Canadian Police Use Cell Tower Dumps To Text 7,500 Possible Murder Witnesses

from the new-phone-who-dis dept

Every so often, government entities are efficient despite themselves.

In a move they're describing as "extraordinary" and "unprecedented," Ontario Provincial Police will send text messages to about 7,500 people on Thursday to ask for information about an unsolved homicide.

Investigators are calling it a "digital canvass" — the high-tech equivalent of knocking on thousands of doors for information.

The police are utilizing "dumps" from cell towers in the area to obtain these phone numbers. And that's all they've obtained, apparently. Using the list of connected phones in the area at the time of the murder, the police are sending text messages asking recipients to fill out a website questionnaire to help police find the killer.

As much as this might seem like an intrusion, it's probably preferable to the alternative: sending out dozens of officers to question potentially thousands of witnesses. Obviously, it works out well for the police. But it also works out for citizens. Nothing obliges anyone to respond to the unsolicited texts and answering a few questions on a website is far less annoying than being questioned at home by officers peeking through open doors to see if they can spot anything resembling indicia of criminal activity. Why make the entire day a waste? Why not make a few ancillary arrests while investigating an unrelated crime?

Unfortunately, it appears ignoring the message (or sending back "UNSUBSCRIBE") isn't going to keep the cops from using your phone for their communications.

Investigators will also consider calling the numbers of people who don't respond voluntarily, but they would be required to obtain another court order to do so.

The other troubling aspect is that the police obviously have no interest in destroying the phone data they've collected. It appears this will be held onto until the investigation is closed, even though the majority of the harvested numbers -- if not all of them -- will have zero relevance to the investigation other than their proximity to the crime scene.

The police have stressed that responses are completely voluntary, but the plans for follow-up calls suggest the opposite. On the plus side, if someone doesn't want to speak to a cop, getting removed from the list is as simple as filling out a few questions on a website. No details were provided as to how much personal information respondents will have to turn over, though, so this exercise in government efficiency could become just another data-harvesting method. If not subjected to strict controls, any names collected could be run through criminal record databases in hopes of finding active warrants or unpaid fines. If so, it will be tempting to handle more investigations through tower dumps, text messages, and website questionnaires -- what with all the extra arrests and revenue generation that may result from bulk texting.

Filed Under: canada, investigation, murder, ontario, ontario provincial police, police, privacy, texting, tower dump, witnesses

Ontario Passes Law Targeting Bogus Defamation Lawsuits

from the fewer-lawsuits,-more-apologies dept

Good news for Canadians! Well…some of them. This good news only applies to a) Ontario residents who a.1) aren't vexatious litigants who use BS defamation lawsuits to silence critics.

Bill 52, which changes the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, received royal assent Nov. 3.

The bill contains a provision that "would allow the courts to quickly identify and deal with lawsuits that unduly restrict free expression in the public interest, minimizing costs and other hardships endured by the defendant," said Yasir Naqvi, Ontario's Liberal Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister, last March during a debate on the bill. "It will extend qualified privilege in defamation law under the Libel and Slander Act."

In other words, it's an anti-SLAPP law. A handful of states in the US have recognized the damage bogus litigation can do to defendants even when plaintiffs clearly don't have an actionable case. Laws like these also neutralize the chilling effect of bogus legal threats. Holding frivolous litigants responsible for legal fees tends to greatly reduce the number of questionable cease-and-desist demands issued by would-be litigants.

That such a law would be passed in Canada is somewhat of a coup considering its courts' bizarre decisions in defamation cases. In some cases, courts have come to rational conclusions (Google is not a "publisher" of defamatory material simply by linking to it in search results). In others, courts opened up brand new avenues of liability, like in the case of blogger Michael Veck, who was ordered to pay $10,000 to the defamed party despite only re-posting what another writer had actually written.

How this law will mesh with inconsistent views on who is or isn't a responsible party in defamation suits remains to be seen. But for now, it will hopefully prevent this sort of thing from reoccuring.

During a debate in the legislature, Progressive Conservative MPP Sylvia Jones recounted a case in British Columbia where a person sought a permit to convert forested land into farmland. A neighbour objected over concerns "about a possible negative impact on the streams that flowed through his land," she said.

