Revving up robo-cop

Located in downtown Ottawa, The Flat Planet is unlike the stereotypical Internet café. Neither dark nor dank, its walls are painted a sky blue, and natural light floods in from the large street-side windows.

Chris White, the café's owner, is a short stocky man, attributes that are accentuated by his green-and-white striped shirt.

As White speaks, he tends to the steady stream of customers that come through the door.

Most stop by to make quick purchases of electrical cords and batteries. Few actually use the computer terminals in blue cubicles at the back of the café. 
But those who do use the computers are assured of their privacy.

The Flat Planet Internet café and tech store in downtown Ottawa assures privacy, which is more than the new bills in the works do.

"We don't monitor what they're doing — not any more than anybody's monitored when they're using the Internet at home," White says. "We can't end up in a situation where we're watching people doing their online banking, talking to their lawyers, sending emails to their members of Parliament."

However unlike White's clients, the Canadian public could soon find their Internet habits under scrutiny.

Down the street from The Flat Planet, the federal government has introduced "lawful access" legislation in Parliament.

A look inside the laws

The three bills, C-50, C-51 and C-52, were tabled for the third time in late October and early November. They were previously introduced under the former Liberal government in 2005, and under the Conservative government in 2009, but were killed by elections or prorogation.

The bills would amend the Criminal Code to allow for new police powers, more information disclosure and mandated surveillance technologies, according to the website of Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor specializing in Internet law.
 

Geist says the legislation takes a three-pronged approach. The first prong requires the release of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. The second includes "the power to intercept communications." The third gives police powers to obtain access to real-time surveillance data, which will require Internet service providers to have technology to facilitate this.

Bill C-50 would allow police to intercept private communications, Bill C-51 would extend investigative powers to all means of telecommunications and Bill C-52 would require Internet providers to rework their networks for these interceptions.

The latter two bills were jointly re-introduced into the House of Commons Nov. 1 by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

"The rationale behind these bills is that they would provide law enforcement and national security agencies with up-to-date tools in the fight against crimes such as gang and terrorism-related offences, as well as child sexual exploitation," says Pamela Stephens, Nicholson's press secretary. Don't give police unchecked powers. . . . Different tools must put checks and balances in place to make sure police powers aren't misused or abused.
— David Fewer

The privacy problem

In a press release, Stephens added that the legislation also addresses Canadians' privacy concerns through safeguards, including "heightened requirements for obtaining judicial authorization before police can obtain data relating to a suspect’s location," and that the government considered input from the telecommunications industry, civil liberties groups, police associations and other stakeholders in developing the bills.

"The government has . . . [adopted] a balanced approach, taking full account of the need to protect the safety and security of Canadians, the competitiveness of the telecommunications industry and the privacy rights of Canadians."

But some experts say the legislation would give excessive, big brother-style surveillance powers to the Canadian government.

David Fewer, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, calls the legislation "grossly overreaching."

Founded in 2003 by Geist, CIPPIC is a legal clinic at the University of Ottawa that promotes fair and balanced policy-making related to technology.

Fewer says there is a "lack of judicial oversight" included in the bills, and that they need "recalibration to reflect civil liberties."

Although he concedes that "law needs to keep up with technology," he emphasizes the need to strike a balance between governmental powers and Canadians' right to online privacy.

"Don't give police unchecked powers. . . . Different tools must put checks and balances in place to make sure police powers aren't misused or abused."

Police power trip?

Citing the allegations of police brutality during June's G20 summit as an example, Fewer says "the history of civil liberties case law is a history of abuse of police power." Internet service providers will be required to provide real-time surveillance of their subscribers to police if these bills become law.

But Fewer says he's not demonizing police officers.
"The point here isn't about the police doing their job. The problem is about when police are not doing their job, misusing their power or authority or when they make a mistake," he said. "The point of having accountability and oversight is to minimize the danger of these latter issues while still enabling law officers to do their job."

Fewer says authorities see the legislation as the power they need "to go after the bad guys."

"Police don't regard themselves as bad guys. They regard themselves as good guys."

Although the RCMP declined to be interviewed, media relations officer Julie Gagnon said in an email that "police need modern tools and resources to respond to the evolving nature of national and transnational crime.  The proposed legislation would bring Canada in line with many other countries which already have similar laws including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Germany and Sweden."

Fewer says the new bills are the "right way" to address risks posed by online activity, but that they need to be amended before becoming law. "This is the way to go in terms of process. In terms of substance, there's a lot to be desired."

Behind the spying

Three bills, three questions — one issue: Internet surveillance.

David Fewer, the director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, and Ian Kerr, the Canada Research Chair for Law, Ethics and Technology at the University of Ottawa, answered a few questions at the heart of the issue.