Saskatchewan court considers lawful authority

The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan has just ruled that a police officer in the midst of a drug investigation has "lawful authority" to ask for and receive information about a customer of a car rental company, including the customer's contract and photocopy of the renters' drivers license. The Court held that Section 7(3) of PIPEDA was satisfied by the request and that Budget Rent A Car was able to hand over the info in the absence of a production order.

See: R v Siemens, 2011 SKPC 57

[51] Lastly, I am not satisfied that the information contained in the Budget Rent-a-Car contract or attached documents exposed any intimate details about the accused’s lifestyle or information of a biographic nature. The information in the contract included the accused’s name and Mastercard number. It also included a copy of the accused’s driver’s license which provided a photo of the accused, his driver’s license number, his address, his height, weight, eye and hair colour, sex, birthdate, issue date, expiry date, class, endorsements and restrictions.

[52] A lot of this information is personal to the accused but it does not reveal intimate details of his lifestyle or his personal choices. In today’s world we have become increasingly dependent on the Internet and technology. Some of the information such as name and address are readily available on the Internet or in a phone book. I heard no evidence that the accused went to any lengths to keep this information out of a phone book or off the cyber highway. People use credit and debit cards to purchase things or make payments. A driver’s license gives an individual the privilege to drive a vehicle and it has become a very common form of identification. Indeed, it is one of only a handful of acceptable identification when it comes to purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, travelling on an airplane within Canada, when cashing a cheque, when picking up merchandise already paid for, among other things. It is also used by retailers to deter and detect fraud. All provinces in Canada have given police the right to request a driver’s license from someone driving a vehicle to verify the identity of the person driving to ensure that they are legally driving. Barring evidence to the contrary about a particular person, such reliance on driver’s license and technology reduces the expectation of privacy that that person can expect in the information contained in these things.

[53] It is also significant to note that the disclosure of this information did not lead to the police obtaining more intimate details of the accused’s lifestyle or choices such as sexual orientation, religion or personal likes or dislikes. The only thing the information revealed was that Lindsay Siemens had a driver’s license and a credit card and rented the red Cobalt that the police saw meet with Ms. Holmes and Mr. Soare in Rosedale, Alberta. It was only after the police did further investigation that they satisfied themselves that Mr. Siemens was the person who met with Ms. Holmes and Mr. Soare and that he was involved in the drug trade.

[54] Taking into account the nature of the information in question, the fact that PIPEDA was complied with the lawful authority of Constable Hicks to request the information pursuant to section 47.014(1) and Phelps Leasing’s right, in accordance with its contractual arrangement with the accused to disclose the information to a police officer engaged an active investigation, the accused did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in this information.

In the end, the court found the information was not unlawfully obtained, was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy and therefore did not offend Section 8 of the Charter.

Text of digital wiretap Bills now online

Further to yesterday's post, Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Lawful access to ISP subscriber information reintroduced, the texts of Bills C-46 and C-47 are now online at the Parliament website:

C-46 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act aka Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.
First Reading

SUMMARY

The enactment amends the Criminal Code to add new investigative powers in relation to computer crime and the use of new technologies in the commission of crimes. It provides, among other things, for

(a) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;

(b) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;

(c) a warrant to obtain transmission data that will extend to all means of telecommunication the investigative powers that are currently restricted to data associated with telephones; and

(d) warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake.

The enactment amends offences in the Criminal Code relating to hate propaganda and its communication over the Internet, false information, indecent communications, harassing communications, devices used to obtain telecommunication services without payment and devices used to obtain the unauthorized use of computer systems or to commit mischief. It also creates an offence of agreeing or arranging with another person by a means of telecommunication to commit a sexual offence against a child.

The enactment amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.

The enactment also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

C-47 An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations aka Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act.
First Reading

SUMMARY

This enactment requires telecommunications service providers to put in place and maintain certain capabilities that facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by telecommunications and to provide basic information about their subscribers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province.

Lawful access to ISP subscriber information reintroduced

The Minister of Justice is having a press conference as I type this, unveiling among other things, "lawful access" to telecommunications customers' idenfitying information without a warrant. Stay tuned for more details.

---

Update: Here's the media release from the government:

Government Of Canada Introduces Legislation To Fight Crime In The 21st Century

OTTAWA, June 18, 2009 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, together with the Honourable Peter Van Loan, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for York-Simcoe, Minister of Public Safety, and Mr. Daniel Petit, M.P. for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice today introduced in the House of Commons two separate pieces of legislation that will ensure law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools they need to fight crime and terrorism in today’s high-tech environment.

“Evolving communications technologies like the Internet, cell phones, and PDAs (personal digital assistants) clearly benefit Canadians in their day-to-day lives,” said Minister Nicholson. “Unfortunately, these technologies have also provided new ways of committing crimes such as distributing child pornography. We must ensure investigators have the necessary powers to trace and ultimately stop crimes.” While technology has advanced rapidly in the past two decades, law enforcement and national security agencies have faced increased difficulty in protecting the safety and security of Canadians. The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act will ensure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to fight crime in today’s modern environment by updating certain existing offences as well as creating new investigative powers to effectively deal with crime in today’s computer and telecommunications environment.

“We must provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe,” said Minister Van Loan. “High tech criminals will be met by high tech police. This is a great day for the victims and their families who have been long calling for these legislative changes, and those who work tirelessly every day to ensure that when there is a threat to safety police can intervene quickly.”

The Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act will require service providers to include interception capability in their networks. Requirements to obtain court orders to intercept communications will not be changed by this Act, which will require service providers to supply basic subscriber information to law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service on request. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Sweden, already have similar legislation in place.

