<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-... 0d9-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 eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]