This post was mentioned on Twitter by caparsons: New post: International Privacy Day and Anonymity http://bit.ly/bqpHPe...

The aim of referring to Canada and Afghanistan was to not that there are contextual differences in how we perceive the relationship between politics and law. It wasn’t to try and suggest that upon reaching a ‘democratic status’ that we’re immune to assault on liberties, just that it transforms how we perceive our political reality. Such perceptions may be more or less accurate, of course. (And, as a note, I certainly *do not* trust any large institution with my information. I supply it, of course, because I’m required to but this doesn’t imply genuine consent.)

As for wiretaps in authoritarian states, that was at least part of the concern surrounding the companies that have, or have not, supplies surveillance equipment to Iran. I would suggest that there are worries that extend to ‘is the policing of crimes legitimate’ in addition to ‘is the use of this surveillance equipment legitimate’, but recognize the distinction that you’re drawing on.

I have a feeling we’re in a similar situation re: lawful access.

No civil liberties advocate would say that people engaging in criminal activity should be guaranteed anonymity. A civil libertarian’s approach to this is this same as for wiretaps or jailing people. A civil libertarian insists that people only be deprived of their liberties on the basis of evidence, subject to procedural fairness and openness, and only when absolutely necessary. That’s not a very good description, so from s.2 of the charter “…as can be demonstrably justified in a free & democratic society.” Anyway, I’m a programmer, not a lawyer.

If Cavoukian suggests the civil libertarian’s view is otherwise, then she’s being intellectually dishonest.

I think your comparison of Canada & Afghanistan in prorogation situation is not entirely correct, but I may have misunderstood. If you’re saying that since ours is not a totalitarian government, we can trust them with whatever personal info they want to have, I think you have to be careful. Yes, we’re a democracy but we can’t think that we’re immune to the possibility of a descent into tyranny. It’s not likely, but it’s not impossible. Once a nation has achieved “democratic status” doesn’t mean we’ll never again face assault on our liberties. Prorogation is not a disaster in Canada as it would be in Afghanistan’s far more fragile ‘democracy’, but if it persists and becomes a habitual way to avoid votes of non-confidence, we will have very serious problems.

So an interesting question occurs to me. Would civil liberties advocates oppose, for practical reasons, wiretaps for criminal investigation in totalitarian states, because we know this tool will be used for persecution? Murders and theft have to be prosecuted in totalitarian states too, it’s the other stuff we have a problem with. It’s a moot question I suppose, because in those states the authorities won’t let go of authority to wiretap (and jail people) whenever they want.

I think the distinction you make between “hardware” and “web” level of anonymity is important. In the same way that routers have traffic logs today, so phone switches have long had their own ‘traffic’ logs. This is not something we can avoid, nor is it, properly used, something we should be afraid of. This is the same parallel I draw when talking about “lawful access” proposals. The government says they need tools equivalent to those they have long had for wiretapping phone calls. But that’s a lie, because there was never a requirement for all phone calls to be recorded all the time and stored somewhere just in case the police want to listen to it. Police already have the equivalent powers, there’s no need to archive the entire content of people’s online activites for future reference.

Anyway, lawful access is another topic altogether.