Discourse and Disclosure

Greg Mills: Last week the government introduced C-30. Originally called the “Lawful Access Act”, it was quickly renamed to the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” in the wake of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews controversial “stand with us or with the child pornographers” remark.

Condemnation has been widespread among both the mainstream media and the internet. Shortly after Toews’ comments, a twitter feed called Vikileaks began publishing quotes purportedly from Vic Toews’ own divorce files.

Today, Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel will discuss the Lawful Access bill, and the slew of mud-slinging and discourse that’s surrounded it.

Will Murray: The Bill, as it stands, goes too far. I think, somewhere in the absurdity of last week, we were able to reach that consensus. However, as Andrew Coyne noted in an article over the weekend, the hyperventilating over this Bill, certainly doesn’t match the reaction a similar Bill faced in the Martin era. While I do think it’s a rather immaterial point to the debate surrounding the Bill as a whole, it is kind of interesting to see such vociferous reaction this time around. I think there are a couple reasons for this. First, we are a much more “connected” society compared to even just 8 years ago. Social media has allowed people more forms of communication than ever before, the consequences of which are that one’s personal information can be accessed across more platforms than ever before as well. Thus, the concern is going to be much higher now, than it was in 2004 when while we were connected, it wasn’t to the point as it is today. Second, people have had an avenue for their reaction. Twitter and Facebook are massive forms of communication, so big, that they’re used a barometer of public reaction by the mainstream media. These forms of communication are quick, easy, and some would say lazy – ie the notion of one click activism. Regardless, they have an impact and lead to increased awareness and coverage of an issue, even it is coming from inside the echo chamber. Finally, I think Vic Toews probably helped expand coverage of the issues with his asinine ‘child pornographers’ comment. That had the major news networks leading with it, and subsequently more people pointing out the genuine problems with the Bill.

All that being said, the VikiLeaks account was abhorrent. The person behind it was a coward. While the divorce proceedings were public record, I don’t see how any of it has to do with Toews’ job as Minister, let alone to do with internet privacy. I believe Toews’ personal life is utterly irrelevant, and even it WAS relevant, the torpedo sent into it also hit his family members that have nothing to do with setting government policy. The fact the VikiLeaks account seems to have cut and run once the heat was turned up on him by the Ottawa Citizen speaks to the type of person involved. Whoever it is isn’t the first, and won’t be the last, to attacks someone’s character under the cloak of anonymity, but it doesn’t make it any less frustrating. Because of it, the issue shifted to one of journalistic and online ethics, and away from the issue at hand; the Bill.

GM: I can certainly appreciate and readily agree with the sentiment that the Minister’s personal life are obviously not relevant to the policy at hand, but my feelings are mitigated by the circumstances surrounding the bill and his own earlier comments in particular.

I don't like that mudslinging has become a norm in our current discourse, and revenge or retribution is hardly a moral act in this case, but I can’t shake the feeling that a Vikileaks style expose was almost inevitable. Again, this isn’t me saying that it’s the right thing to do, but for the past few weeks the Conservatives have referred to their opposition as Nazis, and Child Porn peddlers. They’ve denied Elizabeth May, an elected member, the right to address Parliament more than once. My point being: They are clearly and consciously playing with a bag of dirty tricks and tasteless moves. Taking the high road is a virtue, but until this Vikileaks posting it seemed like any opponents of the Conservatives were bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I will also confess to reading the Vikileaks reaction and wondering. I mean, given that the bill the Minister introduced almost certainly leaves more personal data vulnerable to accidental public disclosure, I wonder how reaction would have been if Vikileaks had been leaking his private information instead of just the public stuff.

But again: Not the right thing to do, but given the level of discourse that we’ve seen (from all sides, as well. I rag on the CPC as primary offenders, but certainly not the only ones) it’s hardly a surprise. Also unfortunate, as the debate around a terrible bill brought in by an incompetent Public Safety Minister has been hijacked over whether or not it’s right to disclose who he slept with…a consequence we’re somewhat guilty of perpetuating, as well.

John van Weringh: I think, in terms of the sheer volume of the reaction this time around, it’s important to note that, with respect to this bill or the other bills like it, we’re in a majority government situation for the first time. We’re getting back into the swing of things where all of the yelling and posturing in the world won’t change the content of bills or the direction of government. I think we’re seeing a desperate and offended internet constituency scrambling to do anything they possibly can do to avoid the passing of this bill – and this is the result.

The ‘stand with us or with the child pornographers’ comment also harkens back to the rhetorical style of George W. Bush – a style that the internet constituency in particular is very familiar with, and derisive of. Rather than framing the issue in the way that Toews intended (assuming the remark was thought through), it framed him and the government in a particular way, at least among a certain population. Though, there may be many people for whom the remark resonates very effectively… which may be part of what the internet constituency is afraid of: that people who don’t really understand or care what’s at stake will step in and cause significant damage. In this respect, another reason why things got so heated so quickly may be the recent SOPA fiasco and last year’s broadly publicized hacking scandals, such as the PlayStation Network.

