provided in Canada, the province and municipality in which they are or were provided, and

(iii) in the case of services provided outside Canada, the country and municipality in which they are or were provided;

(c) if the person provides services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier, the date on which the person began providing the services;

(d) if the person provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier but no longer does so, the period during which the person provided the services;

(e) the name or identifier, if known, of any other person who provides services to the public and who provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier and any other information, if known, referred to in any of paragraphs (b) to (d) in relation to that other person and that subscriber, client, account or identifier; and

(f) if the person is unable to provide any information referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), a statement to that effect.


This does not involve disclosure of the data but rather information on whether the provider has relevant data. The standard for making such a request is only “reasonable grounds to suspect” that

(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; and

(b) the information that is demanded will assist in the investigation of the offence.


Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

Suspension of privacy rights is not something to take lightly or without due process.

[Canucked]

You are not paying attention.



Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.

Bill C-2 gives power to pause, cancel and suspend immigration documents

Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill

First, the bill creates a new “information demand” for law enforcement that does not require court oversight. This is the government’s response to the Supreme Court decisions as it seeks to carve out warrantless access to information about an Internet subscriber. It states:

487.‍0121 (1) A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.‍0011 to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:
(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client, or to any account or identifier, specified in the form;

(b) if the person provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier,
(i) whether the person possesses or controls any information, including transmission data, in relation to that subscriber, client, account or identifier,

(ii) in the case of services provided in Canada, the province and municipality in which they are or were provided, and

(iii) in the case of services provided outside Canada, the country and municipality in which they are or were provided;

(c) if the person provides services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier, the date on which the person began providing the services;

(d) if the person provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier but no longer does so, the period during which the person provided the services;

(e) the name or identifier, if known, of any other person who provides services to the public and who provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier and any other information, if known, referred to in any of paragraphs (b) to (d) in relation to that other person and that subscriber, client, account or identifier; and

(f) if the person is unable to provide any information referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), a statement to that effect.


This does not involve disclosure of the data but rather information on whether the provider has relevant data. The standard for making such a request is only “reasonable grounds to suspect” that

(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; and

(b) the information that is demanded will assist in the investigation of the offence.


Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

Suspension of privacy rights is not something to take lightly or without due process.

Do you actually read the info you post or only the headlines form an opinion piece??