Oh Canada, the land of the brave, and the land where the government once more is pushing to pass an Internet surveillance bill that would make service providers hand over all IP address, e-mail address, phone numbers and any other information that law enforcement wants – but without the need of a warrant.

This new bill would also require that every single ISP and cellular phone company install real-time surveillance equipment and create new police powers that are designed to allow them to obtain access to that surveillance data.

• Require internet service providers to give subscriber data to police and national security agencies without a warrant, including names, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses.
• Force internet providers and other makers of technology to provide a “back door” to make communications accessible to police.
• Allow police to get warrants to obtain information transmitted over the internet and data related to its transmission, including locations of individuals and transactions.
• Allow courts to compel other parties to preserve electronic evidence.

via CBC

To make this even more attractive and easier to pass the bill’s advocates are making an interesting comparison. According to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews if you are against the government and this bill then that means you must be on the side of child pornographers.

Yup, if you value Internet freedom and due process then you, you slimy bucket of nastiness, must be all for child pornography.

Needless to say opposition members of Parliament are vocal in their fight against the bill and there has been more than 80,000 signatures on an online petition opposing the bill.

via Ars Technica

In Canada if you don’t like warrantless Internet spying then you support child porn is a post from: The Inquisitr

The issue of the constitutionality of use of surveillance technology by law enforcement should be on everyone’s radar. Heh, like speed guns.

Anyway, one of the implications of awesome new technologies is that they are not yet integrated into our laws and other legal concepts- this was so totally awesome for a golden moment before Napster had to go legit, right? That same idea works in your general un-favor when it comes to your rights, however. GPS tracking devices, for instance, are one way we could be getting ready to toss out the ideas in the Bill of Rights and move toward a model where de facto warrantless searches are acceptable and common. Way less cool than a free Weezer album, people!

In the past, if cops wanted to pin down your every movement, you had to be a pretty big fish. Man hours had to be allocated to your case, and they couldn’t come in your house without a warrant, because all Americans have a right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” per the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. When cars were invented, this extended to your vehicle, because it is kind of like a mini-house legally. Enter GPS tracking devices.

So now we’re all familiar and friends with GPS. It helps us get places! There’s one in our phone! But the FBI can also slap one onto your car to figure out where you’re going, where you’ve been and whether or not your alibi checks out. (This has been documented and is as scary as balls.) And all this can happen without a warrant. So no one has to prove in a court of law that there is some very good reason to be spying on every day Americans- all the FBI needs is like ten bucks and a desire to be right up your ass. (Or maybe a really, really wealthy friend who has a vested financial interest in keeping an eye on you.)

As Wired points out, too, you don’t need to be a suspect or even be stationary for the invasion of your constitutionally guaranteed privacy to begin- and it’s already happening, and has been for years:

The government told the justices that GPS devices have become a common tool in crime fighting. An officer shooting a dart can affix them to moving vehicles, and recently, a student in California found a tracking device attached to the underside of his car, which the FBI later demanded back.

It’s expected the case will be decided in October, and regardless of which way it goes, the outcome should significantly impact the way your privacy rights look in the future. Do you think the FBI should be able to conduct surveillance this way, or should the implications on the Fourth Amendment be considered more heavily before the practice is allowed to take root in our arsenal of tactics for surveillance on American citizens?

GPS Tracking Device Question Treads Terrifying Constitutional Grounds is a post from: The Inquisitr

In the recent dissection of a GPS device used by law enforcement to track suspect’s vehicles, iFixit basically said it all when they said: “…in its presence, we can almost feel our civil liberties being flushed down the toilet.”

You and me both, brother. The take-apart site was quick to add a disclaimer to the inevitable roving eye of Big Brother when it detailed the function of the GPS device currently being used by the FBI without warrants:

We love the FBI. We’ve worked with them on several occasions to fight crime and locate criminals. We’ve helped them with instructions on gaining entry into certain devices. We have nothing against them, and we hope they don’t come after us for publishing this teardown.

Among the scary details uncovered by the site:

• The devices have a battery life of about 10 to 20 years and run on D-cells;
• They’ve been on the market since the summer of 1999;
• As of now, such maneuvers are 100% legal

“Wait a second,” you may be saying as you read that, “I ain’t passed the bar but I know a little bit, enough so you don’t illegally search my shit.” Yes, the fourth amendment to the Constitution protects all Americans from illegal shit-searching, but a ruling last year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals uses technology to undermine that long-standing right taken for granted by most Americans and paves the way for unfettered law enforcement GPS tracking of any Americans.

It was argued that 24-hour surveillance such as that made possible by a GPS device is impossible without the technology, and using GPS technology to track suspects effectively obliterates the need for a warrant- but the judges disagreed. Fortunately, says TIME, not all judges have such little regard for the Bill of Rights:

…other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

Hopefully, reasonable policy will evolve to deal with the ability to track Americans’ movements versus the actual right of law enforcement to do so. Scarily, it is dependent on justices’ ability to understand how exactly these technologies stand to impinge on Constitutional rights, and judicial opinions don’t always match up with fact.

Do you think law enforcement should get a pass for this kind of amendment-bending? If you have to follow the law to the letter, why don’t they?

[TIME, iFixit]

iFixit teardown of GPS device reveals scary gov’t surveillance tactics is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’ll bet that you didn’t know that if you have any of the following

• wireless router
• cordless phone
• cellphone
• remote control for <pick your appliance>
• baby monitor

you are now subject to warrantless searches by the FCC.

The FCC claims they have this right as a direct privilege of the Communication Act of 1934. While the constitutionality of the power has yet to be tested in court the proliferation of devices using the radio waves makes the potential for such a test much more likely.

The rules garnered some attention this month when an FCC agent investigating a pirate radio station left as copy of a 2005 FCC inspection policy on the door of the residence suspected of hosting the an unlicensed radio transmitter. While most lawyers familiar with this section of the FCC policies agree that its use of warrantless searches probably wouldn’t survive a court challenge refusing FCC admittance can carry a harsh financial penalty.

However there is a real concern as pointed out by Carlo Longino at Techdirt that this could be a back door around search and seizure laws

While it’s unlikely that the FCC will begin raiding homes to confiscate WiFi routers and garage door openers, there is speculation that should FCC agents enter a home and see evidence of unrelated criminal behavior, that evidence can be used for criminal prosecution. This could give law enforcement a potential back door around search and seizure laws, a move which certainly merits some concern.

Warrantless searches courtesy of the FCC is a post from: The Inquisitr