The government made the proposal during consultations this year on a legislative package expected to be unveiled in the fall.

The proposal would amend the Criminal Code to expand the types of "tracking devices" available to police under a warrant.

The proposal was raised by justice officials with groups consulted by the government.

The definition of a "tracking device" would be changed to include a computer program, in addition to any other device that can be used to help identify the location of any thing or person.

The new definition of tracking device would take in such ubiquitous products as laptops with wireless Internet connections, cellphones with global positioning systems, and wireless personal digital assistants.

"What they are talking about clearly is devices which have an active and a passive component in the sense that the active component could be controllable by the user who could turn the machine on or off, but the passive device will be built in and accessible to police," said Richard Rosenberg, a retired University of British Columbia computer science professor and board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

"I think the assumption is that we should be trackable whether we want to or not," he said. "It's very creepy. We will be in a society where we will have this incredible density of interconnections which will make it almost impossible to ... exercise what I think is one of our basic rights, which is anonymity in a free and democratic society."

Rosenberg said it is possible to build devices that retain select functions, even when they seem to be turned off. "There's no reason it couldn't happen because it's not a big, complex thing to do," he explained.

Police are able to obtain warrants for tracking devices much more easily than for other types of electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

To get a warrant for a tracking device, police need only convince a justice of the peace they have "reasonable suspicion" an offence has been or will be committed and the tracking order will help their investigation. By contrast, for other types of surveillance authorities must at least demonstrate to a justice they have "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" that an offence has been or will be committed and information relevant to that offence will become available via the surveillance.

Vancouver lawyer Greg DelBigio, vice-chairperson of the national criminal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, said computers and cellphones might reveal a lot more information than the types of tracking devices currently contemplated by the Criminal Code. His 34,000-lawyer association does not accept that such a serious erosion of privacy should be allowed simply on the basis of police "suspicion" a crime might be in the offing.

"Technology is rapidly making it increasingly difficult to remain anonymous within the world and retain privacy, despite positive steps one might take to protect these interests," DelBigio said. "We must ask: 'Just because the technology exists, is it the case that law enforcement should have access to the technology or information available through that technology and, if so, in what circumstances and with what control?' "