“The safety of our citizens, both in our communities and in cyberspace, is a responsibility that this Government takes very seriously,” said Mr. Petit. “The proposed legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the investigative powers used to protect public safety and the necessity to safeguard privacy and the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

The Government carefully considered input provided by a broad range of stakeholders in developing these two pieces of legislation, including the telecommunications industry, civil liberties groups, victims’ advocates, police associations and provincial/territorial justice officials. As a result, the Government has ensured that the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act and theTechnical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act strike an appropriate balance between the need to protect the safety and security of Canada, the competitiveness of the telecommunications industry, and the privacy rights of Canadians.

An online version of the legislation will be available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/.

See also:

Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act -->

Information:

Darren Eke Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Justice
613-992-4621

Media Relations
Department of Justice
613-957-4207

Media Relations
Public Safety Canada
613-991-0657

Here is the government's summary of the warrantless access to customer information provisions:

Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act

Subscriber Information Component

Police forces and CSIS also require timely access to basic subscriber information as it is an essential tool for fighting crime and terrorism. Subscriber information refers to basic identifiers such as name, address, telephone number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, e-mail address, service provider identification and certain cell phone identifiers. These basic identifiers are often crucial in the early stages of an investigation, and without this basic information, police forces and CSIS often reach a dead-end as they are unable to obtain sufficient information to pursue an investigative lead or obtain a warrant.

Currently, there is no legislation specifically designed to require the provision of this information to police forces and CSIS in a timely fashion. As a result, the practices of releasing this information to police forces and CSIS vary across the country: some service providers release this information to law enforcement immediately upon request; others provide it at their convenience, often following considerable delays; while others insist on law enforcement obtaining search warrants before the information is disclosed. This lack of national consistency and clarity can delay or block investigations.

A consistent, balanced, well-regulated and accountable solution is needed for law enforcement and CSIS to obtain basic subscriber information in order to protect the public’s safety and security, while safeguarding individual privacy interests. The Act will accomplish this by compelling all service providers to release this information and creating an administrative model that provides for a reporting regime which ensures accountability by including consisting of a number of new, privacy-related safeguards. Safeguards include such things as the designation of a limited number of law enforcement and CSIS officials who can request information, record keeping, and both internal audits and external oversight.

This legislation provides law enforcement and CSIS with the updated tools needed in the face of rapidly changing technology, while providing maximum flexibility for industry, and creating rigorous safeguards to protect privacy. In doing so, this legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of law enforcement and CSIS, the competitiveness of industry, and the privacy rights of Canadians.

Privacy and law enforcement access to information

I had the great pleasure today of giving a presentation at the Canadian IT Law Association's annual Spring Training event on law enforcement access to personal information.

Here is the presentation, though I caution that the new proposed amendments to PIPEDA will tweak some of it.

Clarifying lawful authority in PIPEDA? Really?

The proposed amendments in Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act are pretty broad-reaching. One of the provisions I've been anticipating is cleaning up the messy "lawful authority" term used in Section 7(3).

I am suprised by how this was proposed in the Bill (the underlined bits are added by Bill C-29):

(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information
without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is
...

(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of
information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of
records;

(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government
institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that

(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,

(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or

(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;

(iv) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of communicating with the next of kin or authorized representative of an injured, ill or deceased individual, or

(v) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of performing policing services that are not referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iv);

But wait ... there's more. Section 7(3.1) clarifies "lawful authority" by saying what it isn't. (Which is already what you could clearly infer by reading the legislation as originally passed.)

(3.1) For greater certainty, for the purpose of paragraph (3)(c.1)

(a) lawful authority refers to lawful authority other than

(i) a subpoena or warrant issued, or an order made, by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or

(ii) rules of court relating to the production of records; and

(b) the organization that discloses the personal information is not required to verify the validity of the lawful authority identified by the government institution or the part of a government institution.

For greater certainty? Really? Just to be clear, lawful authority is lawful authority. Crystal clear. Thanks.

PIPEDA amendments will expand private sector "collaboration" with police, permit disclosure of personal information

With today's proposed amendments to the federal private sector privacy law, most of the attention has been focused at "breach notification". But there's another very important amendment that seems to be a little below the radar.

On this blog, I've had a lot to say about cooperation between the private sector and law enforcement/national security agencies. One of the problems that telcos in particular have been struggling with is how to deal with warrantless demands for customer information. Section 7 of PIPEDA allows limited disclosure without consent to law enforcement/national security agencies where they have "lawful authority" to request the information. Courts have ruled that an active police investigation is not "lawful authority", so a disclosure would be unlawful.

It appears that the bill introduced today to amend PIPEDA will expand the ability for organizations to provide customer information to authorities without a warrant. (I haven't seen the text of the bill yet.)

Here's the official word from the Industry Canada media release

Industry Canada Site - Government of Canada Moves to Enhance Safety and Security in the Online Marketplace

Supporting Effective Law Enforcement

Another key thrust of the Bill is supporting effective law enforcement. The Government considers the safety and security of Canadian citizens to be of utmost importance. Proposed amendments will reaffirm the view that the information needs of law enforcement and security agencies can be met while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians. Proposed amendments would make it clear that organizations may collaborate with government institutions, such as law enforcement and security agencies that have requested personal information, in the absence of a warrant, subpoena, or order. To avoid jeopardizing investigations, new provisions would prohibit organizations from notifying an individual about the disclosure of their personal information to law enforcement and security agencies where the government institution to whom the information was disclosed objects.

I expect that the amendments will be permissive, in that they will allow a custodian of information to pass personal information to the police rather than require it. But for many, that's a distinction without a difference as I've often seen police take the position that if privacy legislation would permit it, it's almost obligatory.

Update: Here is the First Reading text of Bill C-29.

Google releases Government Requests Tool, showing info and takedown demands

Google has just announced a new "Government Requests tool", which shows graphically how many governmental requests Google and YouTube receive for either user information or to take down content. The background is explained at the Google Public Policy Blog: Greater transparency around government requests.

This can only be a good thing. Legal processes for the disclosure of user information and the removal of content are often not well understood. Any measure that increases transparency and accountability, while providing information to inform public debate, is a good thing. I would hope to see other service providers stepping up to provide this sort of information as well.

Then I'd like to see more well-informed debate on the matter.

Canadian police state legislation needs closer examination

I try not to get too opinionated on this blog, but there are some things I feel strongly about. One thing is the ability of people to live their lives (online and off) free of state surveillance and intrusion unless an impartial judge decides that the balance needs to be shifted in favour of the state.

When the recent election was called, a bill fell off the order paper that would remove the impartial judge and put significant surveillance powers it the hands of the state. (In fairness, I have to say that this was originally conceived under the previous Liberal goverment, but is currently part of the Conservative Party's law and order platform that they say will be passed within 100 days if they win a majority (Conservative majority would pass lawful access [laws] within 100 days)). One Bill in particular needs a full airing and thorough debate. It was introduced in the last session and never made it past first reading. This means there was no debate and no scrutiny of any kind.

Here's why Bill C-52 - An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations needs much closer examination.

Section 16 of the Bill requires all telecommunication service providers to hand over enormous quantities of customer information to the police, CSIS or the competition cops. There is no limit on the amount of information to be provided and is only restricted to "duties" of the cops or intelligence agency.

The provisions, at least as they appeared in Bill C-52, read as follows:

OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION

16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider must provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscriber identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function

(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;

(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or

(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.

(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.

(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.

(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

17. (1) A police officer may request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;

(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The police officer must inform the telecommunications service provider of his or her name, rank, badge number and the agency in which he or she is employed and state that the request is being made in exceptional circumstances and under the authority of this subsection.

Let me break this down: Any designated police officer or CSIS agent can ask a telecommunications service provider to hand over any of the following information about a customer:

• name,
  
• address,
  
• telephone number,
  
• electronic mail address,
  
• Internet protocol address,
  
• mobile identification number,
  
• electronic serial number,
  
• local service provider identifier,
  
• international mobile equipment identity number,
  
• international mobile subscriber identity number and
  
• subscriber identity module card number.

This goes well beyond the usual scenario of when the cops have an IP address of someone suspected of online child exploitation and want the customer name and address information. But the bill doesn't say that if the cops have X info, they can get Y subscriber data. Instead, it just says on request the telco has to hand over the entire laundry list of data on customers. This is without a warrant, without a production order and without any court oversight at all. Unlike wiretap laws where stats have to be released, there is no obligation on the part of the police or the ministers responsible to release information about how these powers are used and under what circumstances. The Privacy Commissioner gets to audit it, but I don't think this saves any of the problems with the Bill.

The Bill contained no limitation on what level of investigation was required. It isn't limited to serious crimes or even trivial crimes. It is not limited to criminal or national security investigations. All that's necessary is that it be connected with the cop's duties. Collecting parking tickets fit within that category.

Think about what this means, given the laundry list of data to be provided with no threshold of probable cause or even a real investigation. The police can scan the airwaves at a protest and identify the IMEIs of the mobile phones in the vicinity. One request to the telcos can get the names and addresses of virtually everyone who was there. I bet the Egyptian authorities would have loved to have done this in Tahrir Square. Next time there's a G-20 protest in Canada, the police can do this, too.

There is no limitation in the statute that would prevent the police from asking for all the above data for any subscribers who connected, for example, to any cell site in a particular neighbourhood at a particular time.

In Canada, we expect that we can generally live our lives free of government surveillance and intrusion, unless an independent judge says that the government interest in crime fighting outweighs our individual right to privacy. This legislation would remove this balance and tips the scales dramatically toward police state powers.

Privacy-related bills to die on the order paper if Canadian election called

With talk of an election heating up in Canada, I thought I'd provide a list of the government bills that will likely die on the order paper if the government is brought down or if the PM wanders over to speak with the Governor General about dissolving parliament:

C-29	An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act)	First Reading in the House of Commons (May 25, 2010)
C-50	An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders) (Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act)	First Reading in the House of Commons (October 29, 2010)
C-51	An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act)	First Reading in the House of Commons (November 1st, 2010)
C-52	An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations (Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act)	First Reading in the House of Commons (November 1st, 2010)

Bills C-50, C-51 and C-52 need some major work so I'm fine to see them go back into parliamentary purgatory, but the PIPEDA amendments (C-29) were pretty good and I'd hate to think we're back to the drawing board.

The new lawful access bills

Here is the first reading text of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act:

BILL C-51 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act aka Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

I will post a link to the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act when it is posted on the parliamentary website.

(Note: I had previously linked to the wrong bill on this post ...)

Lawful access back before Parliament

Once again, the Government of Canada has put "lawful access" back before Parliament.

Notice that it again allows for the police and "national security agencies" to require the personal information of telecommunications customers without a warrant.

I will post a link to the bill itself as soon as I can get my hands on it, but in the meantime here's the press release from the Department of Justice:

Government of Canada Introduces Legislation to Fight Crime in Today’s High-Tech World

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO FIGHT CRIME IN TODAY’S HIGH-TECH WORLD

OTTAWA, November 1, 2010 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, together with Dave MacKenzie, M.P. for Oxford and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, and Daniel Petit, M.P. for Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, today re-introduced in the House of Commons two bills that would provide law enforcement and national security agencies with up-to-date tools to fight crimes such as gang- and terrorism-related offences and child sexual exploitation.

“New and evolving technologies provide new ways of committing crimes, making them harder to investigate,” said Minister Nicholson. “We must ensure that law enforcement has the means to bring to justice those who would break the law. Twenty-first-century technology demands twenty-first-century tools for police to effectively investigate crime.”

The proposed Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would provide law enforcement agencies with new, specialized investigative powers to help them take action against Internet child sexual exploitation, disrupt on-line organized crime activity and prevent terrorism by:

• enabling police to identify all the network nodes and jurisdictions involved in the transmission of data and trace the communications back to a suspect. Judicial authorizations would be required to obtain transmission data, which provides information on the routing but does not include the content of a private communication;
  
• requiring a telecommunications service provider to temporarily keep data so that it is not lost or deleted in the time it takes law enforcement agencies to return with a search warrant or production order to obtain it;
  
• making it illegal to possess a computer virus for the purposes of committing an offence of mischief; and
  
• enhancing international cooperation to help in investigating and prosecuting crime that goes beyond Canada’s borders.

“We are giving our police the tools they need to keep up with criminals who are increasingly using new technology in carrying out their crimes. High-tech criminals must be met by high-tech police,” said Mr. MacKenzie. “This announcement once again demonstrates our commitment to give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to make our communities safer.”

The Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act would address challenges posed by today’s technologies that did not exist when the legal framework for interception was last updated nearly 40 years ago. The Act would require service providers to include interception capability in their networks, thereby allowing law enforcement and national security agencies to execute authorizations for interception in a more timely and efficient manner with a warrant. The proposed Act also calls for service providers to supply basic subscriber information upon request to designated law enforcement, Competition Bureau and national security officials.

Requirements to obtain court orders to intercept communications will not be changed by this Act. This legislation will simply help ensure that, when warrants are issued, telecommunications companies have the technical ability required to intercept communications for the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Sweden, already have similar legislation in place.

“Both of these pieces of legislation will provide vital tools to allow law enforcement officers to trace serious computer crimes such as child pornography and hate crime,” said Mr. Petit. “Both acts help to address Canadians’ privacy concerns by including strict privacy safeguards which, in the case of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, includes heightened requirements for obtaining judicial authorization before police can obtain data relating to a suspect’s location.”

The Government carefully considered input provided by a broad range of stakeholders in developing these two pieces of legislation, including the telecommunications industry, civil liberties groups, victims’ advocates, police associations and provincial/territorial justice officials. As a result, the Government has ensured that the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act and the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act adopt 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.

An on-line version of the legislation will be available at www.parl.gc.ca.

Backgrounder: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

Privacy Commissioner speaks out on lawful access

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has recently provided parliamentarians with her opinion on the new lawful access bills that are winding their way through the Commons. I have to say I was nodding my head while I read it:

Letter to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding the Commissioner's initial analysis on the privacy implications on Bills C-46 and C-47 - October 27, 2009

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, sent the following letter to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, regarding her initial analysis on the privacy implications on Bills C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (IP21C), and C-47, the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act (TALEA)

October 27, 2009

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, MP

Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety

and National Security

131 Queen Street – 6th floor

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz:

I am writing to provide the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with some preliminary views on the privacy implications stemming from Bills C-46 and C-47. As you are aware, I am often called upon to comment on legislation that will result in new or expanded forms of personal information being collected by federal government institutions. Those views, and analysis conducted by my Office, are specifically undertaken to support the deliberations of Parliament.

It must be stated at the outset that we recognize the concerns of law enforcement and national security authorities with the speed of developments in information technology and the anonymity they afford. Bills C-46 and C-47 seek to address the consequent public safety challenges and that objective is valid. That said, whenever new surveillance powers or programs are proposed, it is my view that there must be demonstrated necessity, proportionality and effectiveness. They should also be the least-invasive alternative available. These tests are all the more important in the area of public safety, as the use of surveillance powers by authorities can have deep and lasting impact on peoples’ lives.

The consequences for individuals as their personal information is collected and shared among authorities in various countries can escalate far beyond the initial objectives of public safety. Recent international reports, Canadian court rulings and federal commissions of inquiry have shown this clearly. Proper protections for privacy in this area reside in the strict limitation of invasive powers to what is demonstrably necessary to ensure public safety and in strong measures for accountability, commensurate with the powers vested. It is a matter of protecting human rights and assuring public trust.

Taking into account the real challenges of law enforcement and national security agencies in the Internet age and the fundamental right to privacy that underpins our democratic society, and after careful study and extensive consultation this past summer, I have concluded that elements of the proposed legislation raise significant privacy concerns. These must be addressed by proponents of the bills.

I would draw to the attention of this Committee, and all Parliamentarians, that the proposed legislation contains many provisions that would increase the level of access by law enforcement and national security authorities to personal information. In that regard, it is important that Parliament be satisfied that:

The need for these provisions has been clearly demonstrated,

The lowered legal requirements for use of invasive powers is justified,

The lessons of similar initiatives in other countries are considered, and

The oversight, reporting and accountability mechanisms are carefully calibrated, to ensure they mirror the breadth and scope of new powers

Analytical approach and consultations

It is important to note that our Office approached the examination of both pieces of legislation with fresh eyes and an open mind. While previous iterations or initiatives – like the 1999 Justice Canada initiative, the 2005 public consultation or the 2007 Public Safety request for submissions on Customer Name and Address access – may have served as background, they did not colour our analysis. Instead, since the legislation was tabled this past summer, our Office carefully read and analysed the two bills anew.

