OTTAWA—Government authorities have been making millions of requests to telecommunications companies for Canadians’ personal information as far back as 2006, newly released documents show.

Internal documents from Public Safety Canada reveal authorities requested telecom companies to turn over “basic subscriber information” at least1.13 million times a year between 2006 and 2008.

That figure matches revelations from the federal privacy watchdog earlier this year that authorities sought subscriber information 1.2 million times in 2011.

“It suggests that there have been huge numbers of requests for years now taking place largely below the radar screen . . . without very much public awareness,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor and Star columnist, who obtained the documents.

“Basic subscriber information” can include details like name, address, Internet protocol (IP) address, telephone number, email address and local service provider identity. The federal government and law enforcement agencies have argued this amounts to “phonebook information” — police seem to generally request names and addresses — but privacy advocates warn it can lead authorities to more personal and detailed information.

The documents reveal that the government was aware of the aggregate numbers in 2012, thanks to the Information Technology Association of Canada. ITAC vice-president Bill Munson said some, but not all, of their members provided information on warrantless requests to give government a better understanding of how frequently they occurred.

“They were ballpark numbers to begin with, and it wasn’t everybody or it wasn’t all the companies,” Munson told the Star. “It was just to give an indication.”

While Ottawa had that ballpark figure, correspondence from Public Safety officials suggest that they didn’t have a clear understanding of which law enforcement agencies were requesting the subscriber information.

In April 2012, Public Safety contacted officials at Justice Canada, the Competition Bureau and the RCMP to clarify the number of warrantless requests they make per year.

In the documents, the RCMP said they do not track the number of “informal” warrantless requests — verbal or written — for “customer name and address” information.

“Police do not know across Canada, in all jurisdictions, how many (customer name and address) requests (telecoms) are answering voluntarily each year,” the documents state.

But they provide a number of examples of how the data are used. According to the documents, the ability to access basic subscriber information is crucial to child sexual exploitation cases, as well as national security and organized crime investigations.

The RCMP argued that in the early stages of a criminal investigation, it may not be possible to obtain a warrant for name and address information. Moreover, the force said that a warrant for such information is not an “effective or efficient” use of resources.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Public Safety and law enforcement officials point out there was no uniformity in telecom responses to warrantless requests. One telecom responded to requests only on Fridays, for instance, while another takes requests for subscriber information only through email.

Other telecoms, mostly in the eastern provinces, required a warrant for any request for subscriber information. Others handed over data without judicial authorization.

In a landmark ruling in June, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that that police must obtain a warrant to access basic subscriber information. Last week, Rogers and Telus became the first major telecoms to announce that they will require a warrant for the release of any subscriber information — save for in emergency situations.

It remains to be seen how the governing Conservatives will react to the Supreme Court decision. Currently, Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s Bill C-13 gives telecom companies legal immunity for voluntarily handing over subscriber information. Industry Minister James Moore’s Bill S-4 allows companies to voluntarily share their customers’ data with other companies.

Public Safety declined an interview for this article. In an emailed response, a spokesman for the department wrote they continue to study the Supreme Court decision.