

Canadians need to get angry about government spying revelations - TheLegace
http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2013/09/19/canadians-need-to-get-angry-about-government-spying-revelations/

======
TheLegace
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-s...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-spy-
agency-might-have-illegally-eavesdropped-on-canadians/article13913875/)
[2][http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-
spy...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spying-
former-nsa-official-warns-canadians/article14430225/)
[3][http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-
announce](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce)

------
pokoleo
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
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...

~~~
richardlblair
"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
Since when is covering your face a religious issue?

My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her
family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face
wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony.

So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism
issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on
someone's religious beliefs?

Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a
baseball cap?

~~~
richardlblair
To be entirely honest, I don't really care what your wife wears.

This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is
explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a
belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may
cause harm to an individual or those around them.

I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't
judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too.

(Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my
belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)

~~~
Mikeb85
> No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief
> shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause
> harm to an individual or those around them.

So police and government officials shouldn't be able to identify someone
wearing a Niqab? Hiding one's identity is a safety issue, and harm could
follow...

I fully agree with the rest BTW, but you do need to realize, there are
unsavoury practices around the world that are justified by 'religious'
belief...

~~~
CanSpice
I'm not sure how wearing a Niqab while doing your desk job somehow constitutes
a security risk.

------
Sukotto
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
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
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.

------
Mikeb85
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...

~~~
TheHydroImpulse
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.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
It's infuriating how passive Canadians can be. The answer I hate the most when
I get worked up over privacy issues is "Well we all knew this was happening".
I just wanna tell them "enjoy your Nazi Canada then", but somehow I feel that
might not exactly win them over to my argument either.

Sorry for venting, I haven't been able to discuss politics or anything of
consequence in a critical way with a real-live person for quite some time.

~~~
TheHydroImpulse
haha. I feel the same way :). I find privacy, for the majority of the people,
is a non concern. They love their little lives, with a job, paying taxes, and
living. The government doesn't exactly encourage participation, they'd love to
hide these things. The more people participate, the less likely they'll be
able to get away with it.

It's quite disappointing here that not many people care. I find it appalling,
and ignorant.

------
dobbsbob
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
<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_Co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee).
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
They axed the Inspector General of CSIS who was critical of their escalating
privacy violations and cut the position permanently

------
throwwit
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
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.

