SNOOP LAWS NEED A LEASH

Powerful Law Enforcement Tool Must Carry Potent Safeguards

If police want to peek into your e-mails, then such intrusion into
your privacy should be governed by the same rules which allow them to
listen to your phone conversations.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced to the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police that updated wiretapping rules will be introduced in
the fall, granting law enforcement agencies, including CSIS, access to
e-mails, Internet surfing histories and telephone conversations
conducted over the Internet, satellite, cellphone and pagers.

Concerns were raised when a draft version of the legislation was found
to be lacking warrant requirements. Current Justice documents state
that no communications will be intercepted "without being authorized
to do so by law," but critics remain skeptical.

Wiretapping has proven to be a very effective law enforcement tool:
The conviction rate is greater than 90 per cent when this type of
evidence is presented in court.

Under existing law, police are required to obtain a warrant to
undertake surveillance. As well, public reporting requirements allow
Canadians to know how often warrants are requested by and granted to
the RCMP and CSIS.

If Cotler's update is merely meant to extend existing powers to all
forms of electronic communication, then the existing restrictions on
law enforcement access must apply, too.

That means police can't go on fishing expeditions -- listening in
without good reason. Law-abiding Canadians have a right to believe
their correspondence is private.

To infringe on that right, police must demonstrate there are
reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been or will be committed.
And the law must require that a warrant be obtained before Internet
Service Providers are forced to hand over any information.

There are also concerns over data retention. Just as post offices
aren't required to keep copies of every piece of mail, and phone
companies don't record every call, ISPs should not have burdensome
data storage requirements placed on them, either.

A document on the Justice Department website states officers will have
to obtain a warrant, and a data preservation order will only require
an ISP to retain data from a specific individual under investigation
for a specific period of time.

The legislation still places ISPs in the highly questionable position
of undertaking police surveillance work.

The reason this law is needed, says the government, is that not all
telecommunications service providers are required to build intercept
capabilities into their networks. Laws will force them to, but it will
cost money -- especially since technology is constantly changing.

Police are also seeking the ability to undertake multiple taps
simultaneously. That could place a heavy financial burden on small
service providers to comply.

When this proposal was floated last year, the police suggested a
25-cent surcharge could be added to every customer's account to pay
for the server's infrastructure upgrades and the cost of access. That
won't work. Law enforcement agencies should shoulder the costs, if
only to keep the number of requests for taps in check.

When the legislation and regulations are drafted, the public needs to
take a careful look at the details.

The push for more effective law enforcement should not come at the
price of hard-fought privacy rights.