WM: To be honest, I’m not sold on the notion that majority versus minority has all that much of an impact here. Even when in a minority, the Conservatives were pretty adamant about sticking to their guns, using over the top rhetoric and generally making Parliamentary democracy cry. The times where there was push back, namely the 2008 budget, were the exception to the rule. I don’t think we’re seeing online activism in response to a majority government, it’s been growing exponentially the last few years as more and more people have access to online forums, petitions and discussions, and through numerous platforms than ever before, so the outrage and growth in that respect is more in line with internet growth patterns than with majority governments. I go back to my point about Toews’ remarks. This worked up the mainstream media, and made the issue the focal point of the news for several days. This got ordinary Canadians more involved in my view – including a large amount of outrage from conservative talk radio. Without it would the Tories have backed down quickly? I’m not so sure they would have.

I agree recent other scandals have played at least a partial role. Anytime you can fit an issue into a pre-existing narrative, it helps. That being said, did anyone outside of PS users really pay all that much attention to the hack? In regards to SOPA, I think those opposed were helped exponentially by the Wikipedia blackout and the involvement of other online sites. It’s funny in that respect, the Bills took similar paths. Highly controversial amongst a certain sector of the population, but pushed to the mainstream by an external factor that wound up getting the public attention. More people learned about C-30 because the news was covering Toews’ outburst, and more people learned about SOPA because they couldn’t find out how many Grammys Michael Jackson won in 1987.

*This point brought to you by the obscure things we attempt to find on Wikipedia.

GM: I’m certain net literacy has had an impact on this particular bill. It’s one of the very few points I found Coyne didn’t cover in his otherwise thorough critique, especially since it accounts for the difference in reactions between the Liberal government’s 2005 bill and today’s. In 2005 social media wasn’t nearly as pervasive and online activity was less diverse. As well, fewer people were downloading (piracy or otherwise), and those of us that were weren’t necessarily as aware of what data could be collected. In 2005, telling the country that you planned on tracking personal data via an IP address, including those attached to mobile devices (the majority of which in 2005 nobody used for serious internet-ing) wouldn’t have provoked the same outrage as today.

The outbursts over Wikileaks (with a ‘W’), SOPA protests or the PS network aren’t substantively related, except that they are both recent high profile examples or campaigns about, specifically, the value of maintaining personal data on the internet. Heck, for those of us with longer memories even the CIBC data leak from a few years back raised our collective awareness (and the media’s) of the full implications of this bill.

I’ll finish this tangent by saying that I also believe Will is right: Were it not for MPs like John Williamson, and a number of rank-and-file Tories (and Conservative donors) standing up to this, a majority government would have simply slammed it through the hole made by the Omnibus crime bill.

JVW: If we’re talking about why the internet went mad over this, we can’t ignore recent perceived successes of the twittersphere in the political arena. I’m not saying that SOPA was won by the hashtag ‘stopSOPA’, but that doesn’t mean that those who tweeted it realize that. People engage in politics in ways that are perceived to be effective, and the government’s reconsideration of C-30 is going to be viewed as another win for the twitterati – fueling the notion that tweeting about issues – and staging twitter protests – can get things done.

WM: I consider Twitter to be an echo chamber. I’m hooked on it, but I certainly don’t think what we see on Twitter is a microcosm of society as a whole. When I say the internet went mad over this, it’s largely because that’s the avenue from which I consumed the information. What’s more important is what the internet madness – namely VikiLeaks and while outside the internet when Toews said – did to mainstream coverage and the ensuing reaction – which included non-internet forms of communications – talk radio etc. Will this win be viewed as a win for Twitter? I actually don’t think so. I think it will be seen as the government backing down due to the pressure overall, rather than from one segment of said pressure.

GM: It looks like the bill will probably be heavily amended in committee. At least, that’s the direction the Conservatives indicated they were willing to take after discovering the libertarian wing of their own party was backing off.

So a few questions for you two, then: Correct me if I’m wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that in its current form, the proposed law is unnecessary and ham-handed. Can it be amended in such a way as to be rendered inoffensive?

We also seem to agree that the bill would not have been amended at all, were it not for both outcry from within the Conservative party and the tactless public shaming of Minister Toews. Does this motivation (as opposed to say, letting the bill be amended because that’s a decent way to run a parliament, or introducing a better bill in the first place) matter in the long run?

JVW: It can be amended in such a way as to be rendered irrelevant, certainly. Removing provisions for warrantless access is essential (or at least, very, very specific circumstances must be laid out for when procuring a warrant is too onerous); a real consideration for the security of any data that is collected (and how and when it would be disposed of), as well as who will pay for this collection of data would be nice too (the answer is consumers). But bottom line, it doesn’t sound like anybody has really be clamoring for these new powers, much in the way that nobody was particularly upset at having to fill out the long-form census.

That said, I don’t think this bill was just a big mistake that the government would have noticed if they’d just listened to their oh-so-clear-headed opponents from across the aisle. I think they wanted to pass it, in the form it was in, though I’m at a loss to explain why. I also don’t think the opposition parties fought this bill simply because they didn’t like what was in it. Political parties seem never to like what is in any bill any other party suggests, and in this respect I don’t think one can argue that the Conservatives should have listened to their opponents out of decency. It may have been smart to do so this time, but I think we’re way past decency, as unfortunate as that may be.

GM: Apparently the Vancouver Police came out in support of C-30, which probably isn’t that surprising. What will be entertaining is if the government uses ‘the police say they need it’ as an excuse to try and pass it, when police officials also said they needed the gun registry.

WM: Sorry, but (Conservative MP) Shelly Glover is a cop, and she says they don’t need it. Game. Set. Match.

GM: Apparently!

Sometimes trying to rectify the big government/small government that seem to simultaneously co-exist in the federal Conservative party gives me a headache.