insert witty title here

An interesting ethics question in this morning's edition of the newspaper. I've tracked down an online version at the London Free Press.

In a nutshell, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) feel that the general public should pay at $0.25 surcharge on their monthly telephone and internet bills to cover the administrative costs of telephone and internet surveillance. The telephone companies on the other hand, feel that the public should not have to pay that sort of charge.

As taxpayers we all end up eating the cost regardless, so whether it's in a direct surcharge or whether it's buried in higher municipal taxes the bill still has to be paid. Nevertheless, it strikes me as a particularly bureaucratic attitude within the CACP if they are just waving their collective arm in the direction of the public and saying "let them pay for it" rather than feeling obliged to make any effort at finding efficiencies within their organizations to reduce those costs.

Here's the article:

Police want public to pay wiretap bills

OTTAWA -- Canada's police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists and other criminals. The suggestion is intended to resolve a standoff between police forces and telecommunications companies over who should foot the expense of providing investigators with access to phone calls and e-mail messages.

Police say they cannot -- and should not -- be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab.

"This is a very, very serious issue for us. It has a potential for really paralysing operations," said Supt. Tom Grue, a member of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

But the country's largest phone company believes telecommunications firms and law-enforcement agencies, not subscribers, should split the costs. "We think there should be more of a partnership between the agencies and us, rather than getting the public to pay for it," said Bell Canada spokesperson Jacqueline Michelis.

The matter has taken on new urgency as the federal government prepares legislation aimed at preventing criminals from using new digital technologies to shield their communications from police and intelligence agencies.

Authorities argue the measures are needed to keep up with sophisticated criminals involved in such activities as terrorism, money laundering, child pornography and murder.

The legislative proposals, outlined two years ago, have raised the hackles of privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

Bubbling in the background is the equally thorny debate about money.

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

Grue, a member of the Edmonton police force, said the costs should be spread as widely as possible to avoid unduly burdening a small number of parties.

The association of police chiefs, which represents the majority of Canadian forces, argues one way to accomplish that is adding a fee to each subscriber's monthly telephone, cellular or Internet bill.

"We're thinking, amongst ourselves, 25 cents. Whether that would cover off all the costs, we don't know. We haven't done the analysis on it," Grue said. Grue compares the proposed fee to the one customers already pay to support 911 emergency service, which ranges from about 25 to 50 cents a month depending on the type of telephone plan.

Bell Canada's Michelis wants to pull the plug on the idea of a wiretap charge.
"We don't really think the cost should be flipped over to the general public," she said. " Twenty-five cents is a really significant amount to add to everybody's phone bill."

Tom Copeland, a spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, said tacking a fee on monthly bills "might work," but could create a burdensome administrative regime that hampers companies, especially small ones with few staff.
Federal officials have convened meetings of the various players to try to work out the issues.

Copyright © The London Free Press 2001,2002,2003