We also wanted to hear from informed experts, therefore between June and September of this year, my staff met with representatives of Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada, provincial privacy commissioners, the telecommunications industry (manufacturers, service providers and associations), law enforcement (RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police), civil society groups, academic specialists, as well as subject experts in the fields of information policy, network security, criminal law and intelligence operations. These conversations helped our Office identify the privacy issues raised by the two bills, which relate to the following areas:

Necessity: Though isolated anecdotes abound, and extreme incidents are generally referred to, no systematic case has yet been made that demonstrates a need to circumvent the current legal regime for judicial authorization to obtain personal information. Before all else, law enforcement and national security authorities need to explain how the current provisions on judicial warrants do not meet their needs.

Necessity given international obligations: A principal rationale cited for the need to update Canada’s interception and surveillance regime – as proposed in C-46 and C-47 – is ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. However, many of the powers introduced in the proposed legislation go far beyond the legal requirements of the Convention. Our analysis would suggest that Canada has already met most of the substantive legal changes required. Certainly some caution should be exercised, given the fact that similar legal initiatives in the US and UK led to significant concerns in relation to privacy.

Proportionality of thresholds: Canadian law imposes rigorous thresholds of evidence for authorities to obtain access to personal information. They form the heart of protections that Parliament put in place to protect privacy in Canada. The downward movement from reasonable grounds to believe to reasonable grounds to suspect in some cases (for some production orders) - or to no threshold of evidence at all (for subscriber data access) - must be shown to be a proportionate response to safety and security imperatives. As it stands, the new powers envisaged are not limited to a specific range or seriousness of criminality, or to a specific level of urgency. In the case of Bill C-47, there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information without a warrant. The onus lies with proponents of the legislation to demonstrate the need for lowered thresholds to obtain personal information.

Proportionality of oversight and review mechanisms: Only prior court authorization serves as rigorous privacy protection. Should Parliament allow law enforcement and national security authorities to circumvent the courts to obtain personal information, the corresponding oversight mechanisms must be established. My Office is clearly implicated at several points in Bill C-47, wherein my staff may review the records created by officers at the RCMP or Competition Bureau as they exercise new powers. Given the scale envisaged, with upwards of thousands of individuals in the RCMP alone potentially empowered to access subscriber data, it would be difficult for us, within our current resources, to offer any assurance to

Parliamentarians or Canadians of proper auditing. Still, review after the fact arrives too late. Privacy has already been breached, it is difficult to properly assess the circumstances, and there is no remedy for the ultimate outcome of the breach.

Demonstrated effectiveness through clear public reporting and accountability: In Bill C-47, audits are conducted internally and not required annually, while follow-up reporting to the responsible Minister and my Office are discretionary, as opposed to regular requirements. This will not afford objective, timely assessment of privacy risks or breaches. It is my view that, should the powers envisaged be granted, copies of those reports from the RCMP and Competition Bureau should be provided to the Minister and my Office on an annual basis. My audit and review staff can then proceed accordingly.

Flowing from these concerns, we would look forward to a constructive dialogue with the Committee on the following points or alternatives:

Examine warrant provisions in the Criminal Code. Rather than creating blanket, open access for authorities to search subscriber data, as in Bill C-47, there are other investigative options or legal changes to consider. Emergency provisions to conduct search, seizure or interception without a warrant in exigent circumstances are already in the Criminal Code. A similar provision for production and assistance orders should be considered to address the issue police have described in obtaining data.

Review the process for court authorization in Canada. If the underlying problem resides in Canada’s current warrant system, this is where the government’s attention should be directed, as opposed to limiting court oversight. Law enforcement and national security authorities should state the shortcomings they identify in the court warrant system so they can be addressed to adapt the system to the new challenges of the Internet age rather than sacrifice the principles that underpin the very society we seek to protect.

Tailor the scope of new powers. Any regime that circumvents court authorization raises significant privacy issues. If Parliament chooses to grant the proposed powers, they must be restricted in their application to the investigation of crimes or threats where such an invasion of privacy is justified. That is the Canadian legal tradition.

Revisit oversight regime. Internal audit, reporting with self-discretion and the role of external review bodies need to be strengthened with provisions for specific reporting requirements, regular review, dedicated resources for oversight and transparent mechanisms for accountability to assure the Canadian public.

Parliament should consider a five-year review for Bill C-46. While Bill C-47 has such a provision, Bill C-46 would also merit close review by Parliament, given how the two pieces of legislation interact. These reviews should be conducted with an eye to demonstrated evidence of effectiveness, minimal invasion of privacy and clear operation within bounds of the law.

Require annual public reporting. Yearly statistics on the use, results and effectiveness of new powers (subscriber data requests, preservation demands, tracking warrants, etc.) should be required by statute. Besides bolstering accountability, these reports would usefully support Parliament’s five-year review of the powers.

Review the regulations flowing from both bills. Given the important administrative, procedural and technical details involved, Parliament should conduct full committee reviews and hear from all interested stakeholders on both legislation and regulations. This should occur before either bill comes into force.

In summary, we urge Parliament to review Bills C-46 and C-47 in light of the following questions:

In specific terms, how is the current regime of judicial authorization not meeting the needs of law enforcement and national security authorities in relation to the Internet?
What law enforcement or national security duty justifies access without a warrant by authorities to personal information or preservation of private communication?

