kjwcode: Serious putty. (serious)
[personal profile] kjwcode

- my reference to "especially when it comes to sexual matters" is a reference to his impregnation of a much younger political staffer. I believe this is abuse of authority on the same order as what he is supposedly trying to prevent.

- my reference to "This may be the only truth in this whole letter" refers to his letter to which I am responding.


I'll respond inline, below.

-----Original Message-----
From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012 10:41
To: kjw@pathillogical.com
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

"""Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act."""

The name of the bill is disingenuous and insulting, very much inline with the "with us or with the child pornographers" line you trotted out. You should be ashamed on both counts. It is very lucky you enjoy parliamentary privilege and an appointment -- if the Canadian public were those you were beholden to, you would enjoy neither.

"""Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem."""

Untrue, and an opinion, respectively. We frequently hear in the news that people are arrested and convicted of all flavours of on-line crime. This is proof positive that the existing laws work and new laws should be:

- VERY carefully considered
- made in consultation with Canada's privacy commissioners AND the public
- not reduced to bullet points -- Canadians will NOT have a 100+-page bill reduced to a few convenient bullet points and be told "just trust me", especially as it's come to light that we *can't* trust you, especially when it comes to sexual matters
- minimal, only giving EXACTLY what powers are necessary to the EXACT people it is necessary to give them to, with NO over-reaching and ABSOLUTELY NO powers given because they may one day prove to be useful -- they MUST be IMMEDIATELY useful
- PROVABLY useful and MUST be accompanied with citations of MULTIPLE, RELEVANT, SPECIFIC cases where the existing laws have proven to be lacking

"""We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy."""

Then why was there no apparent effort in this direction?

"""Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners."""

This does not seem to be the case. To sum it up one concern in a few words, it is remarkably easy for any of a wide variety of people and roles to engage in "fishing expeditions", and there are many more privacy concerns than that in this bill. The only hope for bill C-30 is to kill it and put forward a bill that doesn't have the baggage of defeated rhetoric and a misleading name. Truly; do you think American-style politics and lawmaking are acceptable in Canada? I do not, and a great many Canadians agree. Again, you and the others who thought this was at all acceptable should be ashamed.

"""What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy."""

"Open discussion" is discussion with ALL INVOLVED, not just in Parliament. To put it bluntly, what the hell makes you believe discussion amongst a few hundred people who are not representative of people with a knowledge in the state of the technical art of the Internet and other electronic communications media at all open? You are trying to write a law about something which you provably do not understand. Again, this is shameful.

"""For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state."""

Loaded terminology gets you nowhere, Vic. Nowhere. They are not completely myths, and your "facts" are not complely true -- and you are aware of that, or ought to be.


Again, I doubt it.

"""Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher"""

This may be the only truth in this whole letter.

Yours very truly,

Kevin J. Woolley
Constituent of the North Vancouver City riding of British Columbia, writing to you in your capacity as a federal commissioner.

For reference, I leave your purported myths and facts intact:

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.

Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.

Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer's name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.

Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.

Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond "phone book information".

Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.

Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: "Warrantless access" to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
Anonymous (will be screened)
OpenID (will be screened if not validated)
Identity URL: 
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


kjwcode: Bella, the little silly dog. (Default)

February 2012

192021 22232425

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated 26 September 2017 09:04
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios