PERSONAL PRIVACY BEFORE POLICE CONVENIENCE

Judicial oversight is an appropriate safeguard to ensure authorities
- -- including the police -- have legitimate reasons before being
allowed to violate our personal privacy.

In a free society, it's important to preserve the dividing line
between police "investigation" and "intrusion".

While police need appropriate powers to fight crime, they are rightly
not allowed to snoop on the lives of private citizens without a valid
reason.

It's why police must first seek the approval of a justice of the peace
or provincial court judge before they can:

- - Enter our homes and businesses to examine our private documents and
possessions.

- - Require banks or other third-party organizations to produce
documents and records that might assist an investigation.

- - Intercept or monitor private communications.

While respecting the right of the individual to privacy is paramount,
judicial approval for search and seizure also affords the police a
measure of protection from allegations of unwarranted harassment.

The growth of the Internet, wireless and cell phone communications
have led to cybercrime -- and some special challenges.

For the second time in 18 months, the RCMP is backing legislation that
would force Internet service providers to surrender personal
information like names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, IP
addresses and physical addresses . . . without prior approval of a
judge.

Police also want Internet and wireless providers to add "intercept
ability" to their networks -- making it easier for police to conduct
electronic eavesdropping once they have obtained a court order.

Similar powers were proposed by the former Liberal government in 2005,
but its legislation failed to pass Parliament before the 2006 election.

Now, the Conservatives are promising to revive the bill -- and the
public should be concerned.

First, Internet providers should not be forced to meekly hand over
personal information to police unless a judge has been persuaded it's
part of a legitimate investigation.

Second, adding automatic surveillance capability to Internet and
wireless services needs special safeguards because of the risk of
abuse by criminals.

Third, an RCMP briefing note for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day
suggests subscriber information is not only essential for active
criminal investigations, but also for "non-investigative" police
duties. This is dangerously ambiguous.

Personal privacy is a precious right. Politicians need to take a long,
hard look at any law that would erode it, no matter how well-meaning.