Why are some of these powers unrestricted, when the spirit of Canadian law clearly reflects the view that access or seizure without court authorization should be exceptional?

And finally, are the mechanisms for accountability commensurate to the unprecedented powers envisaged?

Based on this initial analysis, my Office will be preparing a full submission for your consideration, in anticipation of your Committee’s study of the legislation. Given the public interest in this issue, we anticipate posting this letter on our website in the near future. I would like to thank you for your attention to this critical issue and look forward to discussing the initiative further when meetings on the bills commence.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Jennifer Stoddart

Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Well said.

Reacting To Lawful Access: Comparing the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP

Check out Michael Geist's post: Michael Geist - Reacting To Lawful Access: Comparing the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP. The title says it all.

The future of privacy on the internet

I was honoured to be one of the speakers at the Halifax Internet Town Hall hosted at Dalhousie University this evening, sponsored by the Chebucto Community Net and Dalhousie Student Union. My portion of the proceedings -- surprise -- was about privacy. I only had ten minutes, so needed to be short and sweet.

I decided to focus my presentation on the abomination that is Bill C-47, in particular the provision that allows law enforcement to have wholesale access to customer information without a warrant. It is frankly appalling and should not be allowed to pass.

Look at this provision:

16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider shall provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscriber identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

You can disagree on the finer aspects of whether an ISP should be permitted to match an IP address provided by the cops with the customer name and address information in their files. That's a reasonable debate. But I do not see any limitation in Section 16. There's no oversight. There's no real accountability. There's no nuance. All ISPs will be required to provide any (or all) of the following:

• name,
• address,
• telephone number,
• electronic mail address,
• Internet protocol address,
• mobile identification number,
• electronic serial number,
• local service provider identifier,
• international mobile equipment identity number,
• international mobile subscriber identity number and
• subscriber identity module card number

It doesn't have to be connected to a child exploitation investigation. Or a parking ticket. In fact, there's no requirement that there be an underlying lawful investigation. The police will be able to hand a list of names to the ISP and require all of the above information, for an unlimited number of targets.

This is appalling legislation and should not stand.

For other postings on this topic, check out my previous postings tagged Lawful Access.

R. v. Wilson: Police get warrantless access to Sympatico customer's data

I blogged earlier this week about a decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that held that Bell Sympatico customers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when the police come knocking for the name and address behind an IP address. (See: Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Police get warrantless access to Sympatico customer's data.) I managed to get a copy of the decision in R. v. Wilson (6MB PDF file).

While I disagree with the judge's determination that there is no "reasonable expecation of privacy" in this information, what must be remembered is that Bell voluntarily handed the information over.

The lawful access debate

The Ottawa Citizen has an interesting article on the debate surrounding "lawful access". Check it out: Security vs. privacy. Via Michael Geist.

Lawful access rears its head again

Here we go again .... the government is preparing a new "lawful access" law. The media coverage seems to suggest that it covers both eavesdropping of internet based communications (with a warrant) and obtaining subscriber data (without a warrant).

globeandmail.com: New law to give police access to online exchanges

BILL CURRY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

February 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM EST

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is preparing sweeping new eavesdropping legislation that will force Internet service providers to let police tap exchanges on their systems - but will likely reignite fear that Big Brother will be monitoring the private conversations of Canadians.

The goal of the move, which would require police to obtain court approval, is to close what has been described as digital "safe havens" for criminals, pedophiles and terrorists because current eavesdropping laws were written in a time before text messages, Facebook and voice-over-Internet phone lines.

The change is certain to please the RCMP and other police forces, who have sought it for some time. But it is expected to face resistance from industry players concerned about the cost and civil libertarians who warn the powers will effectively place Canadians under constant surveillance.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan confirmed the plan yesterday during an appearance before a House of Commons committee and offered further explanation afterward.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan confirmed the plan. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"We have legislation covering wiretap and surveillance that was designed for the era of the rotary phone," Mr. Van Loan said.

"If somebody's engaging in illegal activities on the Internet, whether it be exploitation of children, distributing illegal child pornography, conducting some kind of fraud, simple things like getting username and address should be fairly standard, simple practice. We need to provide police with tools to be able to get that information so that they can carry out these investigations."

Mr. Van Loan said there have been situations where the police want to act quickly to stop a crime, but can't because of the current laws.

"In some of these cases, time is of the essence," he said. "If you find a situation where a child is being exploited live online at that time - and that situation has arisen before - police services have had good co-operation with a lot of Internet service providers, but there are some that aren't so co-operative."

Although police agencies have been calling for such a law since at least the mid-1990s, this would be the first legislative effort in this direction by the Conservatives.

The reaction can be predicted, however, because Paul Martin's Liberal government faced stiff resistance when his public safety minister, Anne McLellan, introduced a "lawful-access" bill in November, 2005, shortly before that government was defeated.

The Conservative justice critic at the time, Peter MacKay, who is now in the Conservative cabinet, expressed concern with the bill, and Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart went further, saying there was no justification for such a law.

The concern of critics is that unlike a traditional wiretap that cannot commence without judicial approval, lawful-access legislation in other countries has forced Internet providers to routinely gather and store the electronic traffic of their clients. Those stored data can then be obtained by police via search warrant.

"That means we're under surveillance, in some sense, all the time," said Richard Rosenberg, president of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. "I think that changes the whole nature of how we view innocence in a democratic society."

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said yesterday the lack of such legislation is causing problems for police.

"We're speaking generally about the development of technology that is difficult or impossible to wiretap," Mr. Elliott said after appearing alongside Mr. Van Loan at the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee.

