CIPPIC – The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Centre – is one of the groups behind an initiative called Online Rights Canada. Online Rights Canada is sponsoring a drive to create an ISP Privacy Pledge.
A letter was sent to Canadian ISPs in mid-September asking them to sign on, presumably at risk of being publicly humiliated:
This Pledge, along with a list of ISPs indicating which have adopted the Pledge and which have not, will be posted on the website OnlineRights.ca
There are aspects of the pledge that seem to go too far in hindering law enforcement. The preamble to the pledge in the letter to ISPs says
ISP subscribers also expect that their ISP will protect them from warrantless searches and wiretaps by the police, and will not act as an agent of the state in the law enforcement process.
Here is the pledge that ISPs are being asked to sign up to:
As an Internet Service Provider, we pledge to:
- Not respond to government/law enforcement requests for personal information about users unless the request is supported by a warrant or court order, or unless the request is being made explicitly under ss.184.4 or 487.11 of the Criminal Code.
- Not collect personally identifying information about users or monitor user content for law enforcement, national security, or other state purposes except where required by law to do so. If we see evidence of illegal activity, we may notify law enforcement authorities for further action.
- Notify the subscriber as soon as possible after we receive a legal request or court order for that subscriber’s personal information, unless the order does not permit such notification.
If we see evidence of illegal activity, we “may” notify law enforcement. Why is this sentence there? Let me understand pledge 2. An ISP sees evidence of illegal activity; will they or won’t they notify law enforcement? Under what circumstances will ISPs choose not to provide notification to law enforcement? When will they choose to do the right thing? How does this kind of uncertainty help subscribers believe that their ISPs aren’t acting as ‘agents of the state’?
It is also interesting to read the part in pledge 2 about not collecting information about users or monitoring user content for law enforcement, national security, or other state purposes except where required by law to do so. I guess it is OK to collect information about users for commercial purposes, such as contextual advertising, but don’t let “the state” in on it.
By adopting this pledge, you will be sending a signal to your subscribers and other internet users that you respect and value their privacy. You will also be sending a signal to the government that you are in the business of internet service, not law enforcement.
In other words, keep your head down. Stick to making money and mind your own business. When the police come looking for statements from witnesses, just look the other way. Hardly the attitude that leading corporate citizens would want to adopt.
Why would Online Rights believe ISPs shouldn’t be partners in making this a better country? In a democracy, I thought ‘the state’ includes all of us that live here, that participate in the economy here. Reading the manifesto from Online Rights, law enforcement and ‘the state’ is the enemy of the people.
I understand where CIPPIC is coming from in seeking to protect Canadian users from potential abuses of their privacy rights. Their proposed pledge, concerned with making law enforcement more difficult, misses the mark. Frankly, I am more concerned about corporate abuses. I’m concerned about people thinking that the internet provides a ‘digital exemption’ to laws and justice. I am especially concerned that the industry could even think of acting to undermine law enforcement, rather than find ways to support it.
There is no grey area identified in Online Rights’ planned publication of adopters of the Online Rights pledge. ISPs are expected to either adopt the pledge as written or not. As such, let’s hope Canada’s ISPs decide to mark it Online Wrong.
Technorati Tags:
CIPPIC, EFF, Online Rights, lawful access, Mark Goldberg