7 ms·

Canadians need to get angry about government spying revelations

110 points by TheLegace 13y ago

TheLegace 13y ago
Some things I have been able to dig up. In his final report to Parliament, commissioner Robert Decary says some of the spying at Communications Security Establishment Canada may have affected Canadians in the past year. However, thanks to poor record-keeping, Mr. Decary – a retired judge who has been the agency’s independent watchdog since 2010 – said he can’t be sure.[1] CSEC is forbidden from intentionally collecting or analyzing information from Canadian citizens in Canada or abroad. However, the National Defence Act allows the defence minister to give CSEC written ministerial authorization to intercept private communications unintentionally while collecting foreign-signals intelligence.[1] Doesn't this contradict with the Canadian Privacy Act? Yet, while Mr. Binney compliments the surveillance acumen of Communications Security Establishment Canada, he also urged the Canadian public to scrutinize CSEC – especially given its long-standing close ties to the NSA. “They have integrated reps,” he said, referring to how the agencies swap personnel. He pointed out that they also share technology, such as a very powerful, recently revealed Internet-surveillance tool, code-named “XKeyscore.” “CSEC does not direct its activities at Canadians and is prohibited by law from doing so,” its chief, John Forster, said in a rare public statement. Yet, records recently obtained by The Globe show that CSEC has been developing its own secretive programs to “incidentally” monitor at least some Canadian telecommunications traffic.[2] Some of Mr. Snowden’s leaks speak to the NSA’s close relationship with CSEC – suggesting, for example, that the two agencies teamed up to spy on foreign diplomats at a 2009 G20 meeting in London, and may have also been in cahoots to install a back door to spy on encrypted messages on the Internet in 2006.[2] At the time, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment ran the standards process for the international organization, but classified documents describe how ultimately the N.S.A. seized control. “After some behind-the-scenes finessing with the head of the Canadian national delegation and with C.S.E., the stage was set for N.S.A. to submit a rewrite of the draft,” the memo notes. “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor.”[3] So CSEC was being coerced by NSA and completely gave up control. Although I can respect the apparent "restraint" Canadian government has, but clearly system can be abused and will stay way under the radar compared to NSA and GHCQ. [1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-spy-agency-might-have-illegally-eavesdropped-on-canadians/article13913875/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-s... [2]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spying-former-nsa-official-warns-canadians/article14430225/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spy... [3]http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce
pokoleo 13y ago
As a Canadian, I'm more angry about the proposed human rights violations in Quebec. This "charter of values" is blatantly racist. http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/3 http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/3
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Not sure I'd necessarily say racist... They should simply require all religious jewellery to be hidden/covered up for employees, and not allow covered faces. The ban on turbans and head-scarves is too much though. It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right...
  - jdjb 13y ago
    "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." It's still wrong to lose your government job because of religious descrimination.
    - thex86 13y ago
      This will result in a brain drain for Quebec. There are many people who wear "religious symbols" that I know that are doctors, engineers in Quebec to whom their religion matters. They will most likely leave the province if this comes into effect.
  - richardlblair 13y ago
    "Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..." "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
Mikeb85 13y ago
Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics, though we certainly should shine more light about the issue, and maybe take away Steven Harper's majority if they don't respect our wishes. At least we have a (mostly) functional political system, with viable 3rd parties, better representation, etc... Harper has to call elections by 2015 I believe, and it wouldn't be a stretch for an NDP-Bloc-Green coalition to form a government... Steven Harper is my MP, maybe I'll send him an email. Edit - also seems as though current polls show a slim lead for the Liberals...
- richardlblair 13y ago
  "Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics" Absolutely right. Except my comments further down, we tend not to get too upset. Although, I'm really happy Vic Toews is gone. That man was horrid.
- TheHydroImpulse 13y ago
  I think that's a negative, in a way (the not being too angry or upset on politics). It seems not a lot of us (the general Canadian population) cares, or even understands what's going on. Everyone I talk to is either too ignorant about international, or even domestic affairs, or simply responds with "uhuh," or "meh." People don't seem to truly understand what kind of effect this has. Not only on people's privacy, but on the ultimate government control. If nobody responds, it basically gives the government a green light to do it again, and again. I'd disagree with our "functional political system." There's so many systems in-place that warrant a conservative behaviour. Such as the vote of non-confidence, first-past the post, no set terms or set maximum time in office, etc... It encourages the government to only act in their best interest. Only being interested in staying in office. Thus, potentially controversial or progressive bills would be worthless to make. So they do the same "safe" thing. I would also argue that we have really bad representation (not relative to any other country - just an absolute bad). Some have proposed other voting systems such as proportional representation. But this creates even more problems, such as common coalition, which I wouldn't classify as a good thing. But perhaps this is only because I'm ready for a lot of change in how things work, and not always acting on the status-quo. It seems the only way to really fix things, is to radically change a slew of systems - which most likely won't happen.
dobbsbob 13y ago
Since Canada, Australia, NZ and UK are part of the 5 eyes alliance obviously our agencies are just as rogue and illegal as the NSA. This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered
- canistr 13y ago
  <I>This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered</I> Well, that's factually incorrect since the Security Intelligence Review Committee oversees CSIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Co.... And there have been several hearings to which Richard Fadden has testified in front of MPs. However, it's worth pointing out that SIRC's credibility is shot with the appointment of people like Arthur Porter.
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    They axed the Inspector General of CSIS who was critical of their escalating privacy violations and cut the position permanently
throwwit 13y ago
I don't know aboot 'angry' but there should be defined laws on the books about what organizations (i.e. anti-keystone ppl) get placed under added scrutiny. Also, some of the ways attempted recently to garner support for internet censorship have also been somewhat offbeat. But they are at the vangaurd of things, pretty important stuff.
drderidder 13y ago
Both the NSA and CSE claim to avoid gathering data on their own citizens, yet there's unprecedented sharing of information going on between the "5 eyes" agencies, so those assurances have little practical value.
Sukotto 13y ago
Most Canadians I know have fallen prey to the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Those who have not seem discouraged/depressed about trying to hold back the tide of governmental privacy invasion AND/OR focusing all their attention on more visible issues like oil pipelines | religious symbols | taxation...
- pkaler 13y ago
  There is an easy way to dispel the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Ask them how much money they made last year, how long their penis is, and what medication they are currently on. Then inform them that you don't have the power to imprison them but the government does. I have successfully changed the mind of a dozen people in about 90 seconds. You have to shock people out of their stupor.
  - thex86 13y ago
    Since I am in the < 25 years age category, I tend to hit them where it huts the most. Here is what a usual conversation goes like: Me: You should care about these things. X: But I have got nothing to hide! I don't care. (Then I get the look, "Do you have something to hide?") Me: OK. Since you have nothing to hide, please give me your Facebook password so that I can go through your FB inbox. Also, your Gmail and Skype passwords would be good to have, since you have nothing to hide. Never fails to work. I think the issue is that people tend to place certain "trust" with the government and that their information won't be misused and have this notion that the government can't do no wrong. But they tend to forget that there are people in a government.
- thangalin 13y ago
  A society that "permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to remain a liberal democracy." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2175406 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2175406

110 points by TheLegace 13y ago

Some things I have been able to dig up. In his final report to Parliament, commissioner Robert Decary says some of the spying at Communications Security Establishment Canada may have affected Canadians in the past year. However, thanks to poor record-keeping, Mr. Decary – a retired judge who has been the agency’s independent watchdog since 2010 – said he can’t be sure.[1] CSEC is forbidden from intentionally collecting or analyzing information from Canadian citizens in Canada or abroad. However, the National Defence Act allows the defence minister to give CSEC written ministerial authorization to intercept private communications unintentionally while collecting foreign-signals intelligence.[1] Doesn't this contradict with the Canadian Privacy Act? Yet, while Mr. Binney compliments the surveillance acumen of Communications Security Establishment Canada, he also urged the Canadian public to scrutinize CSEC – especially given its long-standing close ties to the NSA. “They have integrated reps,” he said, referring to how the agencies swap personnel. He pointed out that they also share technology, such as a very powerful, recently revealed Internet-surveillance tool, code-named “XKeyscore.” “CSEC does not direct its activities at Canadians and is prohibited by law from doing so,” its chief, John Forster, said in a rare public statement. Yet, records recently obtained by The Globe show that CSEC has been developing its own secretive programs to “incidentally” monitor at least some Canadian telecommunications traffic.[2] Some of Mr. Snowden’s leaks speak to the NSA’s close relationship with CSEC – suggesting, for example, that the two agencies teamed up to spy on foreign diplomats at a 2009 G20 meeting in London, and may have also been in cahoots to install a back door to spy on encrypted messages on the Internet in 2006.[2] At the time, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment ran the standards process for the international organization, but classified documents describe how ultimately the N.S.A. seized control. “After some behind-the-scenes finessing with the head of the Canadian national delegation and with C.S.E., the stage was set for N.S.A. to submit a rewrite of the draft,” the memo notes. “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor.”[3] So CSEC was being coerced by NSA and completely gave up control. Although I can respect the apparent "restraint" Canadian government has, but clearly system can be abused and will stay way under the radar compared to NSA and GHCQ. [1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-spy-agency-might-have-illegally-eavesdropped-on-canadians/article13913875/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-s... [2]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spying-former-nsa-official-warns-canadians/article14430225/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spy... [3]http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce

pokoleo 13y ago

As a Canadian, I'm more angry about the proposed human rights violations in Quebec. This "charter of values" is blatantly racist. http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/3 http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/3

Mikeb85 13y ago
Not sure I'd necessarily say racist... They should simply require all religious jewellery to be hidden/covered up for employees, and not allow covered faces. The ban on turbans and head-scarves is too much though. It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right...
- jdjb 13y ago
  "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." It's still wrong to lose your government job because of religious descrimination.
  - thex86 13y ago
    This will result in a brain drain for Quebec. There are many people who wear "religious symbols" that I know that are doctors, engineers in Quebec to whom their religion matters. They will most likely leave the province if this comes into effect.
- richardlblair 13y ago
  "Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..." "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago

Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics, though we certainly should shine more light about the issue, and maybe take away Steven Harper's majority if they don't respect our wishes. At least we have a (mostly) functional political system, with viable 3rd parties, better representation, etc... Harper has to call elections by 2015 I believe, and it wouldn't be a stretch for an NDP-Bloc-Green coalition to form a government... Steven Harper is my MP, maybe I'll send him an email. Edit - also seems as though current polls show a slim lead for the Liberals...

richardlblair 13y ago
"Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics" Absolutely right. Except my comments further down, we tend not to get too upset. Although, I'm really happy Vic Toews is gone. That man was horrid.
TheHydroImpulse 13y ago
I think that's a negative, in a way (the not being too angry or upset on politics). It seems not a lot of us (the general Canadian population) cares, or even understands what's going on. Everyone I talk to is either too ignorant about international, or even domestic affairs, or simply responds with "uhuh," or "meh." People don't seem to truly understand what kind of effect this has. Not only on people's privacy, but on the ultimate government control. If nobody responds, it basically gives the government a green light to do it again, and again. I'd disagree with our "functional political system." There's so many systems in-place that warrant a conservative behaviour. Such as the vote of non-confidence, first-past the post, no set terms or set maximum time in office, etc... It encourages the government to only act in their best interest. Only being interested in staying in office. Thus, potentially controversial or progressive bills would be worthless to make. So they do the same "safe" thing. I would also argue that we have really bad representation (not relative to any other country - just an absolute bad). Some have proposed other voting systems such as proportional representation. But this creates even more problems, such as common coalition, which I wouldn't classify as a good thing. But perhaps this is only because I'm ready for a lot of change in how things work, and not always acting on the status-quo. It seems the only way to really fix things, is to radically change a slew of systems - which most likely won't happen.

dobbsbob 13y ago

Since Canada, Australia, NZ and UK are part of the 5 eyes alliance obviously our agencies are just as rogue and illegal as the NSA. This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered

canistr 13y ago
<I>This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered</I> Well, that's factually incorrect since the Security Intelligence Review Committee oversees CSIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Co.... And there have been several hearings to which Richard Fadden has testified in front of MPs. However, it's worth pointing out that SIRC's credibility is shot with the appointment of people like Arthur Porter.
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  They axed the Inspector General of CSIS who was critical of their escalating privacy violations and cut the position permanently

throwwit 13y ago

I don't know aboot 'angry' but there should be defined laws on the books about what organizations (i.e. anti-keystone ppl) get placed under added scrutiny. Also, some of the ways attempted recently to garner support for internet censorship have also been somewhat offbeat. But they are at the vangaurd of things, pretty important stuff.

drderidder 13y ago

Both the NSA and CSE claim to avoid gathering data on their own citizens, yet there's unprecedented sharing of information going on between the "5 eyes" agencies, so those assurances have little practical value.

Sukotto 13y ago

Most Canadians I know have fallen prey to the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Those who have not seem discouraged/depressed about trying to hold back the tide of governmental privacy invasion AND/OR focusing all their attention on more visible issues like oil pipelines | religious symbols | taxation...

pkaler 13y ago
There is an easy way to dispel the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Ask them how much money they made last year, how long their penis is, and what medication they are currently on. Then inform them that you don't have the power to imprison them but the government does. I have successfully changed the mind of a dozen people in about 90 seconds. You have to shock people out of their stupor.
- thex86 13y ago
  Since I am in the < 25 years age category, I tend to hit them where it huts the most. Here is what a usual conversation goes like: Me: You should care about these things. X: But I have got nothing to hide! I don't care. (Then I get the look, "Do you have something to hide?") Me: OK. Since you have nothing to hide, please give me your Facebook password so that I can go through your FB inbox. Also, your Gmail and Skype passwords would be good to have, since you have nothing to hide. Never fails to work. I think the issue is that people tend to place certain "trust" with the government and that their information won't be misused and have this notion that the government can't do no wrong. But they tend to forget that there are people in a government.
thangalin 13y ago
A society that "permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to remain a liberal democracy." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2175406 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2175406