The township decided "that it needed more time to measure the environmental impact of the application," noted Jones, MPP for Dufferin-Caledon.

"The claimant sued the defendant, the organization which she was involved with and another individual, claiming $13 million in damages against all three," she said. "The claim against the defendant herself was for $5.5 million."

A judge determined "that the claimant had provided no evidence of his allegations against the defendant," Jones noted, but the defendant's legal costs were more than $20,000.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't appear to be quite as robust as some other anti-SLAPP laws we've seen. There is a fee-shifting provision, but the law is strictly limited to matters of "public interest," which means a motion to dismiss under this law will be more difficult to get granted should the court decide the allegedly libelous statements do not pertain to public interest matters.

That being said, most bogus defamation suits tend to brought by people who are public figures to some degree, so this should result in a few potential litigants deciding they're better off fighting speech with speech, rather than with legal letterhead and court filings.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, canada, free speech, ontario, slapp

Ontario Police Inspector Says He Wants A 'Driver's License For The Internet'

from the 'for-the-children,-although,-technically,-children-aren't-old-enough-to dept

Canada's lawful access/cyberbullying bill (C-13) is still creeping through the country's legislative arteries and generally getting worse as time goes on -- as is to be expected when adding cyberbullying to a long list of presumably thwartable horrors like terrorism, child molestation and drug smuggling. What's desired by many is a generous expansion of government and law enforcement powers. And those desiring this expansion have the horrific scenarios needed to back up their requests for more access.

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has begun its hearings on the proposed law, opening with an appearance by law enforcement representatives. Michael Geist reports:

The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) was part of the law enforcement panel and was asked by Senator Tom McInnis, a Conservative Senator from Nova Scotia, about what other laws are needed to address cyberbullying.

We'll pause right there to briefly address McInnis, Nova Scotia and cyberbullying. McInnis is tossing out this leading question because his home province recently passed a truly terrible anti-cyberbullying law in response to a student's death -- a law that leaves it up to accusers and judges (the accused are not invited) to decide whether any sort of action or communication rises to the extremely low bar of being "harmful" to the accuser's "emotional well-being." If said communications are deemed to be "bullying" (again, without input from the accused), police can seize computers and other electronics, along with user data from the accused's ISPs and then shut off internet access altogether.

Now that we know why McInnis would like to see cyberbullying addressed, we can return to the statement he received in response from Special Inspector Scott Naylor of the OPP, which ignores the Senator's lob pass and pursues its own agenda.

If the bag was open and I could do anything, the biggest problem that I see in the world of child sexual exploitation is anonymity on the Internet. When we get our driver’s licence we’re required to get our picture taken for identification. When you get a mortgage you have to sign and provide identification. When you sign up for the Internet, there is absolutely no requirement for any kind of non-anonymity qualifier. There are a lot of people who are hiding behind the Internet to do all kinds of crime, including cybercrime, fraud, sexual exploitation and things along those lines.

Because some people do bad things (and maybe get away with it), everyone should have to apply for a license to use the internet. Sounds very Russian (and, to be honest, even slightly American) -- something no government official in any part of the "free world" should even appear to be considering.

Naylor obviously realizes his idea will be unpopular, hence the "child sexual exploitation" lead-in. That makes his assertion binary. Either you're for an internet driver's license or you're for child molestation: which is it? This is a common law enforcement affliction -- seeing anything that makes the job slightly more difficult as a barrier to be eliminated. And, as always, technological advancements are portrayed as being solely advantageous to criminals.

The Internet is moving so quickly that law enforcement cannot keep up. If there were one thing that I would ask for discussion on is that there has to be some mechanism of accountability for you to sign on to an Internet account that makes it like a digital fingerprint that identifies it to you sitting behind the computer or something at that time. There are mechanisms to do it, but the Internet is so big and so vast at this point, and it’s worldwide, I’m not sure how that could happen, but that would certainly assist everybody. In that way I can make a digital qualification that that’s the person that I’m talking to. If I had one choice, that’s what I would ask for.

Hey, a man can dream. And then he should be asked to stop talking before he embarrasses himself further. Law enforcement agencies love busting criminals, but seem to resent everything else about the job, like performing investigations, acquiring warrants, etc. Naylor wants a nice, tidy database of internet users he can access whenever he feels he needs to. Senator McInnis, who should know better than to touch a politically-toxic idea like this, not only approved this comment for inclusion but stated that he "absolutely agreed" with Naylor's Orwellian wish.

