There's been a lot of talk lately about reasons for leaving Halifax. Allison Sparling, who recently left the city for Toronto, penned a widely discussed blog post about the reasons she, like other young people, was leaving her hometown (she wrote an equally poignant piece about things she loves about Halifax, which didn't get enough attention). Lezlie Lowe published a piece in the Herald entitled "Halifax, please let me know: Should I stay or should I go?" capturing the tug of war that many young people feel between love of this town, and the perception of a lack of economic opportunity.
Those of you that know me know that while I am a fan of Halifax, I am not a cheerleader. If anything, at times I am quite critical of some of the city's failings. But sometimes, when being critical, one loses sight of the notion that criticism should really be aimed at making things better. Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of all the good things going on around us. And sometimes it takes someone from the outside looking in to give us a dose of perspective.
A few weeks ago, I had a twitter exchange with a law school classmate, who grew up in Halifax, but now lives in Toronto. He comes back to visit a couple of times a year, and had this to say: "I don't think [Halifax] realizes it, but it's kind of on a roll right now."
He went on to talk about how the new Library fills him with hope and pride. I don't think he's alone. The Library really is a remarkable public space, and an award-winning architectural jewel that has transformed the look and feel of Spring Garden Road.
But it's not the only great public space we've added in the past few years. When I first moved to Halifax, I remember people complaining about the lack of winter recreation opportunities in the Downtown. The Oval, built as a temporary facility for the Canada Games in 2011, was so unexpectedly popular with the public, it became a permanent fixture that filled that winter gap. The Commons, which used to get pretty desolate in the winter time, has been transformed into a year round playground.
The Waterfront has also seen some significant improvements, with more to come. In summertime, the boardwalk is a great place to sit and read or people watch, and there are few better places to sit and sip a beer on a sunny day than the Stillwell Beer Garden.
I think the proposal for the Khyber Building offers the opportunity for a similarly exceptional public space, this time for the arts community. These types of spaces will attract more people back to our downtown core, to live, work and play. Let's make it happen.
Similarly, in a city which has sometimes gone out of its way to erase neighbourhood identities, we have seen the resurgence of great neighbourhoods like the North End (which is really made up of a number of great neighbourhoods) and Downtown Dartmouth, both of which have been recognized as being among Canada's great neighbourhoods.
Another area in which Halifax has arguably been punching above its weight is the restaurant scene. For a city of our size, we really have some top notch chefs and restaurants: Edna, Gio, Agricola Street Brasserie, Chives and Bicycle Thief to name but a few. I've taken friends, family and colleagues from Toronto and Vancouver to restaurants that are on par with what's they are used to getting in bigger cities, often at a fraction of the price.
Yes, the selection of international food still leaves something to be desired: good Indian can be hard to come by, and options like Malaysian food are practically nonexistent. But with the proliferation of Thai, Korean and other foods, it's a far cry from the days when Alfredo, Weinstein and Ho's was considered exotic.
And while the explosion of craft brewing isn't unique to Nova Scotia (and arrived here a bit later than most places), our Province has really come into its own in the last few years. When I moved to Halifax 9 years ago, there were 3 craft breweries total. I now count 10 in HRM, and 25 across the Province, with seemingly more opening all the time. It really is an embarrassment of riches.
All of these things; good public spaces, good neighbourhoods, a vibrant food and drink scene, are important elements in making our city an attractive place to live.
This isn't to say we don't still face challenges. Nova Scotia continues to struggle economically and demographically, the only province to have negative population growth over the last few years. That being said, despite perceptions, Halifax has done reasonably well, with relatively low unemployment and relatively strong median income compared to similar sized cities.
There is no question that Halifax doesn't necessarily have the breadth of opportunity that bigger cities offer: that is partly a function of size. But sometimes being in a smaller centre offers opportunities that wouldn't exist elsewhere. I have friends that have leadership roles, that run organizations, that influence public policy, in a way that would not be possible in larger centres.
Our transportation system also needs work. Although Halifax enjoys a fairly high proportion of people who take transit or walk to work compared to similar Canadian cities, we continue to resist and delay improvements to transit and active transportation infrastructure. Between the recent uptick in pedestrian/car collisions, and the misguided government response, it's obvious we have some work to do to make travel in our city easy safe and friendly for all users of our streets.
We still need to work on making our downtown core a more attractive place to live. Although the debates on downtown development are not as toxic as they were a few years back, and some exciting developments are moving ahead in the urban core, we need to make sure that we get the right kind of density in the right areas, in a way that supports a vibrant urban environment rather than taking away from it.
Finally, we have a challenge which is also an opportunity: Halifax has amazing near-urban wilderness, but we are at risk of losing it. Places like the Purcells Cove Backlands or Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes provide amazing wilderness recreation opportunities in location that are, in some cases, minutes from our downtown core. But more needs to be done to protect these amazing areas from development pressures which threaten to destroy the very things that make these areas attractive to live in the first place. Coalitions like Our HRM Alliance and its member groups continue to work on policies like greenbelting that could preserve these areas for future generations, but can only do so with sufficient public support.
All of which is to say that in our desire to make our city a better place to live, we shouldn't lose sight of many of the great things we already have, but also shouldn't lose focus on some of the real challenges we face: diversifying our economy, fixing our transportation system, densifying our urban areas, and preserving our amazing outdoors, among others. A city isn't made better by blind optimism, but it isn't made better by relentless pessimism either.
Halifax: you're on a bit of a roll. Let's keep things moving forward.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Monday, December 7, 2015
The War on Walking: Nova Scotia's ludicrous pedestrian fines
Nova Scotia's crosswalks and intersections are once again in the limelight, once again for all the wrong reasons.
Last week, the Nova Scotia legislature passed Bill 133, which, passed a series of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. Among other things, it increased the fines in Nova Scotia for breaking the rules related to crosswalks and pedestrian signals to almost $700 (and higher for subsequent offences).
On the face of it, this might seem reasonable. Halifax in particular has been suffering from what seems like an epidemic of crosswalk accidents and other car-pedestrian collisions, with advocates calling for better enforcement of the law. Education campaigns don't seem to have worked. Surely increasing the fines will help with enforcement?
Indeed, that's what the Minister of Transportation seems to think. He says the increased fines are "not about punishment ... , it's about deterring these actions" and that the changes are about shared responsibility and are designed to "save lives". All of which seems reasonable on it's face.
But once you start to dig down, the law looks less reasonable, and less likely to be effective at saving lives.
Bill 133 increased certain fines by making all violations of s. 125 and certain violations of s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act into Category G offences, which carry fines of $697.50 for a first offence, $1,272.50 for a second offence, and $2,422.50 for a third offence.
As I've explained elsewhere, Section 125 contains a broad range of rules relating to whether cars or pedestrians have the rights of way in crosswalks and elsewhere. Section 93 deals with the rules for traffic signals, including pedestrian lights. Any violation of the right of way rules in section 125, or a violation of section 93 where a person fails to yield the right of way or, as a pedestrian, proceeds other than when authorized to do so, now carries the nearly $700 fine.
The problem is that these sections include a wide range of offences, some of which are much more dangerous than others. The pedestrian who enters the crosswalk a second or two late (on a flashing hand), even if there is no traffic coming, gets the same fine as the pedestrian who carelessly steps off the curb directly in front of a car. The car that fails to stop at an unmarked crosswalk because they didn't see the person waiting gets the same $700 fine as a car that turns on a red light into a pedestrian-filled crosswalk. The fine is in no way proportional to how dangerous the activity is, or whether or not someone gets hurt.
It's particularly problematic when you start to compare the new fine to other violations of the Motor Vehicle Act, as this table does:
Blowing through a red light or a stop sign will only cost you $180. Texting while driving is $237.50. Speeding by any amount more than 30 km/h, or passing a schoolbus that is unloading is only $410. The "jaywalking" fine of $700 is now comparable to the minimum fine for drunk driving. These are some of the most dangerous driving behaviours, but somehow, the law treats them as less bad than the pedestrian that forgets to push the crosswalk button, even if there is no traffic.
Reality is that the increased fine is not going to deter bad behaviour. Nova Scotia already had some of the highest fines in the country for intersection violations at $180 and crosswalk violations at $410, compared to fines ranging from $110 to $172.50 in Toronto, Calgary and Moncton. Yet we still had an abysmal rate of crosswalk safety. If the risk of someone getting killed isn't deterrent enough, an increased fine isn't going to change things.
This also ignores research which suggests that the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of punishment, is more likely to deter people. In other words, a lower fine can be just as effective if not more so, as long as you enforce it more often. The more likely people are to get caught, the more likely they are to change their behaviour. Increasing the punishment without changing enforcement does little to nothing.
Yet, if anything, increasing the fine means the law is actually less likely to be enforced. Police were already reluctant to fine drivers or pedestrians for intersection or crosswalk violations when the fines were $180 and $410 respectively, except when someone got hurt. Police will be understandably even more reluctant to administer a $700 fine to people who have committed relatively minor infractions
As I've said before, what's needed isn't increased fines, it's better enforcement of more reasonable fines. Police in Nova Scotia should be instructed to carry out a series of high-profile crosswalk and intersection enforcement blitzes, similar to those used for drunk driving. Fines should be handed out to both pedestrians and drivers that flout the law.
We also need to take a hard look at how we design and maintain our roads, intersections, sidewalks and crosswalks in Nova Scotia. Poor visibility, signals that aren't synchronized or don't work properly, faded lines, poor clearing in winter, and arbitrary and dangerous sidewalk and road closures cause unnecessary delay and frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike, and contribute to some of the "bad behaviour" that we see on our streets. Higher fines don't solve these problems, they are just one more barrier to walking.
As for the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act, these were done with with very little public consultation. The government should go back to the drawing board, and consult with the public and safety advocates, and come back with suggested changes to address safety issues in a fair and balanced way that is based on a real assessment of the danger that different pedestrian and driving behaviours cause, and an assessment of the actual effectiveness of safety measures. There's no question the current law isn't working. We need to dig a little more deeply to find out why, instead of papering over the problem with more bad laws.
Last week, the Nova Scotia legislature passed Bill 133, which, passed a series of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. Among other things, it increased the fines in Nova Scotia for breaking the rules related to crosswalks and pedestrian signals to almost $700 (and higher for subsequent offences).
On the face of it, this might seem reasonable. Halifax in particular has been suffering from what seems like an epidemic of crosswalk accidents and other car-pedestrian collisions, with advocates calling for better enforcement of the law. Education campaigns don't seem to have worked. Surely increasing the fines will help with enforcement?
Indeed, that's what the Minister of Transportation seems to think. He says the increased fines are "not about punishment ... , it's about deterring these actions" and that the changes are about shared responsibility and are designed to "save lives". All of which seems reasonable on it's face.
But once you start to dig down, the law looks less reasonable, and less likely to be effective at saving lives.
Bill 133 increased certain fines by making all violations of s. 125 and certain violations of s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act into Category G offences, which carry fines of $697.50 for a first offence, $1,272.50 for a second offence, and $2,422.50 for a third offence.
As I've explained elsewhere, Section 125 contains a broad range of rules relating to whether cars or pedestrians have the rights of way in crosswalks and elsewhere. Section 93 deals with the rules for traffic signals, including pedestrian lights. Any violation of the right of way rules in section 125, or a violation of section 93 where a person fails to yield the right of way or, as a pedestrian, proceeds other than when authorized to do so, now carries the nearly $700 fine.
The problem is that these sections include a wide range of offences, some of which are much more dangerous than others. The pedestrian who enters the crosswalk a second or two late (on a flashing hand), even if there is no traffic coming, gets the same fine as the pedestrian who carelessly steps off the curb directly in front of a car. The car that fails to stop at an unmarked crosswalk because they didn't see the person waiting gets the same $700 fine as a car that turns on a red light into a pedestrian-filled crosswalk. The fine is in no way proportional to how dangerous the activity is, or whether or not someone gets hurt.
It's particularly problematic when you start to compare the new fine to other violations of the Motor Vehicle Act, as this table does:
Blowing through a red light or a stop sign will only cost you $180. Texting while driving is $237.50. Speeding by any amount more than 30 km/h, or passing a schoolbus that is unloading is only $410. The "jaywalking" fine of $700 is now comparable to the minimum fine for drunk driving. These are some of the most dangerous driving behaviours, but somehow, the law treats them as less bad than the pedestrian that forgets to push the crosswalk button, even if there is no traffic.
Reality is that the increased fine is not going to deter bad behaviour. Nova Scotia already had some of the highest fines in the country for intersection violations at $180 and crosswalk violations at $410, compared to fines ranging from $110 to $172.50 in Toronto, Calgary and Moncton. Yet we still had an abysmal rate of crosswalk safety. If the risk of someone getting killed isn't deterrent enough, an increased fine isn't going to change things.
