COPS WANT LOOT FOR SNOOPING

Proceeds Of Crime Would Pay For Electronic Intercepts

Police and telecommunications firms want cash seized from criminals
used to pay for a proposed federal electronics eavesdropping scheme.

The ad-hoc coalition of police chiefs and communications companies
has its eyes on money forfeited through the federal proceeds-of-crime program.

The idea, spelled out in a recent confidential letter to the Public
Safety Department, is intended to avoid a public outcry from phone
and Internet subscribers, who might otherwise be stuck with the tab.

"It's an opportunity to use the bad guys' money against them," said
Tom Copeland, chairman of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.

"I think this proposition makes a lot of sense."

The idea emerged from a desire to come up with "some creative
solutions" to the dilemma of covering wiretap costs, said Vince
Westwick, co-chairman of the law amendments committee of the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Liberals plan to introduce legislation aimed at preventing
criminals from using digital technologies to shield their
communications from police and intelligence agencies.

Technically Savvy Crooks

Authorities contend the measures are needed to keep up with
technically savvy outlaws involved in activities including terrorism,
money laundering, child pornography and murder.

The legislative proposals, first outlined three years ago, have drawn
sharp criticism from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

There is an equally charged debate about who should foot the bill for
phone wiretaps and e-mail intercepts.

Under the federal proposals, service providers would be required,
when upgrading their systems, to build in the technical capabilities
needed by police and intelligence agencies, such as the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service, to easily tap communications.

The controversy revolves around the ongoing costs of looking up phone
numbers, hooking up to networks and relaying communications from one
city to another -- individual services that may cost anywhere from
pocket change to thousands of dollars.

Currently, a mishmash of payment practices applies, from negotiation
of fees by the parties involved to refusal by some police forces to
accept the bills.

"We're frankly sort of perplexed," said Parke Davis, a senior
regulatory officer with Telus.

"What do you do when you have somebody like the police saying, 'Do
this wiretap,' and then ignoring the invoice. And they do it repeatedly."