Archive for category Privacy
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement mostly negotiated in secret by quite a few governments bordering the pacific ocean. Canada has been a part of these negotiations and is committed to ratifying the treaty. Both US presidential candidates are now on the record against this treaty, while current US president Barack Obama has vowed to ratify the treaty in his lame duck session of his second term. So what exactly is the TPP?
I’ve come across a recently posted video on youtube that very clearly explains the TPP and concerns regarding the ratification of the treaty in the below video. Warning that this video is also NSFW and contains strong language:
For those of you who want an in-depth policy and law look at the concerns of ratifying the TPP; Canadian Internet law expert Michael Geist has an excellent in depth series of blogs on quite a few concerns with ratifying the TPP for those of you who like your policy research. I’ll be writing my own series of blogs on the TPP in the coming months as well.
The Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, Court Martial Appeal Court and Tax Court are preparing to take the Canadian government to task on ensuring independence from the federal government regarding its data. Under the past conservative government, all these levels of the courts were to submit to a super-IT department as of September 1st of last year that would see all government services including Canadian courts using the same IT department. The move by the last government to amalgamate IT services was seemingly to save money and streamline IT security.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, one super IT department could threaten its independence from Government. Briefing notes obtained by the Canadian Press last week, and provided to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau days after taking office, shows the courts are gearing up for a constitutional challenge on data independence. The briefing stated:
“[The courts] must maintain control of their data, not only because of concerns about confidentiality, but also because an independent judiciary cannot tolerate having its sensitive information controlled by a separate branch of government.”
The briefing notes also warned that if the Government doesn’t backtrack on this soon, it could face legal action and likely a constitutional challenge by the top judges in Canada. Advice given to Trudeau on how to handle this situation by his advisers was redacted in the briefing notes.
Prior to September 1st last year when these new IT rules came into play, top court officials wrote a letter to senior bureaucrats in the Conservative government demanding that agents of Parliament such as the Auditor General, Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner should be exempt from amalgamated IT services. Yesterday, the new Liberal government went before the Supreme Court asking for a six month extension on right to die legislation. Should the court deny that extension, this spat over IT services and data independence could end up being an interesting back story.
(Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale)
During the election the Liberals heard from Canadians on the new anti-terror bill C-51, and promised to repeal sections of this bill that are problematic. We still don’t know exactly which provisions will be repealed. This past Friday, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale took to the airwaves stating that Canada must be a world leader in tackling radicalization. During the last election the Liberals promised to reform the Conservatives Anti-Terror bill promising to consult with the public and experts.
In 2009 I took part in the Governments copyright consultations. These consultations were held in town hall meetings with then Minister of Industry Tony Clement, and Heritage Minister at the time James Moore in a public forum. These town hall meetings were open up to the public, and also encouraged the public to attend online. There was also a forum set up by pollster Nic Nanos where people from across the country could air their concerns and debate those concerns in the forum setting regarding copyright legislation and digital rights. What came out of this consultation process was a balanced approach to copyright law based on the views expressed during the consultation process. A made in Canada approach to public policy regarding copyright.In my opinion this was one of the crowning achievements of the last Government when it came to public policy consultation (a process which the Conservatives later abandoned), and there’s a significant need in the debate between civil liberties and security that demands this type of consultation.
Since the NSA leaks from former NSA system administrator Edward Snowden there has been lengthy and informal debates around the issues between civil liberties and security. The Liberal platform during the last election promised evidence based approach to public policy, and widespread consultation with the public and experts on issues relating to the anti-terror bill. What better way to do that, than using the previous Governments copyright consultation process as a benchmark in the debate around anti-terror and radicalization.
If we are to become a world leader in tackling radicalization, than government needs to hear from not just stakeholders, but the public as well. The Liberals won the last election from what the polls suggested, not on the exclusivity of the Liberal platform and stance on the Conservatives anti-terror bill, but rather a vast majority looked to have voted strategically to overthrow Steven Harper’s Conservatives. Canadians will be watching very closely to how the Liberals treat the anti-terror bill, and whether the current Government will take the time to consult broadly with the public, rather than using their elected mandate to ignore public concerns on the bill and shut them out of any consultation process.
If we are to become a world leader in tackling radicalization, we must also become a world leader in listening to public will, and working together to come up with solutions that are balanced and encompass a wide range of views. Only then can other world leaders look upon Canada as a beaming example of how to get it right. For Canada to become a world leader in tackling radicalization we must develop a balanced approach to policy. In order to achieve that true balance, all Canadians should be broadly consulted in a more formal manner by Government.
From the Paris attacks to last week’s mass shootings in California, like many in the civilized world over the past month I’ve been trying to wrap my head around these attacks, and why under mass surveillance are they continuing to happen with greater frequency.
Last week the 42nd parliament resumed with no word or mention from the Liberal government in the throne speech on one of the parties biggest promises, which was to fix the Conservatives anti-terror bill C-51. On this past Sunday, US President Barack Obama took to the airwaves from the oval office, and told Americans that with the build-up of the Russian military in Syria, that the US fight against ISIL will remain an intelligence gathering and special forces mission. Could the Liberal government here in Canada be stalling on anti-terror reforms as a result of US pressure?
I recently watched an investigative report on ISIL’s recruitment of women in the UK. The investigation took almost a year to complete. The report detailed one undercover Muslim women’s journey to seek out and try to get accepted into an ISIL cell. After 3 weeks of baiting radicalized ideology exclusively and very openly on Twitter, she started getting re-tweets and reply’s back from known ISIL terrorists. Within a few months, she was able to penetrate an ISIL supported cell in the UK and record with hidden cameras the meetings with other female ISIL supporters.
ISIL is using social media very openly on Twitter and Facebook to recruit people to their cause. Obama stated in his oval office address that he expects social media companies to do more in dealing with radicalized individuals. Twitter for its part in the UK investigative report started suspending radicalized accounts including the undercover journalist, which can be counterproductive to the intelligence community. In Canada under our anti-terror law C-51 it is a crime to openly support ISIL. This type of law makes our collection of targeted intelligence against ISIL that much harder, as those communications move from a public forum on the internet, to more private one making it that much harder for our law enforcement to track. What the Conservative government did with C-51 is make Canada less secure.
Dealing with radicalized ideology very much needs to be countered. The answer isn’t mass surveillance, its targeted surveillance. France for instance, has one of the world’s top intelligence agencies which specialize in Middle Eastern, and African intelligence. Yet one cold November night Paris came under attack by radicalized ISIL supporters. The problem is that there is too much information coming into our intelligence agencies as a result of mass surveillance, that these intelligence agencies miss what’s happening in plain view. Many intelligence professionals took to the airwaves after the Paris attacks stating that mass surveillance is only useful after the fact, and not in preventing terror attacks.
How do we counter radicalized ideology? You can’t counter someone’s belief systems with bombs and killing, you counter it with facts, and common sense. Going back to that UK investigative report, what should have been done is that the Muslim leadership in the UK should be showing other investigative pieces as to what happens with women and girls once they are in ISIL controlled territories. PBS did an excellent investigative piece on this. Women and girls in ISIL controlled territories are continually raped, beaten and passed around like trading cards. Those women that are often loured by the extreme ideology of ISIL, find themselves trapped in hell (not utopia) and are often wanting to flee for their lives.
Canada needs to be a leader in changing the conversation away from mass Internet surveillance to one that is targeted surveillance. There is no need for C-51. Laws before C-51 very much allow for this to already be done within the scope of the criminal code of Canada. We need a national strategy that is inclusive among Canada’s Muslim community to deal with radicalization. The Liberals promised to base their positions on fact based policy making. We’ve seen no indication from last week’s throne speech that will happen with C-51, and with the past months events in Paris and around the world, I think Canadians expected the anti-terror policy to be at the top of the Liberals policy agenda. Instead it’s been excluded as a top priority, and was a top priority for the Liberals during the election. I don’t think Canadians can expect meaningful reforms to C-51 in the future, if the US is pressuring for more mass surveillance.
Has the Conservative Party of Canada hacked into your profile and “liked” their Facebook page on your behalf without your knowledge or consent? Reports are popping up including one from a reporter at the CBC that they are being “like hijacked” by the Conservative party. According to a CBC report, the hijacked likes could be a result of embedded computer script in Facebook videos and links launching malware bought and paid for by the Conservatives. The computer script could have the potential to reach deep into your personal profile. When questioned on this, all the other parties denied that they are engaged in the activity of hijacking Facebook users accounts, however a Conservative spokesperson wouldn’t confirm or deny the party was behind the malicious hijacks.
In an e-mail to the CBC the Conservatives stated it was “an internal party issue.” The Conservatives may be acting against their own anti-spam laws with respect to this, and if the Conservatives are hijacking Facebook users accounts, one has to question what other information has been collected by the Conservatives (if they have access to your account to like their page) that was transmitted to the party which could be very personal information the Conservatives might use to profile you as a potential voter, which also could be against Canadian privacy laws.
