The Vancouver Police Department indicated yesterday its support of Bill C-30, the proposed online surveillance legislation that's generated much controversy across Canada. But at least one critic is calling the department's interpretation of the laws "misleading."

"Current legislation regarding lawful access was drafted in 1975, in the days of the rotary phone," the VPD deputy chief of investigations Warren Lemcke pointed out yesterday in a statement posted online. From a police perspective, the legislation will, Lemcke said:

"1. Assist police with the necessary tools to investigate crimes while balancing, if not strengthening, the privacy rights for Canadians through the addition of oversight not currently in place.

2. Help law enforcement investigate and apprehend those who are involved in criminal activity while using new technologies to avoid apprehension due to outdated laws and technology.

3. Allow for timely and consistent access to basic information to assist in investigations of criminal activity and other police duties in serving the public (i.e. suicide prevention, notifying next of kin, etc.)."

But in a blog post today, David Eaves, a Vancouver-based open government activist, took issue with some of the deputy's statements.

As to Lemcke's first point, the suggestion that Bill C-30 may strengthen the privacy rights of Canadians through additional oversight, Eaves wrote: "It has become easier, not harder, to gain access to people's personal data. Before, when the police requested personal information from internet service providers (ISPs) the ISPs ... could say no. Now, we don't even have that. Worse, the bill apparently puts a gag order on these warrant-less demands, so you can't even find out if a government agency has requested information about you."

To the third point, Eaves references a blog post by Michael Geist, a tech-law expert and Tyee columnist, who stated: "The mandatory disclosure of subscriber information without a warrant has been the hot button issue in Bill C-30, yet it too is subject to unknown regulations. These regulations include the time or deadline for providing the subscriber information (Bill C-30 does not set a time limit)..."

"In other words, for the police to say the bill will get timely access to basic information - particularly timely enough to prevent a suicide, which would have to be virtually real time access - is flat out wrong. The bill makes no such promise," Eaves continued. "Moreover, this underlying justification is itself fairly ridiculous while the opportunities for abuse are not trivial. It (is) interesting that none of the examples have any thing to do with preventing crime. Suicides are tragic, but do not pose a risk to society. And speedily notifying next of kin is hardly such an urgent issue that it justifies warrantless access to Canadians private information. These examples speak volumes about the strength of their case."

The VPD's Lemcke also argued that Bill C-30 "does NOT allow the police to monitor emails, phone calls or internet surfing at will without a warrant, as has been implied or explicitly stated." 

To this, Eaves responded: "According to Geist, there is a provision in the law that '...opens the door to police approaching ISPs and asking them to retain data on specified subscribers or to turn over any subscriber information - including emails or web surfing activities - without a warrant. ISPs can refuse, but this provision is designed to remove any legal concerns the ISP might have in doing so, since it grants full criminal and civil immunity for the disclosures.' In other words the Police can conduct warrantless surveillance. It just requires the permission of the ISPs." 

In the midst of intense backlash after Bill C-30's introduction, the Harper government indicated last week it would consider changes and amendments to the legislation. Other police officials across Canada will weigh in on the issue in "coming days," Lemcke stated.

Robyn Smith reports and edits for The Tyee.