This also ignores research which suggests that the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of punishment, is more likely to deter people. In other words, a lower fine can be just as effective if not more so, as long as you enforce it more often. The more likely people are to get caught, the more likely they are to change their behaviour. Increasing the punishment without changing enforcement does little to nothing.
Yet, if anything, increasing the fine means the law is actually less likely to be enforced. Police were already reluctant to fine drivers or pedestrians for intersection or crosswalk violations when the fines were $180 and $410 respectively, except when someone got hurt. Police will be understandably even more reluctant to administer a $700 fine to people who have committed relatively minor infractions
As I've said before, what's needed isn't increased fines, it's better enforcement of more reasonable fines. Police in Nova Scotia should be instructed to carry out a series of high-profile crosswalk and intersection enforcement blitzes, similar to those used for drunk driving. Fines should be handed out to both pedestrians and drivers that flout the law.
We also need to take a hard look at how we design and maintain our roads, intersections, sidewalks and crosswalks in Nova Scotia. Poor visibility, signals that aren't synchronized or don't work properly, faded lines, poor clearing in winter, and arbitrary and dangerous sidewalk and road closures cause unnecessary delay and frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike, and contribute to some of the "bad behaviour" that we see on our streets. Higher fines don't solve these problems, they are just one more barrier to walking.
As for the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act, these were done with with very little public consultation. The government should go back to the drawing board, and consult with the public and safety advocates, and come back with suggested changes to address safety issues in a fair and balanced way that is based on a real assessment of the danger that different pedestrian and driving behaviours cause, and an assessment of the actual effectiveness of safety measures. There's no question the current law isn't working. We need to dig a little more deeply to find out why, instead of papering over the problem with more bad laws.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Bill C-51: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Stephen Harper is on a bit of a roll. Capitalizing on recent events, his proposed anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51 seems to enjoy widespread popular support, at least according to one opinion poll. The Liberal Party have announced they won't oppose the Bill, and it seems almost destined to become law.
Nonetheless, a number of prominent Canadians, including former Prime Ministers, Judges and Justice Ministers, academics, and even some conservative commentators, among others, have expressed concerns about the Bill, including that it allows widespread sharing of citizens' private information within government, lacks sufficient oversight and accountability for security agencies, and potentially infringes certain fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech and protest rights.
I share many of these concerns, and want to focus in on two aspects of the Bill that I find particularly troubling:
First, the Act is is no way limited to stopping or disrupting terrorism. It allows government agencies to gather and share information in respect of "activities that undermine the security of Canada". It gives a broad, open ended list of such activities, which includes terrorism, but also includes "interference with critical infrastructure". The only thing it excludes is "lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression".
This allows our security agencies to spy and exchange information (with very little oversight) about Canadians who are taking part in all kinds of activities which are an accepted and important part of life in a democracy, including strikes, labour disruptions, and other types of pickets or protests, which are protected by our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
The carve out for "lawful" activities is simply not broad enough to protect those rights. There are all kinds of ways in which an otherwise peaceful protest can be deemed "unlawful" including a protest march that fails to get the proper municipal permits, or which inadvertently trespasses on private property. And there is often uncertainty about the lawfulness of protest activity. One group I work with spent two years prevented by a court order from protesting against a particular power project: the Court of Appeal ultimately threw out the order because it had no legal or factual basis. Still, during that time, their activities potentially fell under this new legislation, and could have subjected them to spying and other heavy handed measures. This kind of broad power will have a chilling effect on even the most peaceful protests, because of the possibility that any protest you take part in could be deemed unlawful, and result in Canadian security agencies spying or sharing private information about you.
The carve out for protest and advocacy is very different than the existing carve out in the Criminal Code, which exempts any advocacy or protest that isn't intended to cause serious harm or risk to persons or property. If the goal is to target terrorism, then security agencies should continue to be restricted to spying on those individuals and groups that are actually threatening real harm to Canadians and their property, not merely any group that happens to cause some inconvenience or disruption as part of a peaceful protest activity.To do otherwise is to subject law-abiding Canadians to the powers and scrutiny of a police state merely for exercising their constitutional rights.
