Over a month later, the controversy over the Strong Borders Act continues.
Privacy experts are still sounding the alarm over the astonishing breadth of some of the new powers — allowing police to demand from a doctor, lawyer, anyone who “provides a service” information about a person’s account without a warrant; a power to compel Shaw or Google to “install equipment” that would give police or CSIS access to personal data — the list goes on.
Following my last post that looked in some detail at parts of the bill, the government has issued a Charter statement that drew criticism for being self-serving, even misleading. Along with others, I wrote opinion pieces and spoke about the bill on Law Bytes and other venues.
But I noticed there was still some confusion and uncertainty about many aspects of the bill. Rather than wait for a Parliamentary backgrounder to appear, I decided to put together my own overview of all aspects of the bill touching on privacy — and to offer an independent assessment of them in relation to section 8 of the Charter (guaranteeing “a right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”).
The result is a paper I’ve posted to SSRN titled “Bill C-2 Backgrounder: New Search Powers in the Strong Borders Act and Their Charter Compliance”.
I’ve tried to provide more context than is found in the government’s Charter statement, by detailing how new powers expand on or amend those currently in force.
The paper looks at more controversial parts of the bill, including the whole new lawful access act contained in C-2, and declaratory provisions in the Criminal Code asserting that police don’t need a warrant for subscriber ID or an ‘information demand’ with voluntary compliance — and an indemnity for those who comply.
I plan to keep the paper up to date (on SSRN) as the bill moves through second and third reading — and to post those updates here. Comments are welcome!