Summary of Submissions to the Lawful Access Consultation
1 Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
3 Interception by law enforcement and national security agencies and search and seizure by law enforcement agencies.
4 Voice over Internet Protocol.
5 References to "law enforcement" or "law enforcement agencies" in this report may be taken to mean "law enforcement and national security agencies" except where the context clearly indicates otherwise.
6 Portfolio of the Solicitor General refers to the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
7 For the purposes of this report, civil society groups comprise civil liberty associations, community groups, consumer representatives, non-governmental privacy/freedom of information organizations and associations representing the legal profession. Participating governmental privacy and information commissioners are shown separately in Annex C.
8 Page 6.
9 Department of Justice, the Portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada and Industry Canada.
10 A number of responses were anonymous or without indication of the sender's location, so it is not possible to be sure of the actual Canadian content.
11 The second text box on page 20 shows the types of service provider grouped as CSPs in this report.
12 CNA - Customer Name and Address, LSPID - Local Service Provider Identification.
13 The others did not express a view on the matter.
14 Prepared by the Law Amendments Committee of the CACP and the Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance (LAES) Sub-Committee. LAES is a standing group of experts in the field of lawful access with representatives from federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement, as well as national security agencies.
15CACP defines Intercept Safe Haven as: "Any technology, application or device that when used as a means of communication, by its design or through its use in conjunction with other technologies, applications or devices, either intentionally or unintentionally, impedes, hampers or otherwise does not allow for the identification of or the interception of the communication".
16 Means the same as "traffic data" and "associated traffic data" in this report.
17 CACP reports that fines in Australia range up to A$10 million for companies in the case of serious and blatant breaches of capability standards.
18 The cost of new equipment or the updating of existing equipment.
19 Where the word "judge" is used in this report, it should be taken to mean "judge or justice".
20 Criminal Code s. 487.01 and s. 529(1) and R v. Noseworthy (1997) 33 O.R. (#d) 641 (Ont. C.A.) - cited by respondent.
21 R v. Plant (1993) 3 S.C.R. 281 - cited by respondent.
22 See statutory precedent in s. 487.11 and s. 529.3(1) of the Criminal Code - cited by respondent.
23 CACP submitted that a definition of the term "device" should be added to Part VI.
24 A letter rogatory is a request from a court in one nation to a court in another nation to enforce an order for deposition or discovery of evidence.
25 General Packet Radio System or 2.5G network.
26 Denotes comments by respondents from the banking industry.
27 The others did not express a view on the matter.
28 Information technology industry/associations. Note: Unlike other industry respondents, the IT category includes manufacturers of telecommunications-related hardware and software.
29 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act - passed into law by the US Congress in 1994.
30 "any computer data relating to a communication by means of a computer system, generated by a computer system that formed a part in the chain of communication, indicating the communication's origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying service." Chapter 1, Article 1(d) - cited by respondent.
32 And similar text-based telecommunications.
33 Short Message Service.
34 Later Bill 42 became Bills 44 and 55 (now C-17) - cited by respondent.
35 Article 16 - Expedited preservation of stored computer data
Article 17 - Expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data
36 R v. Weir,  A.J 869 (Ab.C.A.) - cited by respondent.
37 R v. Oakes  1 S.C.R. 103 - cited by respondent.
38 Comments on Lawful Access Consultation Document, November 25, 2002 - cited by respondent.
39 Department of Justice presentation at the Ottawa roundtable meeting on lawful access, held on October 21, 2002 - cited by respondent.
40 Section 7 (g) -Telecommunications Act - Statutes of Canada, Chapter 38 - cited by respondent.
41 Plain Old Telephone Service
42 All communications media (wireline, e-mail, wireless, etc.) treated similarly under the law - definition provided by respondent.
43 Technological neutrality is a way of drafting laws and regulations without referring to a particular technology. This is intended to reduce the need for subsequent revision to keep up to date with technological change - definition provided by respondent.
44 R v. Dyment  2 S.C.R. 417, note 1 at para 23 - cited by several respondents.
45 Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-12, 12 April, 2002, para. 22.
46 Comments on Lawful Access Consultation Document, November 25, 2002 - cited by respondent.
47 R.S.C 1985, c. P-21 - cited by respondent.
48 For example, if the e-mail has already been seen by the recipient but it remains stored at the ISP, it is possible that lawful access might represent a seizure rather than an interception - noted by respondent.
49 Includes individuals working for corporations, universities and other organizations who submitted responses, but did not indicate that their submissions were on behalf of their employers.
50 Public identification of exempt service providers shows criminals where the safe havens are.
Report a problem on this page
- Date modified: