Joy Smith, a Conservative MP, has introduced a private member’s bill called the Clean Internet Act (Bill C-427). It’s a private member’s bill and therefore unlikely to pass, but still, it’s a scary piece of work. Here are the highlights:

• All ISPs would have to be licensed. Since the bill defines an ISP as “a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge,” that would apparently include libraries that offer free public Internet access, not to mention Internet cafes, your workplace, and possibly you yourself if you let other people use your Internet connection. More generally, as Russell McOrmond notes, “ISPs should not need to be licensed any more than owners of photocopiers or computers should be licensed” — they’re access providers, not content providers.
• ISPs would be required to block access to hate speech, material that incites violence against women, or child porn. It would also be an offense, not only to post such material, but to possess any of this material if you got it off the Internet — even though we already have laws governing hate speech and child porn.
• ISPs would be required to deny service to anyone who “has used the Internet within the previous seven years for a purpose that would be an offence under this Act.”
• The executives of any ISP that violates this law would be subject to a fine or jail time. In addition, as Ars Technica points out, the bill would allow the government to revoke an ISP’s license — thus presumably cutting off Internet access for all of that ISP’s customers — if one of the ISP’s executive officers is convicted of committing violence against women, inciting hatred, or possessing child pornography. No, seriously — it’s section 4(3) of the bill.

An expert quoted in CBC’s article on the bill put it best: “The sentiment’s right, but the practicality is out to lunch.”

Incidentally, when she introduced this bill in Parliament, Joy Smith said, “We must all keep in mind that we need to stop the human trafficking that is happening in our country now and this bill makes a strong statement about that part of the Internet.” Needless to say, the bill doesn’t have anything to do with anything you or I would understand as human trafficking.

The Conservatives have commissioned a poll and a series of focus groups to examine the issue of electoral reform. Trouble is, the pollster they’ve hired is a raving right-wing lunatic, and the think tank that’s managing the focus groups thinks proportional representation is a bad idea. So far, the results are about what you’d expect. Idealistic Pragmatist has the details here and here.

That the Conservatives aren’t too keen on proportional representation isn’t surprising. Under proportional representation, the Conservatives — who can only claim about a third of the vote — would never be able to get the majority government they so desperately want. They’d have to form a coalition with other parties instead — something they seem to regard as unthinkable, even though it works quite well in other democratic countries. That’s why the Tories’ idea of electoral reform stops with elections and term limits for senators: real democratic reform, in the form of proportional representation, would sabotage their ambitions for a Parliamentary majority.

(Incidentally, the aforementioned Idealistic Pragmatist is a great source for information on electoral reform. IP’s Proportional representation FAQ and Six reasons to support proportional representation are excellent starting points if you want to learn more about the subject.)

That was fast! On Friday, the Liberals introduced their private member’s bill on lawful access. It’s Bill C-416, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act.

Michael Geist reports that the Liberals plan on reintroducing lawful access by means of a private member’s bill. The move is part of the Liberals’ effort to appear “tough on crime” in advance of an anticipated spring election. My hunch is that, unless an election interferes, the Tories will either support the bill or try to steal the Liberals’ thunder with proposals of their own.

Geist quotes this speech by Liberal leader Stephane Dion:

Marlene Jennings, the Liberal justice critic, is re-introducing the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act. This bill will allow the police and Canadian intelligence community to adapt to new communications technology. Telephone and Internet service providers will be required, subject to vigorous privacy safeguards, to include an interception capability in new technology, and make subscriber contact information available on request to designated law enforcement officials. This act strikes the right balance between the needs of police and industry, while respecting Canadians’ right to privacy.

That last sentence in particular makes me snicker. Note how citizens’ interests are an afterthought: it’s police and telecom interests that are the priority here, as usual for lawful access policy. (In the last round of stakeholder consultations, for example, business interests got plenty of input into the lawful access policy proposals. By contrast, civil society groups got one meeting in which the proposals were outlined for them, and then a laughably short two-week window in which to submit their comments.)

I’ll have a more substantive post on lawful access — what it is, what’s wrong with it, and past attempts to legislate it — in the near future.

This is the second of two posts on Passenger Protect, Canada’s forthcoming no-fly list. Part 1 described how Passenger Protect is going to work.

Why we should be concerned about Passenger Protect

First of all, there’s the cost. Passenger Protect represents a huge increase in federal spending on border security. In fact, just a few months ago, CBC was reporting that the cost might keep the program from being implemented. Look at the numbers from the government’s own feasibility study: “Implementation costs for the RCMP, CSIS and the CBSA alone would range from $95 million to $270 million, the study estimates, with annual operational costs of between $19 million and $60 million. Costs for Transport Canada are not included in the estimate.” By way of comparison, the 2006 federal budget allocated $133 million for the entire Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and about the same amount for hiring one thousand new RCMP officers. I’m no expert on government finance, but the Passenger Protect numbers don’t look good to me.

Second, and more importantly, there’s the question of effectiveness. Will the no-fly list actually make us safer? If the US example is anything to go by, probably not.

Now, to their credit, the designers of Passenger Protect have learned a thing or two from the disaster that is the US no-fly list. For example, unlike in the US, there will be an appeal process — so, in theory, you’ll be able to get your name off the list if it shouldn’t be there. Whether it will work that way in practice is another story, of course, but at least there will be a process in place. There are also specific criteria for adding names to the list, which as far as I can tell is something the US list lacks.

That said, there are still a number of big gaping flaws to reckon with. For one thing, Canada will almost certainly be sharing its no-fly list with the US. So if you end up on the Canadian list, you will also end up on the US list. And once you’re on the US list, you don’t get off it — just ask Maher Arar. (If a formal commission of inquiry can’t get you off the US no-fly list, what chance does a “Not-a-Terrorist” certificate from the Office of Reconsideration have?)

The Canadian no-fly list will also be using the US list as one of its information sources. Now, the US list is finally going to be cleaned up in the near future, but it’s certainly been the case in the past that that list was worthless. The Wikipedia article on the US list runs through some of the better-known false positives if you need examples. I frankly don’t understand how Canada’s security agencies will be able to extract reliable information from the US list. Our own records of individuals with ties to terrorism are far less comprehensive than American records, so I hope the Homeland Security people will be sharing everything they know about the 44,000 people on their no-fly list — because we’d have to be nuts to just use their list without evaluating the information it’s based on first.

Then there are the disturbingly vague criteria for including a person on the Canadian list. For example, the first class of people on the list includes any “individual who is or has been involved in a terrorist group, and who, it can reasonably be suspected, will endanger the security of any aircraft or aerodrome or the safety of the public, passengers or crew members.” Is the definition of a terrorist group restricted to designated terrorist organizations? Does involvement in such a group include just donating money? Does it include involvement antedating the group’s designation as a terrorist organization? Will such involvement itself qualify as reasonable grounds to suspect the person is a threat? These are not idle or unfounded questions. Remember, the agencies responsible for answering them have already helped send at least one innocent person off to be tortured in a foreign country; we can expect them to cast their nets wide and not worry too much if they catch a few innocent people along the way.

Also, the no-fly list will only work if the terrorists agree to use their real names when they book a flight. Which is kind of an important point, because it means we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a system that will only catch the really stupid terrorists. You know, the ones we probably would’ve caught anyway.

Incidentally, in the 18 months since Paul Martin’s Liberals first floated the idea, Passenger Protect has never once been debated in the House of Commons. The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act did raise a few concerns about the program in the report they released this month (which recommends clarifying the criteria for adding names to the list and publishing guidelines on how to get your name removed), but the people you and I actually elected don’t seem too concerned about it. Maybe we should give them a nudge.

Canada is about to get its very own homegrown no-fly list. The initiative is called Passenger Protect, and it got its start under Paul Martin’s Liberal government back in 2005. The Liberals lost power before it could be implemented, but Stephen Harper’s Conservatives thought it was a good idea, so they’re going ahead with it. It’s set to take effect for domestic flights in March, and for international flights in June.

How it will work

The no-fly list will be compiled by a Transport Canada advisory group based on recommendations from CSIS and the RCMP. They’ll be adding the names of anyone who is or has been involved with terrorist groups and might pose a threat to aviation security; anyone who has previously been convicted of “serious and life-threatening crimes against aviation security”; and any convicted violent offenders who might harm the crew or other passengers.

In addition to using their own records, CSIS and the RCMP will be relying on information from foreign intelligence sources, including the US no-fly list. The Canadian list will include each person’s name, gender, and date of birth, and in some cases their address, phone number, and passport number as well. All airlines flying through Canada will have access to the list, but they’ll be required to keep it confidential. However, Canada will almost certainly share its list with the US and other Canadian allies — so if you’re on the Canadian no-fly list, you can expect to end up on the US list, too.

When you go to get your boarding pass, your airline will check to see if your name is on the list. If it is, you won’t be able to print your boarding pass online or at a kiosk — you’ll have to proceed to the check-in desk, where airline staff will ask for your ID and check your gender and date of birth. If you’re still a match at this point, they’ll get in touch with a Transport Canada officer to verify your identity and status, and permit or refuse boarding accordingly. If you want to appeal their decision, you can talk to the Office of Reconsideration, an independent review board.

For more information, check out:

• Transport Canada’s information package on Passenger Protect
• Transport Canada’s response to the Privacy Commissioner’s questions
• Identity Screening Regulations

Coming soon: Why we should be concerned about Passenger Protect.

I’ll be posting more about Passenger Protect, Canada’s nascent no-fly list, in the near future, but for now, here’s a CBC article suggesting that the cost of the system — estimated at $250 million — could keep it from being implemented. (The article is in French only, alas. Here’s a reasonably coherent English-language version, courtesy of Babelfish.)

From the Canadian Press:

Ottawa is exploring the possibility of allowing the private sector to finance and operate a new border crossing at Canada’s busiest point of entry to the United States, Trade and Infrastructure Minister Lawrence Cannon said Monday.

The clear signal that the federal government is entertaining private involvement in a second bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ont., comes amid new polling data that suggests nearly two-thirds of Canadians support the idea of public-private partnerships.

The poll in question was commissioned by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, and you can read it for yourself, if you like. It’s quite the piece of work. Apparently these are the questions they asked:

1. Governments are having trouble keeping pace with demands for new or improved public infrastructure and services. Do you agree or disagree?
2. It is time to allow the private sector to deliver these types of services in partnership with governments. Do you agree or disagree?
3. If your access to services remained the same, if the quality of services was the same or better and if the cost to you was no more than if the government was providing the service, would you support or oppose private sector involvement in the following areas: [and a bunch of service sectors are listed].

Aren’t access, quality of services, and cost three of the key issues surrounding privatization? (They also left out accountability, which to my mind would be the fourth.) How can you trust a poll that dodges those issues? And yet the Canadian Press story pretty much ignores the evident bias here. Sure, it quotes a union boss saying that the survey is “very short on questions that relate to access, cost and quality concerns,” but the reporter doesn’t follow that up — instead, the poll results are discussed as if they were reliable.

Also worth noting:

Security at the border crossing would continue to be the domain of Canadian and American border agencies, said David McFadden, chairman of communications for The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.

“What the private sector does is maintain the infrastructure, make sure it’s properly paved, cleaned, things of that nature,” McFadden said.

Let’s hope they stick to that. I’m not holding my breath, though: the article goes on to point out that Cannon “did say that a private-sector partner could ‘operate’ the crossing.” It would be nice if they could at least get their stories straight.

Last night, in the middle of a story on real estate fraud, CTV News inexplicably threw its support behind a national identity card. The segment claimed that such a card would ameliorate the risks of fraud and identity theft.

It’s not true. When it comes to real estate fraud, a national ID card offers no advantages over other identification documents. In fact, from a security standpoint, national ID cards are a singularly bad idea. Here’s why (and I’m getting this stuff from Bruce Schneier, so you can take his word for it):

• ID cards can be forged, no matter how “unforgeable” they’re designed to be.
• In order to get a real, official, government-issued ID card, you have to present other pieces of identification, which can be forged.
• ID cards have to be checked — usually by human beings, who are error-prone and often poorly trained.
• Finally, and most importantly, a national ID card would have to be backed up by a national ID database containing identifying information on everyone in the country. This database would need to be “widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.” It would contain data pulled together from all over the place, which means the data will be weird, inconsistent, and probably unreliable. Such a database would be a massive procedural and technological challenge (and that’s putting it mildly; Charlie Stross has convincingly argued that the UK’s plans for such a database could never work). It would also be a massive security risk: imagine what could happen if malicious hackers broke into the system and started messing with people’s records!

Schneier concludes, “That’s why, when someone asks me to rate the security of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can’t give an answer. It doesn’t even belong on a scale.”

And yet the idea has been floating around in Canadian politics for a while now. It’s been on the table in national security discussions pretty much since September 11. Last February, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said that such a card is inevitable. I’d like to think the Canadian government will pay attention to security gurus like Bruce Schneier, learn from the debacle that Britain’s ID card scheme has become, and drop whatever plans it has to implement an ID card system of its own. But governments like to be seen to be doing something — especially when it comes to national security, which is the usual context for ID card proposals — and with major media outlets are talking favorably and uncritically about the idea, I suspect Ottawa will be pushing ahead with an ID card scheme. So maybe it’s time to start thinking about how to oppose such a plan.

A group called Online Rights Canada is making it very easy to write a letter to your Member of Parliament advocating balanced copyright. Pick your province, select your MP, and edit the suggested text of the letter. If you’re a Canadian, please take a few minutes to help out. It will be a lot harder to have an impact once there’s actual legislation on the table.

If you’re not sure why copyright reform is important or don’t know much about the recent history of the copyright reform process, Online Rights Canada provides some good background material. CIPPIC also has a good FAQ on the subject.