Canada's Online Consultation on National Security - Investigative Capabilities in a Digital World - My Feedback

For the next couple of weeks "as part of the Government's commitment to openness and transparency, Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice Canada are consulting Canadians on key elements of Canada's national security laws and policies to ensure they reflect the rights, values and freedoms of Canadians."

One section Investigative Capabilities in a Digital World caught my eye, and I decided to answer. My comments are duplicated below.

How can the Government address challenges to law enforcement and national security investigations posed by the evolving technological landscape in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values, including respect for privacy, provision of security and the protection of economic interests?

You have not presented any argument that there are challenges to law enforcement unique to the rise of technology.

The closest you have come is saying that law enforcement are frustrated because of having to follow procedure & not being able to immediately violate the privacy of anyone they choose - this isn't a problem, it's a feature.

In the physical world, if the police obtain a search warrant from a judge to enter your home to conduct an investigation, they are authorized to access your home. Should investigative agencies operate any differently in the digital world?

No. A search within the meaning of section eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is determined by whether the investigatory technique used by the state diminishes a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy extends into the digital world - I would go as far as to say that most people expect their digital lives to be more private than their physical ones.

Currently, investigative agencies have tools in the digital world similar to those in the physical world. As this document shows, there is concern that these tools may not be as effective in the digital world as in the physical world. Should the Government update these tools to better support digital/online investigations?

This is a leading question & you have not provided any evidence that existing tools are less effective in the digital world.

Provide evidence of cases you were unable to prosecute because of new technology.

Is your expectation of privacy different in the digital world than in the physical world?

No. Why would it be? For many, many people in this country those are not distinct worlds, they weave in and out of each other constantly & will continue to become ever more linked.

Since the Spencer decision, police and national security agencies have had difficulty obtaining BSI in a timely and efficient manner. This has limited their ability to carry out their mandates, including law enforcement's investigation of crimes. If the Government developed legislation to respond to this problem, under what circumstances should BSI (such as name, address, telephone number and email address) be available to these agencies? For example, some circumstances may include, but are not limited to: emergency circumstances, to help find a missing person, if there is suspicion of a crime, to further an investigative lead, etc…

The law is designed to limit the ability of the police to carry out investigations. We have a name for states that make it easy for police to do their jobs, they are called police states.

BSI should be available to law enforcement agencies once they have received an order from a court authorizing such information to be given to the police.

Do you consider your basic identifying information identified through BSI (such as name, home address, phone number and email address) to be as private as the contents of your emails? your personal diary? your financial records? your medical records? Why or why not?

Yes. Stalkers, abusive spouses, and others with access to even the most rudimentary information can cause a large amount of harm.

Contrasting it with financial & medical records is disingenuous - I don't give out my bank or medical records to everyone I meet, but I don't give out my home address or phone number either.

Do you see a difference between the police having access to your name, home address and phone number, and the police having access to your Internet address, such as your IP address or email address?

Nope.

The Government has made previous attempts to enact interception capability legislation. This legislation would have required domestic communications service providers to create and maintain networks that would be technically capable of intercepting communications if a court order authorized the interception. These legislative proposals were controversial with Canadians. Some were concerned about privacy intrusions. As well, the Canadian communications industry was concerned about how such laws might affect it.

This is not a question. But there is a reason it was so concerning, that's because it would have violated fundamental rights.

Should Canada's laws help to ensure that consistent interception capabilities are available through domestic communications service provider networks when a court order authorizing interception is granted by the courts?

Just so we are clear this should be more clearly rephrased as "Should Canada's laws help ensure we can spy on whoever we want when a court says so."

This is an impossibility. Laws should not be impossible to enforce.

If the Government were to consider options to address the challenges encryption poses in law enforcement and national security investigations, in what circumstances, if any, should investigators have the ability to compel individuals or companies to assist with decryption?

This would be a violation of section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "1. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;"

So, in no circumstances because it would be a breach of fundamental rights.

How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption by those not involved in illegal activities?

You can't. Physically Impossible. The laws of universe state you cannot.

Should the law require Canadian service providers to keep telecommunications data for a certain period to ensure that it is available if law enforcement and national security agencies need it for their investigations and a court authorizes access?

Should the law compel service providers to spent millions on infrastructure investments whose sole aim is to collect information on Canadians? No.

Why would you want to put all of Canadians data in one place to make it easy for criminals to steal?

If the Government of Canada were to enact a general data retention requirement, what type of data should be included or excluded? How long should this information be kept?

Billing information seems to be a safe choice since telecoms have to keep it already for a justifiable reason - so things like name, address, IP, data used, who called who and at what time.