Lawful Access: Reviewing the Bill C-30 Controversy

On February 14^th, the government finally re-tabled Bill C-30, long referred to as the ‘lawful access’ legislation and now re-introduced as the “Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act” or the short and controversial title of “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”. Commentators such as Michael Geist and the University of Toronto’s Lisa Austin have spent the past weeks and months pointing out the potential privacy issues raised by the Bill, and the false equivalencies being used to promote it.

As will be familiar to those who turned on the radio, went online or opened a newspaper in the days that followed, the Bill has been the subject of much controversy and criticism from political opponents, independent agencies and advocacy groups.

Most of the concern centres on a number of provisions in the Bill that have the potential to result in a marked intrusion on the privacy rights of individual internet users. While all are encouraged to read the tabled Bill in full, the most discussed (and maligned) sections can be summarized as follows:

Sections 6 and 7, which requires ISPs to have the ability to intercept and record communications by any user of their services;

Section 16, which requires ISPs to turn over personal information (including address, email address, IP address, and telephone number) to select government, police and agency officials upon request;

Section 34, which grants designated ‘inspectors’ wide-ranging powers to inspect, collect, reproduce and otherwise examine an ISP’s transmission and communication data, with no requirement of a warrant or a criminal investigation.

Concern about the legislation has also been accompanied by a broader discussion about the value of online privacy. This is by no means a new conversation, nor is it new legislation; the Conservatives introduced virtually identical legislation prior to the 2011 federal election, and Andrew Coyne, writing in the National Post, reminds us that many of the provisions in Bill C-30 are nearly identical to those in the “Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act”, introduced (but not passed) by the Liberal Paul Martin government in November of 2005.

So why the uproar now? I would argue that barrier-free communication and sharing of information has been ‘normalized’ for the average Internet user by platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and has accelerated faster than corporations, service providers or governments have been able to keep up. Once these behaviours become entrenched, it becomes more difficult to infringe upon them without inciting criticism and opposition.

In addition, these new platforms have also allowed people to become informed about issues and causes that may otherwise escape the glare of traditional media gatekeepers and journalists. The leaking of details of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ personal affairs and the tongue-in-cheek #TellVicEverything hashtag on Twitter illustrated the illusory nature of online privacy and the power of instantaneous communication. Yet they are just the most recent manifestation of a trend that includes the anti-SOPA protests earlier this year and the use of Twitter as a mobilizing agent in the Arab Spring protests of 2011.

With respect to Bill C-30, the government almost immediately made it clear that it will revisit and amend some of the more controversial elements of the legislation, particularly in response to the ‘warrantless’ investigation provisions in Section 34 outlined above. That said, it is unlikely that these debates about online security and personal privacy will be quieted anytime soon.