Why Brin is full of it, and reverse panopticon is a fantasy.
- Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:52:35 -0400
To: Ip Ip ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize
investigative journalism
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tim Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 21, 2005 1:25:07 PM EDT
To: Drugwar [EMAIL PROTECTED], NDPot [EMAIL PROTECTED], CCC
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Declan declan@well.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize
investigative journalism
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0a3f8b88-8c82-40d9-ad56-917d1af35e76
Pubdate: Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize investigative journalism,
'nanny cams,' critics say
Bill makes it illegal to monitor children, document corrupt acts
Cristin Schmitz
The Ottawa Citizen
Big Brother wants expanded powers to watch over you and yours, but
Canadians
who use their video cameras to conduct their own surveillance could
risk
prison under legislative measures the Liberal government is
considering for
this fall.
As part of a planned bill that will hand sweeping new electronic
surveillance powers to police, the federal government is also
contemplating
the creation of one or more new offences that would turn into criminals
anyone who wilfully makes surreptitious visual recordings of private
activity.
The government is also looking at criminalizing any such activity
that is
done maliciously or for gain.
Among those who could find themselves exposed to criminal jeopardy for
currently legal activities are investigative videojournalists,
parents who
rely on hidden nanny cams to monitor their infants, the paparazzi and
private investigators.
The possible measures were unveiled earlier this year by government
officials during closed-door discussions with selected groups and
individuals. But the proposal has caused a stir among civil
libertarian and
legal groups who say the government has failed to provide evidence
that such
a broad new offence is needed, particularly in the wake of the new
criminal
voyeurism offence created by Parliament in the summer.
Voyeurs are now liable to up to five years in prison if they
surreptitiously
visually record a person who is in a state of nudity or engaged in
sexual
activity in situations where there is a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
Toronto media lawyer Bert Bruser, a member of the Canadian Media
Lawyers'
Association, said his group was not consulted on the proposal for an
additional new visual recording offence, even though it could have a
dramatic impact on those investigative journalists who, for example,
stake
out politicians or other public figures to see if they are engaged in
wrongdoing.
I don't think anybody has thought about this proposal, I think it's
hideous, Mr. Bruser remarked. He rejected the government's argument
that
because surreptitious wiretapping of private telephone conversations is
illegal without a court order, Canadians should be similarly barred from
surreptitiously capturing electronic images.
The problem with legislation like that is when it uses terms like
'private
activity' it creates a meaningless sort of phrase and nobody knows
what it
means, Mr. Bruser observed. Everybody wants to protect people's
privacy
these days, but I think that's far too broad and would very seriously
hamper
all sorts of journalism that is in the public interest, and that goes
on all
the time.
Justice Department lawyer Normand Wong emphasized if the government
moves
ahead with a new visual recording offence, it will endeavour to craft
an
offence that isn't overly broad, but protects those principles that
Canadians want to protect, and that's personal privacy, without
interfering
with legitimate practices like investigative journalism.
But Bill Joynt, president of the Council of Private Investigators of
Ontario, who also chairs a national umbrella group, complained the
government has failed to consult with his membership.
I haven't even heard of this. We haven't been consulted and we would
like
to be, he said. If there is not an exemption for private
investigators,
this would put us all out of business. Any surveillance we do is
documented
with video, and that includes insurance claims, Workers Safety and
Insurance
Board claims, both directly for the WSIB and employers, plus domestic
investigations, and intelligence-gathering for corporate or criminal
defence
investigations.
Mr. Joynt said private detectives already steer clear of surveillance in
residences and other private places.
What we would be concerned about is the definition of 'private
activity,'
he stressed. We are aware