But McInnis and Naylor have no idea what they're asking for/agreeing with, at least not in terms of the Canadian court's position on online anonymity.

Leaving aside the deeply troubling inference of requiring licences to the use the Internet in the same manner as obtaining a driver’s licence, the police desire to stop online anonymity suggests that the OPP has not read the Supreme Court of Canada Spencer decision very carefully. If it had, it would know that not only does the court endorse a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information, but it emphasizes the importance of online anonymity in doing so.

Naylor and McInnis have just sacrificed their credibility for one of the shoddiest and overused of rhetorical devices: child molestation. Much like terrorism, the threat of pedophilia is summoned as often as is needed to suppress rational arguments and ensure the desired outcome is obtained. These two threats are routinely abused to route around citizens' protections and rights. Whatever powers are granted are then deployed to handle routine criminal activity, the sort of thing that fails to move legislators or create memorable soundbites. "Child sexual exploitation" has become synonymous with mission creep and rights erosion, but those in the position to make legislative changes are rarely interested in appearing to be "soft" on sex offenders, and pitch in happily to cart away citizens' rights and pave the way for frictionless law enforcement and mission creep.

Filed Under: anonymity, driver's license, internet, internet license, ontario, police, privacy, scott naylor, tom mcinnis

Ontario Government Considers Facebook Consultation

from the may-want-to-unblock-it-first dept

The Ontario Premier says he wants to engage young people in dialogue on Facebook (via Michael Geist) over protests against proposed restrictions on young drivers. The strict, zero-tolerance proposals have caused many young people to speak out on Facebook, and one protest group now has over 140,000 members. The Premier has responded publicly, "I think we need to find a way to get on Facebook... I think we need to find a way to engage in a dialogue in a social network where they are," noting that most young people won't come to the traditional legislative meetings. There's one snag though -- government computers currently block Facebook.

This isn't the first time a Facebook group has caught the attention of Canadian politicians (it's also not the first time this Ontario government has proposed controversial driving laws). Over the past year, a Facebook group, created by Geist, protesting proposed copyright legislation, was mentioned repeatedly by the opposition in federal parliament. This time, the government itself is bringing an online protest to attention. The idea of Facebook consultations drew some criticism in the comments on Geist's post -- why should the government conduct its business on a proprietary, privately owned silo? But Geist isn't suggesting that the government rely on Facebook or any one service, just that they could make use of services that people are already using. Facebook is especially relevant for legislation affecting young voters. In an earlier column, Geist notes that it takes more than just an "if you build it, they will come" approach. Governments could broaden their online consultation strategies to include a presence on social networks where active dialogue is already taking place. In this particular case, it's still a bit too early to tell if this is just talk or if the government is serious about experimenting. A good first step might be to reconsider that Facebook ban.

Filed Under: government, ontario, social networks
Companies: facebook

Online Carpooling Service Fined For Unregulated Transportation

from the how-dare-you-ride-with-someone-else dept

One of the great things about the web, obviously, is that it allows for much more efficient communication that opens up new and useful offerings. For example: the web offers the ability to find other people traveling to the same general place you're heading and to set up a convenient carpool. It's good for the environment. It's good for traffic. It just makes a lot of sense. Unless, of course, you're a bus company and you're so afraid that people will use such a system rather than paying to take the bus. That's what happened up in Ontario, as earlier this year we wrote about a bus company that was trying to shut down PickupPal, an online carpooling service, for being an unregulated transportation company. TechCrunch points us to the news that the Ontario transportation board has sided with the bus company and fined PickupPal. It's also established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if it uses the service -- including no crossing of municipal boundaries -- meaning the service is only good within any particular city's limits.

It's better than being shut down completely, and the service can still operate elsewhere around the world, but this is yet another case where we see regulations, that are supposedly put in place to improve things for consumers, do the exact opposite. Just like we've seen elsewhere, you get regulatory capture, where an established industry uses the regulations not for their intended purpose, but to actually drastically limit the competition.

Filed Under: carpool, ontario, regulations
Companies: pickuppal