The federal government wants to turn your Internet service provider into a stool pigeon.
At least, that's one interpretation of a proposed law requiring ISPs to provide information about the on-line activities of their subscribers at the request of police pursuing a criminal investigation. Another interpretation is that with more criminals using the Web as a place for plotting and even conducting illegal acts, law enforcement needs the ability to access on-line data.
The question of whether ISPs or police would abuse such powers has prompted a well-intentioned, if ultimately futile, attempt by a public interest group to ensure the privacy of everyday Canadians is protected.
Online Rights Canada, which was formed by a collection of several organizations about a year ago, recently sent a letter to ISPs across the country asking them to sign what it calls a "privacy pledge." It asks them to promise three things: that they won't hand over any information without a warrant (even though the proposed law says police won't need one), that they won't collect information about their subscribers or monitor them unless asked to do so by police and, finally, that they will inform subscribers as soon as they have handed over any information to authorities, unless the police ask them not to.
"By adopting this pledge, you will be sending a signal to your subscribers and other Internet users that you respect and value their privacy," Online Rights Canada's letter says. "You will also be sending a signal to the government that you are in the business of Internet service, not law enforcement."
The proposed law that we're talking about -- called the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (MITA) -- was introduced as Bill C-74 by the Liberal government under Paul Martin just before the last election. I have been covering this proposal for three years and have every reason to believe it will be reintroduced by the Harper government at some point, though not necessarily without revision.
The growth of on-line predators, particularly those who target young children, is spurring the demand for police to have an easier way of tracking computer-savvy criminals. The use of Internet chat rooms by would-be terrorists is doing the same.
On the other hand, MITA raises the spectre of police pre-emptively snooping on citizens without proper cause. It also puts ISPs in the awkward situation of treating their networks as though they are a public trust, while remaining a private, for-profit enterprise. If law enforcement begins to consider on-line Canadians guilty until proven innocent, can we trust our ISPs to stand up for us? Will we even know?
The letter from Online Rights Canada was sent out on Sept. 13, and the organization said it would publish the names of those who had signed it on its website. When I checked earlier this week, there wasn't a single name, and their chief spokeswoman was unavailable for comment at press time.
Tom Copeland, president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, said the response to the privacy pledge hasn't been very strong.
"Most of our members basically said, 'Doesn't our code of conduct and fair practices say all this anyway?' " he said.
The people behind Online Rights Canada, including the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, do good work, but this privacy pledge is not the best use of their energy. They are trying to provide some checks and balances on a bill that has yet to be passed, and asking ISPs to share their assumption that police cannot be relied upon to consistently respect and uphold the law.
Although their privacy policies don't tend to delve into this, ISPs I have spoken to said they regularly co-operate with police if they are approached for help during an investigation.