Second, it creates a new offence for "advocating" or "encouraging" terrorist offences, whether they take place in Canada or abroad. The problem with this is that the definition of terrorist offences in the Criminal Code is already quite broad, and can include any kind of armed struggle, including one against an unjust government. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if this law had existed at the time, Canadians who expressed support for Nelson Mandela and the ANC during their armed struggle against the apartheid government in South Africa could have been considered guilty of "advocating terrorism". Similarly, anyone who expressed support for the Hungarian people in their uprising against communist rule in 1956 would have been guilty under this law as well. No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, the fact that you can no longer openly voice support for people who are fighting an unjust or despotic government without fear of being convicted is a gross infringement of freedom of speech.
There are a number of other problems with the bill, including the broader policing powers it gives to our security agencies, and the lack of accountability or oversight, which are discussed at length in some of the links provided above. At the end of the day, the overriding problem with the Bill is it actually undermines the very freedoms it claims to protect. Among the many things that make Canada such a great place to live is our freedoms: the ability to speak, to ask questions, to criticize our government, and to voice our support for others around the world who are struggling for those same rights. Those rights were hard won, and are the lifeblood of our democratic system. We shouldn't let the terrorists take those rights from us, and we shouldn't let our government take them from us either.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Halifax's Barbershop Booze Bust
Social media in Halifax was abuzz yesterday with the news that some popular local barbershops and salons had been told they could no longer provide their customers with a beer or other drink while they waited for a haircut. The practice is one that a few local salons and shops have adopted, and an option that seems to be very popular with customers. One barbershop offered their customers the option of a beer or a coffee with their cut, while another would offer sample beers to waiting customers.
Apparently, based on an anonymous complaint, the Halifax Regional Police made the rounds to a number of shops and salons yesterday to inform them that serving drinks was considered a no-no. However, some of the shops claim that they had previously contacted the Province's Alcohol and Gaming Division, and been told that they didn't require a license, or what they were doing was perfectly legal.
News of the bust created a social media firestorm, with Haligonians asking what law the police were enforcing, and why they were hassling hardworking business owners over such a trivial matter. It was pointed out that certain other local businesses (including retailers, massage therapists, spas) have been offering a free drink to their customers for years.
The key thing to remember is that Nova Scotia's Liquor Control Act is an outdated piece of legislation informed by a prohibition mindset. Liquor is a controlled substance, and according to section 78 of the Act, it is unlawful to sell, transport or keep liquor, or even to give or consume it unless the Act or regulations specifically say you can. I personally don't agree with this approach, but that is the reality underpinning the Act.
You can buy liquor at the liquor store because the Act says you can. You can keep, give and consume liquor in your residence (which you have lawfully purchased from the Liquor Corporation) because section 62 of the Act says you can. You can transport the liquor from the store to your home (unopened) because section 54 of the Act says you can. You can purchase liquor at certain licensed establishments or events because the Act says you can. You can give liquor as a gift because section 55 of the Act says you can. Most other things are off limits. You can't even give alcohol away for free at an event without a special occasion permit.
The categories of licensed establishments under the Act are archaic, and there isn't a permit or license that really fits this situation. That leaves these shops in a bit of a no man's land.
You could argue that the drink is a gift to the customer from the shop, and covered by section 55 of the Act. But the Act also has a very vague and broad definition of what constitutes selling liquor, and a pretty broad prohibition against giving someone liquor. It would seem that the police are taking the perspective that it does apply here. Either way, there is some uncertainty in the law.
Even if they could get a license, the cost and rules around licensed establishments would make it difficult if not unworkable for these businesses.
But that begs a bigger question: why would this even be against the law? What is the harm in allowing a business to serve a single drink to a customer as part of the service they offer? I'd argue this is a pretty low risk activity, and that, in a city that has problems with more serious crimes, a waste of valuable police time and resources.
We could simply ask the police to back off, but that would be a stopgap solution.
The common sense solution, in my view, would be to clarify the law by passing a simple amendment to the Liquor Control Act allowing a business that is not a licensed establishment to give a single drink to their paying customers. They would still be subject to all of the restrictions regarding not serving underage or intoxicated customers. This should allow a largely harmless and popular practice to continue, while ensuring that appropriate rules are still in place to protect the public.
Our Liquor Control Act desperately needs an overhaul in any event. This seems like an obvious place to start.
