The federal government is 
      floating a trial balloon called the Lawful Access-Consultation Document, 
      which, if passed into law, could dramatically change the very nature of 
      the cyber-world.
      Designed to fill in some of 
      the gaps in the existing criminal code and deal with infrastructure 
      modification, the law could require ISPs to "collect and retain" a wide 
      variety of data about online activity.
      The basic idea is to amend 
      lawful access, a search and seizure tool used by law enforcement today, to 
      cover "the rapidly evolving technologies…(that) can make it more difficult 
      to gather information required to carry out effective investigations," 
      according to the proposal.
      One objective is to give 
      investigators the ability to quickly preserve data sitting on an ISP’s 
      servers. Today, ISPs can delete data as they see fit. For law enforcement 
      to gain access to stored data, they require a search warrant or 
      interception order. By the time they get it, the data could be 
      gone.
      "The preservation order is 
      designed to be used very quickly," said Gareth Sansom, director of 
      technology and analysis in the criminal law policy section of the 
      Department of Justice in Ottawa. Though it would still require a judicial 
      authorization, the threshold could be lowered to expedite the 
      process.
      But this does not mean 
      police would have access to the stored information. They would still have 
      to come back with a search warrant.
      "It is an attempt to find a 
      quick way of preserving information so it is not deleted," Sansom 
      said.
      Ray Albright, who, as a 
      forensic investigator for KPMG in Toronto often needs access to ISP log 
      files, likes the idea of the preservation model. But even though increased 
      data preservation and retention could help him with his investigations, he 
      says it is hardly a panacea.
      "That only helps us in one 
      aspect, you are still going to have to be able to put the guy at the 
      keyboard at the end of the day," he explained. And in his experience, ISPs 
      today, without federally forced compliance, are "more than co-operative" 
      when asked for data.
      But for many the bigger 
      fear, and one which has got many of Canada’s privacy commissioners up in 
      arms, is the slippery slope that is created if Canadians allow the 
      government to increasingly monitor their cyber-activities in the name of 
      crime prevention and national security. Some envision e-mail messages and 
      online chats being copied and stored in case they are needed at a later 
      date.
      In the Lawful Access 
      Proposal, this is referred to as data retention. Though Sansom is adamant 
      that it is not on the table at the moment, the thought is enough to set 
      off alarm bells. "I have heard those fears," he said.
      But "nobody envisions the 
      terabytes that would be required to…actually [copy and store] content," he 
      said.
      Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s 
      privacy commissioner, is not so sure.
      "I really think that if 
      these types of measures pass, what is going to be the difference between 
      our society and a totalitarian state?" she said. "You have, bit by bit, an 
      erosion of our privacy and our freedoms," she said. "It is so short 
      sighted."
      "What the hell are they 
      going to do with all this information?" was Franks Work’s simple question. 
      As the information privacy commissioner for Alberta he has some concerns, 
      but his issues with the proposal are not just limited to 
      privacy.
      "I think it will destroy the 
      Internet as we know it now, and I think the Internet offers us a huge 
      amount of potential as a vehicle for creativity and change," he 
      said.
      "I don’t even think it will 
      come close to solving what it is supposed to do and the cost (will) be 
      huge," he said.
      Cost is another big issue, 
      and one which has the ISPs a bit worried.
      ISPs would be required to 
      provide "basic intercept capability before providing new services or a 
      significantly upgraded service to the public." Though there is no "retro 
      fit" for older equipment, Sansom said, there is the question of who will 
      pay for the new technology.
      "I know a lot of ISPs have 
      said flat out that they will add a line item on customers’ bills so they 
      know it’s the government’s fault," said Bob Carrick, president of 
      CanadianISP.com, an ISP directory.
      John Boufford, president of 
      e-Privacy Management Systems, a consulting firm specializing in privacy 
      and information technology in Lakefield, Ont., says ISPs should pay for 
      the upgrades.
      "Co-operating in law 
      enforcement investigations is a social responsibility and shouldn’t be 
      reimbursed," he said. His sense is that government funding would be money 
      poured down the drain. But even he admits the buck would be passed. 
      "Ultimately, I think the customer does pay."
      Peter 
      Hope-Tindall, chief privacy architect for Oakville, Ont.-based dataPrivacy 
      Partners Ltd., says it doesn’t really matter whether the government or the 
      ISP pays for the upgrade. "It is the citizen who is going to be paying 
      either through taxes or increased service costs," he said.
      Work has another worry. He 
      sees increased costs being enough to force some ISPs out of business, 
      leading to a few ISP juggernauts.
      "That’ll be a treat," he 
      said.
      — With files from Network 
      World Canada