"In the old days, for a wiretap it was pretty simple. You sort of clicked onto the physical wires. So we have some instances where the court authorizes us and other police forces, for example, to intercept communications, but we don't have the technical ability to do that. So certainly the RCMP is supportive of changes of legislation that would allow those kind of intercepts."

Police get warrantless access to Sympatico customer's data

Another case from Ontario about police getting warrantless access to personal information from an internet service provider, in this case Bell Sympatico. For previous cases, see this link.

The justification is based on a particular reading of Section 7 of PIPEDA, and Bell Canada deciding it should hand over the information. I don't agree with this interpretation of s. 7 and I also don't think the Bell should have handed customer information over without a warrant, even if it legally could do so.

Police may have access to your online history

TORONTO - An Ontario Superior Court ruling could open the door to police routinely using Internet Protocol addresses to find out the names of people online, without any need for a search warrant.

Justice Lynne Leitch found there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in subscriber information kept by Internet Service Providers, in a decision issued earlier this week.

The decision is binding on lower courts in Ontario and it is the first time a Superior Court level judge in Canada has ruled on whether there are privacy rights in this information that are protected by the charter. The ruling is a significant victory for police investigating crimes such as possession of child pornography, while privacy advocates warn there are broad implications even for law-abiding users of the Internet.

"There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands," said James Stribopoulos, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

Canada's privacy commissioner also warned Thursday the Conservative government's plans to revive legislation that would force Internet Service Providers to allow police to intercept Internet-based conversations "is a serious step forward toward mass surveillance" that violates the privacy rights of Canadians.

"My concerns are a huge increase in surveillance powers," Jennifer Stoddart told a news conference Thursday. "I understand there are technological challenges for the forces of law and order . . . but is this the only way this can be done?"

Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service already have the power to wiretap private communications, but the laws were written before the era of the Internet and wireless technologies such as mobile phones.

A "modernization" bill was first introduced by the former Liberal government and the Conservatives have promised for years to revive the legislation, which privacy advocates oppose because they say it could broaden the power of authorities because they could reach back for months of communications.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, who assumed the portfolio in November, told a House of Commons committee this week that he will move forward with a bill, which his predecessor, Stockwell Day, relegated to a back burner.

The court ruling by Leitch was made in a possession of child pornography case in southwestern Ontario.

A police officer in St. Thomas, Ont. faxed a letter to Bell Canada in 2007 seeking subscriber information for an IP address of an Internet user allegedly accessing child pornography. The court heard it was a "standard letter" that had been previously drafted by Bell and the officer "filled in the blanks" with a request that stated it was part of a child sexual exploitation investigation.

Bell provided the information without asking for a search warrant. The name of the subscriber was the wife of the man who was eventually charged with "possession of child pornography" and "making available child pornography."

Most ISPs in the country require search warrants to turn over subscriber information unless it is a child pornography investigation.

Ron Ellis, the lawyer for the defendant, stressed to the judge there was no allegation of attempted luring or of a child in immediate danger. The "making available" charge stems from peer-to-peer websites that permit the downloading of images from other users.

Ellis argued police should have been required to seek a search warrant to obtain the subscriber information.

Leitch accepted the arguments of Crown attorney Elizabeth Maguire the information is similar to what is in a phone book.

"One's name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state," said Leitch.

The reasoning of the judge misses the context of what police are seeking, suggested Stribopoulos.

"It is not just your name. It is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went," he said.

This information should require a search warrant by police if there is suspected criminal activity, said Stribopoulos. Judges are accepting the argument that this is "just your name" because "everyone wants to get at the child abusers," he said.

The federal Personal Information Protection Electronics Documents Act permits ISPs to provide this information to someone with "lawful authority," which Leitch interpreted as meaning a police officer and not requiring a court ordered warrant.

There is an irony that exemptions in federal privacy legislation have been used to increase police powers and potentially reduce privacy rights, said Stribopoulos.

The trial of the defendant in St. Thomas will resume this spring.

With a file from Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

The debate about warrantless access to ISP customer information

Just posted on slaw:

The debate about warrantless access to ISP customer information >> Slaw

In the privacy community, there has been a debate over whether it is lawful, under PIPEDA, for a custodian of personal information to provide customer information when then police come knocking. The debate has been most heated in the arena of internet service providers customer names and addresses to the police when presented with an IP address. PIPEDA allows a number of disclosures of personal information without consent pursuant to Section 7(3) of the statute. One exception to the general rule relates directly to law enforcement requests:

Disclosure without knowledge or consent

(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is ...

(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that

(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,

(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or

(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province; [emphasis added]

The debate has raged over differing interpretations of “lawful authority”, and there are conflicting decisions from the Courts over whether internet service providers can disclose customer name and address information to the police in response to a request.

For example, in Re S.C., 2006 ONCJ 343, the court set aside a search warrant that was based on information obtained from an ISP in response to a law enforcement request. In R. v. Kwok, the court found that the customer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his name and address information and that the police should have obtained a warrant to get this information from the internet service provider. From paragraph 35 of that decision:

"The subscriber, in this case, in my view, and based on my reading of the authorities, has an expectation of privacy in respect of this personal information [name and address]. The investigation of these types of crimes is essential and important, but there must always be the proper balancing of the procedures used by the police and the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Shortcuts, such as set out in s. 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA in the circumstances of this case must be used with great caution, given the notions of freedom and democracy we come to expect in our community. In my view, the police should have procured a warrant to obtain the subscriber information, that is the name and address of the Applicant, in this case, as I have found the name and address is information from which intimate personal details of lifestyle and choices can be obtained. I therefore find there has been a s. 8 violation."

