Interesting court decision out of Ontario that could change your surfing habits…
The argument is that an IP address is like a phone number, and since you can look up a phone number in the phone book, you have no expectation of privacy. I’ll bet Bell will be the first to offer the “unlisted IP address” option for $15/month or something.
Well I have to say where they mention Child Porn and shit like that, I do not think that is really a bad one because if you are that sick to have such photos well you should be dealt with accordingly and those children should be rescued and freed. But other then that it is like Big Brother is watching you.
Well I have no problem with a crackdown on child porn and any other illegal activity for that matter, it’s more a case of not needing a warrant or any other legal instrument to investigate.
But who is to say that it would just be limited to some of those activities, without some form of legal guarantee.
Just deciding one day that so and so might be interesting to check out seems like a fine line to cross from your personal rights and the right of the state to investigate perceived criminal activity.
Be interesting to see how the discussion evolves on this one.
Yeah i see that, but just looking up the IP or phone number is one thing, checking out every phone call you made(and in this case every site you visit) from it without a legal instrument seems like an extra step, no?
Its not where they are at with this, its where they are going with it.
“Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither.” …Benjamin Franklin
I don’t have a big issue with the IP address = phone # thing. We don’t have a problem with the existence of phone books, and this isn’t much different. But you should have an option to have an “unlisted” IP number as well, then. The fact that your name appears in a phone book is much different than having the government listen in on your calls without a warrant.
This isn’t new, the RCMP has always been pushing for the IP information, and indeed for direct tapping of your computer without a warrant: tinyurl.com/d2whby
Chris is right, though. Most people have no idea what “IP address” means, so they’ll confuse and muddy the issue to make it so that “watching every click of the keyboard” will be possible without a warrant.
Take a look at the title of this topic for an example of that confusion. This case didn’t have anything to do with spying on the person in question, or with watching the clicks of the keyboard. But it’s not far off, if we equate looking up an IP address with snooping.
I did that just a while back.
While there’s no damn way I’ll give out a customers IP address without a visit from a uniformed Representative of the Crown holding a paper issued by a Canadian Judge (and it says that on my standard e-mail reply to abuse reports),
I did get a request from the RCMP about a kiddie porn. Once I’ve been told, I’m sort of obliged by law to check it out. So after verifying the request did come from the kiddie porn squad with a friend on the RCMP, I complied.
To tell the truth, even though I’m so liberal most of this town thinks I’m gonna burn in Hell, I’d do it anyway.
And if Chrissie Hynde ever came into my shop and sat in my lap and asked real sweet you buggers better not be downloading Pretenders stuff at the time!
It’s definitely thin-edge of the wedge stuff.
As an analogy, think about all the wiretap stuff that George Bush brought in south of the border. Basically the NSA could tap any phone line or listen in on any internet traffic without a warrant, as long as it played the “terrorist” card. Well, they decided that they would just capture all the traffic they could, just in case any of it had any “terrorism” value. Who could argue with that? Are you a terrorist?
Well, what happens when the RCMP want to log everything just in case it contains child pornography? How do you oppose that?
I’m not sure exactly what happened there… did you not make them get a warrant because they tossed the words “kiddie porn” around?
Not that I’m pro-child abuse or anything, but I worry that it’s getting pretty easy to destroy someone by accusing them of pedophilia.
True, that’s why I asked before I acted. But that in itself doesn’t stop a True Bush-like administration from investigating anything a la kiddie porn squad route.
Just like the Yanks hear Homeland Security and fall all over themselves to cooperate instead of screaming about a homegrown Gestapo.
Hmm, strange the things you find when you open your e mail.
It seems I’m to be a conduit for a lurker on htmf it seems…
Someone has contacted me on my pounkdcan email account (from the blog) and asked that I post this link to an item that pertains to our topic of privacy and such…
(Why the lurker doesn’t just make up a name and post it him/herself I don’t know, but tis a strange little land this internet thing)
At any rate, the link actually is informative, so I’ll be the river of information I guess…
Not sure I’m quite as conspiracy minded as some of the concerns expressed, but there is a bit of food for thought as they say.
It’s from a website called Democracy Now, the interview is with a professor from Harvard University. it certainly expands on the theme that started the thread, but it is an interesting look at the issue of the net, the information you provide and who may want to use it…
democracynow.org/2009/2/12/h … _bits_your
To the lurker, you should probably log on and carry on the debate, you might have some points to add to it as well.