Footing the Bill Spins out of Control

We’ve all heard the warnings about not becoming victims while using the internet with the most prevalent messages leaning towards the hazards of identity theft and online fraud.  Yes, the internet is used at times for evil, not good.  I am sure that everyone has had some case if they have been on the internet. 

I take serious issue with the manner in which Mr. Toews, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety has handled this new yet to be passed law, named C-30.  As he put it, "could either stand with the government side or you can stand with all the online child pornographers.”  Statements like that only serve only to take the focus from the issue which in turn can only serve to dilute opportunities to properly explain the exact content and intended use of the bill itself.  Toews has garnered a lot of criticism, more so for his behavior than for the actual validity of this new bill itself.

The bill has been sent to Parliamentary.  I don’t believe that the majority of a country should be profiled by the pages they visit nor do I think that the online society at large is that of evil – for that matter I do understand that there is a justification in security.  But there is much to be said for this C-30 bill.  For myself, I don’t believe within this bill for several reasons.  As the average consumer and taxpayer is footing the bill as well as being profiled for the sake of justice to be served.  As well, it’s a breach of privacy much of the same as the old telephone wire tapping.  As for safety, why should every citizen be profiled and incur the costs which shall go along with it.  By way of taxes as well as by way of increased costs from internet service providers whom charge extra cost as they come to be responsible in complying with a law and then place extra charges onto the consumer?

Don’t get me wrong I do find merit with appropriate measures.  However, this Bill C-30 not only has flaws it’s very premature.  I do believe within freedom of speech.  As well, there certainly is a percentile of evil which does take place on the internet.  Yet I don't think that the federal government has taken everything into consideration with this new bill.  As it’s shall be at the cost of every taxpayer byway of federal taxes coupled with increased charges from our friendly Internet Service Providers.  There's no way of knowing how much Bill C-30 will truly cost but if this law commonly known as “the snoopy bill” it shall be at the onus of the people.  For the internet service providers, the toll it will take on their bottom line could be significant, because of the investment in equipment needed to allow real-time interceptions of online conversations or for preserving huge amounts of data. 

The costs could be huge.

Christopher Parsons, an internet writer and blogger, who's written about the laws of access in the United States, indicates that the United States Congress set aside $ 500 million dollars to compensate ISPs and mobile providers for equipping their networks with real-time surveillance capability.  Within the industry there is ball park estimate cost ranging from $1.3 to $1.7 billion.  More than often these figures are what they call projected figures.  The one area where the government has promised to pick up the tab is the ISPs' costs to comply with each request for subscriber data or an actual intercept.  What that means is that the intercept business can become a cash cow for all internet service providers. 

In the United States interceptions have become a business model, so there are cases where large telecommunications companies have set up entire branches where 200 employees sit in a room and all they do is assisting law enforcement with interception and monitor requests, but they make money on every request that comes in.  In other words the government is paying private companies to spy.

But being paid for subscriber data requests wouldn't provide much revenue for a small enterprise like his, says Copeland, who is also Chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.  In 17 years, he's had one request from police.  If we're being compensated on a per request basis, I may never be compensated for that investment in storage and wiretapping equipment.  Copeland adds that the request by police for subscriber data never came to fruition anyway.  "I had a call from the local police asking if I could provide the information.  I said I could but I would simply need a letter signed off by the officer and the chief, requesting it.  I was told I'd have it in 20 minutes and it never arrived.”  Under the new bill, Copeland would have no choice but to hand over the information.  But, Copeland points out, the RCMP is supposed to pay the costs for phone wiretaps and phone companies often wait and wait for their bills to be paid.  It's hard to guess how often the police and CSIS will use the powers in the bill if it passes in its present form.  I would estimates there will be hundreds of requests per day, because the information police can obtain without a warrant -- customer name, address, email.  IP address -- is incredibly useful.

So not only does that identify an individual, but who they're talking with, where they're talking, how often they're talking -- so who are the important individuals in that online community can be identified. 

We're talking Skype, web forums, Facebook, Google, all of them.  Facebook provides all the services that a TSP would there's chat, the wall post...  If you provide a communications service to the public in some sense, then you will be captured by this bill."

So who will pay?