Apparently, based on an anonymous complaint, the Halifax Regional Police made the rounds to a number of shops and salons yesterday to inform them that serving drinks was considered a no-no. However, some of the shops claim that they had previously contacted the Province's Alcohol and Gaming Division, and been told that they didn't require a license, or what they were doing was perfectly legal.
News of the bust created a social media firestorm, with Haligonians asking what law the police were enforcing, and why they were hassling hardworking business owners over such a trivial matter. It was pointed out that certain other local businesses (including retailers, massage therapists, spas) have been offering a free drink to their customers for years.
The key thing to remember is that Nova Scotia's Liquor Control Act is an outdated piece of legislation informed by a prohibition mindset. Liquor is a controlled substance, and according to section 78 of the Act, it is unlawful to sell, transport or keep liquor, or even to give or consume it unless the Act or regulations specifically say you can. I personally don't agree with this approach, but that is the reality underpinning the Act.
You can buy liquor at the liquor store because the Act says you can. You can keep, give and consume liquor in your residence (which you have lawfully purchased from the Liquor Corporation) because section 62 of the Act says you can. You can transport the liquor from the store to your home (unopened) because section 54 of the Act says you can. You can purchase liquor at certain licensed establishments or events because the Act says you can. You can give liquor as a gift because section 55 of the Act says you can. Most other things are off limits. You can't even give alcohol away for free at an event without a special occasion permit.
The categories of licensed establishments under the Act are archaic, and there isn't a permit or license that really fits this situation. That leaves these shops in a bit of a no man's land.
You could argue that the drink is a gift to the customer from the shop, and covered by section 55 of the Act. But the Act also has a very vague and broad definition of what constitutes selling liquor, and a pretty broad prohibition against giving someone liquor. It would seem that the police are taking the perspective that it does apply here. Either way, there is some uncertainty in the law.
Even if they could get a license, the cost and rules around licensed establishments would make it difficult if not unworkable for these businesses.
But that begs a bigger question: why would this even be against the law? What is the harm in allowing a business to serve a single drink to a customer as part of the service they offer? I'd argue this is a pretty low risk activity, and that, in a city that has problems with more serious crimes, a waste of valuable police time and resources.
We could simply ask the police to back off, but that would be a stopgap solution.
The common sense solution, in my view, would be to clarify the law by passing a simple amendment to the Liquor Control Act allowing a business that is not a licensed establishment to give a single drink to their paying customers. They would still be subject to all of the restrictions regarding not serving underage or intoxicated customers. This should allow a largely harmless and popular practice to continue, while ensuring that appropriate rules are still in place to protect the public.
Our Liquor Control Act desperately needs an overhaul in any event. This seems like an obvious place to start.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
In Defence of Online Privacy
For advocates of online privacy, these are alarming times. In the wake of the revelation that the Canada's spy agency has been using airport wifi to track Canadians, came the news that Canadian internet providers have been providing confidential information about their customers to Canadian government agencies at a rate that has been described as "staggering" and "jaw-dropping". In 2011 alone, Canadian government agencies submitted over 1.2 million requests for confidential customer data, often without a warrant or even a clear reason or justification. In some cases, it is as simple as a government agent picking up the phone and requesting the data, with no written request required.
In spite of the apparent ease with which they can access private information, the Canadian government is proposing to make it even easier for a wide range of "public officers" to access information about your online activity. Bill C-13 contains a number of provisions that would make necessary updates to the law to deal with cyberbullying and cybercrime. However, the government has also tacked on a number of controversial provisions which don't directly relate to cybercrime, but which would expand the ability of government officials to access your online information, in some cases without a warrant, and without your consent or knowledge. That part of the Bill is basically the same cyber-spying legislation that Vic Toews tried unsuccessfully to get passed when he was Justice Minister. That legislation was killed, and with good reason. The law didn't sit well with privacy advocates, nor with some conservatives who have fought to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusion in Canadians private lives.
There is no question our laws need to be updated to deal with the reality of online crime. The question is why it needs to be done without the usual safeguards that protect the rights of law-abiding Canadians to carry on their day to day lives without the constant threat of government surveillance. As the mother of cyber-bullying victim Amanda Todd has pointed out, violating people's privacy without valid justification creates more victims, not less. The answer to cybercrime is not to allow the government to violate its citizens rights with impunity. In fact, it's fairly clear some of these provisions have little to nothing to do with addressing cyberbullying.