More recently, in R. v. Ward, 2008 ONCJ 355 (CanLII), the court determined that the customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to this information because the service agreement imposed upon him by Bell’s Sympatico service reduced, if not destroyed, whatever expectation of privacy he might otherwise have had. Similarly, in R. v. Wilson, the court also found no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The pendulum may be swinging the other way. Last week, the Ontario Court of Justice released its decision in R. v. Cuttell. The Court concluded there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in customer account records, but this expectation can be destroyed by an ISP if their service agreement grants them wide latitude to hand over customer information. The judge accepted that a broadly-worded statement in Bell's contract with the customer might supplant the reasonable expectation of privacy but there was no proof brought by the police that the Bell contract applied to this customer. What is perhaps most interesting is that the Judge lamendted the fact that the increasing use of "we will disclose" language in ISP contracts tilt the balance of privacy away from individuals toward the police, without the ability of the Courts to impartially consider what is reasonable in the circumstances.

All of this may become moot (and then some!) thanks to currently pending legislation. Bill C-47, entitled Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, is about to come up for committee review in parliament. Introduced along with Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, both bills represent a significant shift in the powers of law enforcement. Though marketed as updating current police powers to keep pace with technology, C-47 would give law enforcement virtually unfettered access to customer information from internet and telecommunications service providers without any judicial oversight. The particular provision is at Section 16:

Provision of subscriber information

16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider shall provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscriber identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.

I am of the view that there should be appropriate judicial oversight of any regime in which service providers are required to identify their users to law enforcement officials. (Subject to exceptions in exigent circumstances.) It is only with judicial oversight that society can be assured that the appropriate balance between privacy and public safety is maintained. The government’s proposal provides no oversight and the powers of law enforcement are completely unfettered. If the concern is that search warrants are too time consuming, then appropriate resources should be put in place to provide for rapid review by independent judicial officers. Removing all the stops from law enforcement powers it not appropriate in this case.

Currently there is a disparity of practices among telecommunication service providers and internet service providers across Canada when dealing with a request from a law enforcement agent to provide a customer name and address connected with a specific IP address. This is due to at least a measure of uncertainty in interpreting the service provider’s obligations under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Most ISPs will provide customer name and address information if law enforcement officers make a written request in the course of investigation related to child exploitation. In other sorts of investigations, a search warrant is required. Other internet service providers require a search warrant in all circumstances to disclose this information.

For example, Clause 16 as drafted does much more than impose the obligation for service providers to carry out a “reverse look-up” to match one piece of information (such as an IP address) with customer billing information. Instead, it would require the service provider to give law enforcement a laundry list of information in response to any request. This sort of information would be IP address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, phone number, equipment identifiers and others. This, on its face, goes beyond what law enforcement has been asking for, at least in public.

This power is not subject to meaningful review and is completely unfettered. There is no restriction on the circumstances under which these powers can be used. Currently, requests of this nature generally relate to child exploitation investigations or compelling national security/public safety matters. As drafted, law enforcement would be able to use these powers in connection with parking violations and very minor concerns. In fact, these powers could be used in the complete absence of a lawful investigation. In addition, there is no limitation whatsoever on the volume of these sorts of requests. It would be possible for a law enforcement agency to require the name, address, e-mail address and IP address of every single one of their customers. I think most would say this goes over the line.

It has been said before that a customer’s name and address is not “personal information” or if it is, it is not sensitive information. That misses the point. A customer’s name and address, when connected with an IP address or a mobile phone serial number, is never used in isolation. It is always connected with other information relating to that individual’s behaviours or activities. An individual citizen can carry on their “offline” life in relative anonymity without having to produce identification every time they visit a store or look at a particular book in a library. The realities of network communications mean that every activity undertaken by an individual on the internet, lawful or not, leaves a record of that individual’s IP address. The only protection for that individual’s anonymity is that the connection between the IP address and other identifiers can only be made by the telecommunications service provider. Connecting the identity of an individual to his or her online activities amounts to a collection of personal information that should only be done by law enforcement where the circumstances are sufficiently compelling to tilt the balance in favour of law enforcement/public safety. These provisions do not maintain the traditional balance as has developed in Canada under the Charter and in fact go dramatically and unreasonably in favour of law enforcement.

I've been surprised that discussion of this topic has mostly been contained within the privacy community and hope that the upcoming parliamentary hearings on C-46/C-47 will bring the debate into the wider community, where it belongs.

New decision on warrantless access to ISP customer data

A friend just provided me with a copy of a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Justice considering the admissibility of information obtained without a warrant from the suspect's internet service provider, Bell. R. v. Cuttell is not on CanLii yet, but I've put a copy here.

The Court concluded there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your account records, but this expectation can be destroyed by your ISP if their service agreement grants them wide latitude to hand over customer information. The judge accepts that a broadly-worded statement in Bell's contract with the customer might supplant the reasonable expectation of privacy. (I would also question whether a form contract that the customer likey has not read would be enough to mean that subjectively there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.)

In this case, there was no proof brought by the police that the Bell contract applied to this customer so a Charter breach was found.

The Court importantly notes that PIPEDA does not give the police the right to seek information and rejects every crown argument that the police may have had "lawful authority" in the circumstances.

But, in the end, the records were admissible as the police acted in good faith.

What is perhaps most interesting is that the Judge laments the fact that the increasing use of "we will disclose" language in ISP contracts tilt the balance of privacy away from individuals toward the police, without the ability of the Courts to impartially consider what is reasonable in the circumstances.