One (user-friendly) way of considering a gradient of ‘privacy levels’ for the Internet. Certainly a reasonable way of thinking about things generally.
Author: Christopher Parsons
Policy wonk. Torontonian. Photographer. Not necessarily in that order.
A Three Front Legal Campaign: CSEC, