Blogging Tories Challenge: Should Bill C-30 Be Passed In Its Current Form?

In case you don’t know what Bill C-30 is, its short title is the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It’s the notorious “online spying” bill, the one that orders your Internet provider keep a record of your web activities because it’s more convenient for the cops to use when they go after child rapists. Or something like that. Personally I think it’s the equivalent of giving the police a sledgehammer for use in hunting wasps. But it could be that my thoughts aren’t in sync with my Tory brethren, which is why I’m holding this challenge.

Now, to make sure that you’ve been fully informed, you can find the official full text of the bill here. There’s been some good objections to the bill here, and so far I’ve found one supporter of the bill (sort of) here. (If there are any other Tory blogs who have an opinion, for or against, I’ll gladly link to them.)

Note that I’m extending the length of time that this poll is open, to two weeks rather than my usual one.

Did you like this? Share it:

About PhantomObserver

I'm an information specialist / animation artist living and working in Ottawa.
This entry was posted in Blogging Tory Challenges, Crime & Punishment, Federal Government and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Blogging Tories Challenge: Should Bill C-30 Be Passed In Its Current Form?

  1. Pingback: On Vic Toews, The Sir Humphrey Syndrome and Scriptwriting For Public Safety | The Phantom Observer

  2. Pingback: Neil Macdonald Twimps Out | The Phantom Observer

  3. Peter says:

    My only worry comes to bear when I consider this legislation taking effect coincident with upcoming legislation around copyright. I forsee high potential that the recording industry will force invasive actions by police combined with a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to copyrighted file posession.

    So amend it to focus on child pornography – don’t leave the scope open-ended.

  4. james says:

    I would love to know how this bill can lead to “fishing expeditions” since a warrant must be issued by a judge to get anything other than your name, phone number, email address and ip address.

  5. Relayer says:

    The CPC pursues this offensive legislation at their peril. This has done them significant damage, and may well cost them a majority: I won’t ever forget that the gov’t I helped to elect wants to allow police to spy on me. I smell the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police behind this one. You remember them- they were against the Charter of Rights and for the gun registry.
    That idiot Toews has got to go. He’s not in control of his ministry, nor of his mouth, and is clearly out of his depth. Watch him get the boot in the next cabinet shuffle.
    I’m royally pissed off about this Bill. They’ll have to work very hard to regain my trust.

  6. Thucydides says:

    The loss of “presumption of innocence”, the ability to go “fishing” without probable cause and the ability of police or other agencies to gather data without your knowledge or consent through the use of fishing expeditions all speak against the bill in its current form

  7. james says:

    All replies so far are misinformed about the nature of the bill. There is no warrant less search in this bill. If there was that would be unconstitutional. Pretty hard to fight crime with a bill that would only lead to all evidence being thrown out of court because it was obtained by an unconstitutional law.

    The bill allows the police to get your name, address, phone number and email address from your ISP without a warrant. Why is that required? Because you can’t get a warrant without that information! Right now the police just ask the ISPs for that info and they comply most of the time. This just formalizes that.

  8. Frances says:

    The bill is far too broad. A similar bill in England is used by the authorities for all sorts of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with catching child pornographers. And as for a warrantless search: think gun registry and the powers that gave the police to invade law-abiding citizens’ homes ‘just because’.

  9. james says:

    I’d love to hear a rational argument as to why it’s a violation of your privacy to have the police know what ip address goes with what name and address but unfortunately our official opposition are a bunch of little kids.

  10. William in Ajax says:

    They should amend the bill..
    Our police should NOT be given the power to go fishing for crime…
    Bill C-30 allows just that…

    Warrantless invasion of privacy is another lost right, facilitated by the slippery slope
    created when we allowed our police to be judge and jury on the side of the road.!
    They can confiscate your private property, your (lifesblood) your car, and demand a ransom to get it back, NO warrant, NO judge, All on the cops word…It’s a VERY slippery slope… carefull of your words to that Napolean in the blue suit wearing that badge.

    I can hear future roadside judges now, why do I need a warrant to look in his trunk?
    Yes ..It’s a VERY slippery slope.

  11. These laws are always sledge-hammer laws. If there’s sufficient cause an ordinary warrant request should convince a judge, and then police can use that to get what they need. By definition, therefore, this is for those cases where there isn’t cause enough under common law for a judge to issue the warrant. That’s called “fishing” in my book, and is a public danger. It’s long past time this society recognised that freedom comes with a cost and with obligations, one of which is that you parent your own child and not expect the state to do it for you.

Comments are closed.