Beamte verteidigen liberale Gesetzesvorlagen, die Krankenhäuser, Banken und Hotels dazu zwingen würden, Daten zu übergeben. Das Strong Borderers Act hat Wellen von Rückschlägen von zivilgesellschaftlichen Gruppen erhalten
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-border-bill-denfence-1.7565775
5 Kommentare
“That could include a car rental company, hotel or a financial institution. Medical professionals including hospitals, doctors and psychiatrists‘ offices could also meet that definition, they said.
The official stressed that police have to believe there are reasons to suspect that the information in question will assist in a criminal investigation, and said there is a mechanism in the bill allowing service providers to apply for judicial review if they are not comfortable handing over information.
But there are also legal consequences for those who don’t comply, including thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time.”
Canadian 1984 is looking great
I think it’s very likely that these privacy / lawful access provisions are going to be put through the shredder in committee. The CPC has opposed them vigorously, and while the Bloc supports the bill in 2nd reading, they’ve raised objections to these aspects and expressed a desire for a through committee study.
In contrast, I think the immigration changes will likely survive the House unscathed, but they will face stiff opposition from the leftist Trudeau appointees that dominate the Senate.
While I do support the Carney government, I do feel that between this and Bill 5 they seem to be trying ram through a bunch of legislation that probably needs a little more time in the oven (e.g. somehow Bill 5 was able to ignore regulations such as the Explosives Act prior to an amendment yesterday). Wish they’d move slightly slower to get this stuff done right and avoid a lot of unnecessary criticism.
For the youngins, the lawful access provisions that privacy experts are concerned about are substantially the same as proposed in bill C30 in 2012 by then minister of public safety Vic Toews.
While on the academic and civil society side it’s the same groups opposing it, it is very interesting to see political alliances flip their positions completely on this, based on whether they are governing or not.
Personally, I think the provisions would be an effective tool to reduce crime enabled by digital service providers.
It’s been said before but this will go through committee, media will process details of the bills and hopefully police chiefs, RCMP, CSIS , banks, border services, and others will comment on the importance of this bill.
I wrote the following comment in another sub earlier so I’ve copied it because it is about the same article ……..
With safeguards built in with clear guidelines, limits and definitions as is contained in the bill ( ie imminent threat, transnational criminal organizations, time sensitive, part of a criminal investigation where there are reasonable and probable grounds……….) I’m all for a bill that addresses a growing problem in this country- organized crime, often involving transnational criminal organizations sometimes working in concert with state sponsors ( ie India, Modi employing Lawrence Bishnoi gang, China/Xi using Mexican cartels to process fentanyl precursors, African car theft rings, human trafficking, weapons dealers, money laundering, ……).
From the article;
“On Thursday, the government also tabled a Charter statement, an analysis of whether the bill erodes Charter Rights and Freedoms.
The Justice Department document argues the access portions of the bill are Charter compliant.
It argues common law already recognizes that police, in exigent circumstances, can conduct searches that would otherwise require a warrant.
The bill has support from Canada’s police chiefs who argue the warrantless demands would garner the „bare-minimum information“ but could make a difference early in an investigation.
Child protection advocates have also been pushing for changes to compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement.
Richard Fadden, a former director of CSIS, said a phone book once allowed police „to do more or less the same“ as what’s been sought in this bill — though critics argue the new warrantless requests would provide far more data.
Since introducing the bill, the federal government has argued it’s meant to keep borders secure, crack down on transnational organized crime and money laundering and stop the flow of deadly fentanyl across the border.”
It’s disingenuous to complain about “lawlessness “ and then deny police the tools they need to deal effectively with a growing problem.