Proponents of the Bill have advanced a number of arguments in favour of the cyber-spying provisions. I find some of them unconvincing, and some of them downright frightening.
First, it has been suggested that people should not be standing up for the privacy rights of cybercriminals. This is just basically a re-hash of Vic Toews' infamous statement that if you don't stand with the government, you stand with child pornographers. This is not about the privacy rights of criminals. This is about the privacy rights of all Canadians.
Second, it has been argued that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But that is precisely the problem with warantless spying. To get a warrant, the police have to show some reasonable and probable grounds for believing you have committed a crime. If they don't need a warrant, they don't have to show any grounds to believe you have done something wrong. They can access your private online information for any reason they want.
Third, it has been argued that these are merely "tools" that will help the police solve more crimes. Of course they will. If the police knew what everyone was doing at every hour of the day, they would be able to solve every crime. But then we would be living in a police state. Likewise, this online surveillance is an unwarranted intrusion on the ability of Canadians to go about their daily lives with some degree of privacy.
Fourth, it has been argued that people already share a great deal of information online, often through social media sites such as Facebook, that in turn harvest and sell that information. However, that is different. While there are no doubt problems with the way sites like Facebook share information, when you share information on Facebook, you at least do so knowingly and voluntarily, and subject to the terms of your user agreement and the privacy laws that govern these sites. In the case of online spying, it is being done without your consent or knowledge, and often with little or no obvious legal justification.
But the most pernicious argument is the suggestion that online privacy is a "myth" or an "oxymoron". That members of the public should have zero expectation of privacy when they go online. That somehow, everything we do online is and should be available to anyone else, including the police if they want it.
To me, this argument misunderstands both the nature of the internet and its importance to modern-day life, and sets us on a very dangerous path with respect to the relationship between police and private citizens. It is also a self-defeating argument for those who claim they are trying to protect our children from online bullying and crime.
For starters, I don't think many people would suggest that the government should be able to randomly open and read our mail, or have unrestricted access to listen in on our private phone calls. In fact, a those things are the very hallmarks of a police state. Yet this "no privacy" argument suggests that if you send an e-mail to a friend, you should expect the government to read it, and if you use skype to call the grandkids, then you should expect the government to be listening in. The internet is an important vehicle for private communication, and people using it should enjoy the same protection as those making a phone call or mailing a letter.
Similarly, unless you are doing something illegal, the government has no legitimate interest in knowing what you are reading, or what you buy at the supermarket. Yet the "no privacy" advocates are basically suggesting that if you do your reading or your shopping online, it is fair game for a warrantless police search.
The reality is that in this day and age, many of us spend a significant part of our day online. Some of that time is spent doing things that are shared with the public (like this blog post, or things said on twitter). Some of those things we reasonably expect to remain private and confidential (like online banking, online shopping or personal e-mails). Unless we are doing something illegal, the police quite frankly have no business knowing most of what we are up to online.
Citizens in democracies have fought hard for the rights to ensure that their lives are not the subject of unwarranted government oversight. Many around the world still do not enjoy these rights. These rights are now very much under assault by laws that seem well intentioned, but which ultimately undermine important democratic safeguards. It is time for Canadians to stand up for their rights to privacy, their rights to protect their personal information and personal lives and ultimately their right to live in a free and democratic society.
Further, given that most online crime involves a breach of the victim's online privacy, it is self-defeating to combat online crime by creating even less online privacy. The cyber-surveillance provisions can and should be removed from this bill, and the government, instead of once again tacking the same old bad laws onto another Bill, needs to go back to the drawing board on its whole approach to cyber-surveillance and online privacy and security. Whether they are living online or offline, law-abiding Canadians should be entitled to go about their day to day lives without having to look over their shoulder and wonder who is watching them.
In spite of the apparent ease with which they can access private information, the Canadian government is proposing to make it even easier for a wide range of "public officers" to access information about your online activity. Bill C-13 contains a number of provisions that would make necessary updates to the law to deal with cyberbullying and cybercrime. However, the government has also tacked on a number of controversial provisions which don't directly relate to cybercrime, but which would expand the ability of government officials to access your online information, in some cases without a warrant, and without your consent or knowledge. That part of the Bill is basically the same cyber-spying legislation that Vic Toews tried unsuccessfully to get passed when he was Justice Minister. That legislation was killed, and with good reason. The law didn't sit well with privacy advocates, nor with some conservatives who have fought to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusion in Canadians private lives.
