OT: Canada: Sweeping new surveillance bill to criminalize investigative journalism

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Meehan <tmeehan () connect carleton ca>
Date: September 21, 2005 1:25:07 PM EDT
To: Drugwar <drugwar () mindvox com>, NDPot <ndpot () drugsense org>, CCC  
<ccc-members () yahoogroups com>, Declan <declan () well com>, dave () farber net
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: letters () thecitizen canwest com

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 that there are certain things that are  
kind of
sacrosanct and that we wouldn't videotape, such as people changing their
clothes or going to the bathroom. But if it was a spousal domestic
investigation, for example, and somebody was having sex in the front  
seat of
a car, we would be videotaping it."

Mr. Joynt also argued that parents should be entitled to install a  
hidden
video camera in their kitchen, for example, if they are suspicious  
about how
a child-care giver is interacting with their helpless infant.

"If they become suspicious about the quality or the level of that  
care, they
should be able to check it out and I don't think that employee's  
right to
privacy supercedes the right of the child to a safe environment," Mr.  
Joynt
said.



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/