Pubdate: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC) Copyright: 2005 Times Colonist Contact: http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481 Author: Paul Willcocks OTTAWA HASN'T MADE A CASE FOR SNOOPING INTO E-MAIL So your daughter e-mails with an intensely personal problem. You're lucky. She trusts you enough to ask for help, and you do some research on the Web, and work it through with her. And now the state wants to be able to read those e-mails, and see what websites you visited. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler calls it "lawful access" legislation, and expects it to be passed this fall. What the legislation does is make lawful what is now illegal or impossible, at the expense of personal privacy. It is a balancing act, and there are few easy answers. The government worries that terrorists, or other criminals, are avoiding mail searches and wiretaps by going online. You worry -- or you should -- about police or other government agents being able to read your e-mail, or track the websites you've visited, or the library books you've requested. This is a big responsibility. Governments do not give back rights that have been taken away, or given away, by citizens. If you allow government to read through your e-mails, or track your Internet use, you are signing away peoples' rights for a very long time. This time you will actually pay for the privilege of giving up some of your privacy rights. The legislation is expected to require Internet providers to put all online communications under surveillance if police show up with a court order, and retain months worth of data. That's impossible now. Shaw, Telus and the rest would have to spend millions to meet police intercept needs. Those costs would be passed on to you. Police or security forces would still need a court order to get access to much of the information. But not all. The draft legislation would force Internet providers -- without any court order -- to tell police who had an anonymous e-mail account, or which websites you visited. Or police probably wouldn't ask. But when it comes to giving up a piece of your privacy, or liberty -- the two are much the same -- then it's not enough to say "well, it probably won't be so bad." The people who want to take away your privacy should have to justify the proposal, and show a real need for the state's right to play Big Brother. But no one has provided an example of crime that would have been prevented if the state had these powers. Cotler could argue that you simply can't answer that question before you have the power. You don't know what you might find until you look. But that describes a fishing expedition, not a basis for a new law that erodes Canadians' right to privacy. The onus should be on government to show precisely what is to be gained by this infringement on the basic rights of Canadians. Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart says the government hasn't met that test. The changes could allow the state to track an individual's every move and activity, she notes, a major expansion of state power. "We remain skeptical about the need for these potentially intrusive and far-reaching measures," she said in a position paper. The state -- Canada, Iran, America -- has a natural interest in peering into our lives. Government is in charge of keeping order, and being able to read e-mails, or watch a web of surveillance cameras, can make that easier. It is up to the public to push back, and demand a real justification for each right that is taken away. Perhaps Cotler will someday be able to make the case for the new powers, and show Canadians how we will be safer once we are less free. So far, he hasn't. Canadians have given up a lot since the 9/11. Four years on, it's time we ask what has been gained by new security laws. Are we safer? What have we been saved from? We need the answers to those questions before we let the government remove more of our rights. Footnote: Police have wanted the new powers for years. U.S. security and police agencies have also lobbied the government to give police more power to gather information about peoples' Internet and cellphone use. "You're only as strong as your weakest link, so if you have places that don't adapt, then that's a weak link," FBI bigwig Mike Kirkpatrick told an Ottawa audience last year. - --- MAP posted-by: Elizabeth Wehrman