Whatever the case maybe, hacking into users Facebook accounts is not just extremely creepy and potentially illegal; it’s also a form of stalking and desperation by a party who is not very popular on social media and having trouble getting their message out. Liking any Facebook page will automatically show updates to that page in your news feed. Facebook users are encouraged to look at their “activity logs” to ensure there are no unwanted Conservative Party Facebook page “likes”.
More to come on the legal aspect of all of this soon.
Prime Minister Steven Harper has decided to accept debate invites from Rogers/Macleans/CityTV which are outside of the traditional major networks. The NDP has also joined in and accepted the invites for the Rogers/Macleans/CityTV debates as well. As I noted last in last nights post, the political bias around the coverage of the Liberal party by these networks is becoming obvious. From misleading Canadians on copyright to try and protect the Liberal party from political attacks, to the lack of coverage of major social media backlash on the new anti-terror bill towards the Liberal party, all of this seems to have been the final nail on the coffin for the media consortium.
More to come…
“You have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
That line has been consistently used throughout history, but most notably by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inauguration on March 4th, 1933. Roosevelt’s speech wraps up the context of the political debate we currently find ourselves in here in Canada regarding the politics of fear.
This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. – Franklin D. Roosevelt
At the time, Roosevelt was speaking to the US’s economic crisis during the great depression, but the political message behind this and the politics of fear reign true today. Dishonesty, and unjustified fear inhibits our ability to move forward with progressive laws that advance Canadian beliefs. It’s only those that stand up to fear that show true strength in leadership, and create men and women who become revered and admired as great leaders.
Nothing could be more of an example of rejecting fear politics than the outcome of the Alberta election in which the people of the province rejected fear and lead a normally conservative province to an NDP majority victory. The lesson most progressive leaders should have taken; rejecting fear as Roosevelt put it, is essential to political victory. If you can’t speak the truth and stand up to fear, you shouldn’t be leading this country at a time of war.
Bill C-51 (Canada’s new anti-terror legislation) passed yesterday with Liberal support. This piece of legislation proposes to suspend the charter rights of those “suspected” of terrorist activities, and those who are causing dissent within government policy. This has created unjustified fear for political gain.
The Liberal position is that they believe it’s needed, and will fix the constitutional issues with it once elected. They propose doing this by putting in more oversight, and throwing in “sunset clauses” to ensure that the suspension of charter rights is only temporary. This position abandons the very evidence based approach the Liberals have traditionally taken with law and legislation, and has thrown the Liberal base under the bus as a result.
There is no evidence to suggest the type of mass surveillance is needed under the new anti-terror legislation, and the Liberals have yet to come out with an evidence based sustainable approach to terrorism. That’s a whole different blog for another day (and believe me that blog will come), however in over 14 years of this exact policy being enacted by different governments around the world, there is no evidence to suggest that the powers given in this new anti-terror legislation will do anything to catch terrorists, and mass murderers. In fact, what has surfaced is the abuses by law enforcement and government when these new powers are enacted even with political, judicial, and civilian oversight. All anyone has to do is look at the Snowden documents.
Some in the Liberal Party are justifying the support of C-51 by way of political maneuvering (here’s Jeff Rock who is the federal Liberal candidate for Red Deer-Lacombe on the subject) :
— Jeff Rock (@JeffreyTRock) May 7, 2015
If in fact the Liberal party is afraid of their political opponents; what kind of Prime Minister will Justin Trudeau be? What’s more surprising is how Jody Emery (the princesses of pot) is justifying her continued support for the Liberal party after the C51 vote yesterday and months after the Liberals considered her riding nomination (which she lost) poisonous to the party:
Problem is Ms. Emery shouldn’t be fearful at all. C51 has been put into place through fear. Being less fearful, is still being afraid. Bill C51 needs to be scrapped and re-written with the lessons of the past 14 years of this failed policy put into place. If we continue down the road of fear, than we make Canada less safe as a result, and paralyze the efforts of advancement in policy that will make a difference in Canadian national security, and ensuring that Canadians #rejectfear.
The Liberal support of C51 has created fear and distrust among the electorate towards the party. If the Liberal position is based around fear of attack ads, the Liberals need not fear the conservative attack ads, but fear those who #rejectfear and will ultimately prevail in political victory.
The Liberal party is full of fear. Fear of being attacked, fear of being irreverent. Trudeau for the longest time has been afraid of making a mistake, often reading talking points in speeches and during question period. What they don’t realize, is that fear has put them on a very steep hill to political victory, when the electorate is sending a strong message of rejecting fear. Liberal supporters should be afraid after last nights Bill C51 vote, but not by way of the Conservatives or NDP:
I’ve got a feeling Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are going to pay a heavy price for supporting #C51
— Peter Nowak (@peternowak) May 7, 2015