There is no question our laws need to be updated to deal with the reality of online crime. The question is why it needs to be done without the usual safeguards that protect the rights of law-abiding Canadians to carry on their day to day lives without the constant threat of government surveillance. As the mother of cyber-bullying victim Amanda Todd has pointed out, violating people's privacy without valid justification creates more victims, not less. The answer to cybercrime is not to allow the government to violate its citizens rights with impunity. In fact, it's fairly clear some of these provisions have little to nothing to do with addressing cyberbullying.
Proponents of the Bill have advanced a number of arguments in favour of the cyber-spying provisions. I find some of them unconvincing, and some of them downright frightening.
First, it has been suggested that people should not be standing up for the privacy rights of cybercriminals. This is just basically a re-hash of Vic Toews' infamous statement that if you don't stand with the government, you stand with child pornographers. This is not about the privacy rights of criminals. This is about the privacy rights of all Canadians.
Second, it has been argued that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But that is precisely the problem with warantless spying. To get a warrant, the police have to show some reasonable and probable grounds for believing you have committed a crime. If they don't need a warrant, they don't have to show any grounds to believe you have done something wrong. They can access your private online information for any reason they want.
Third, it has been argued that these are merely "tools" that will help the police solve more crimes. Of course they will. If the police knew what everyone was doing at every hour of the day, they would be able to solve every crime. But then we would be living in a police state. Likewise, this online surveillance is an unwarranted intrusion on the ability of Canadians to go about their daily lives with some degree of privacy.
Fourth, it has been argued that people already share a great deal of information online, often through social media sites such as Facebook, that in turn harvest and sell that information. However, that is different. While there are no doubt problems with the way sites like Facebook share information, when you share information on Facebook, you at least do so knowingly and voluntarily, and subject to the terms of your user agreement and the privacy laws that govern these sites. In the case of online spying, it is being done without your consent or knowledge, and often with little or no obvious legal justification.
But the most pernicious argument is the suggestion that online privacy is a "myth" or an "oxymoron". That members of the public should have zero expectation of privacy when they go online. That somehow, everything we do online is and should be available to anyone else, including the police if they want it.
To me, this argument misunderstands both the nature of the internet and its importance to modern-day life, and sets us on a very dangerous path with respect to the relationship between police and private citizens. It is also a self-defeating argument for those who claim they are trying to protect our children from online bullying and crime.
For starters, I don't think many people would suggest that the government should be able to randomly open and read our mail, or have unrestricted access to listen in on our private phone calls. In fact, a those things are the very hallmarks of a police state. Yet this "no privacy" argument suggests that if you send an e-mail to a friend, you should expect the government to read it, and if you use skype to call the grandkids, then you should expect the government to be listening in. The internet is an important vehicle for private communication, and people using it should enjoy the same protection as those making a phone call or mailing a letter.
Similarly, unless you are doing something illegal, the government has no legitimate interest in knowing what you are reading, or what you buy at the supermarket. Yet the "no privacy" advocates are basically suggesting that if you do your reading or your shopping online, it is fair game for a warrantless police search.
The reality is that in this day and age, many of us spend a significant part of our day online. Some of that time is spent doing things that are shared with the public (like this blog post, or things said on twitter). Some of those things we reasonably expect to remain private and confidential (like online banking, online shopping or personal e-mails). Unless we are doing something illegal, the police quite frankly have no business knowing most of what we are up to online.
Citizens in democracies have fought hard for the rights to ensure that their lives are not the subject of unwarranted government oversight. Many around the world still do not enjoy these rights. These rights are now very much under assault by laws that seem well intentioned, but which ultimately undermine important democratic safeguards. It is time for Canadians to stand up for their rights to privacy, their rights to protect their personal information and personal lives and ultimately their right to live in a free and democratic society.
Further, given that most online crime involves a breach of the victim's online privacy, it is self-defeating to combat online crime by creating even less online privacy. The cyber-surveillance provisions can and should be removed from this bill, and the government, instead of once again tacking the same old bad laws onto another Bill, needs to go back to the drawing board on its whole approach to cyber-surveillance and online privacy and security. Whether they are living online or offline, law-abiding Canadians should be entitled to go about their day to day lives without having to look over their shoulder and wonder who is watching them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)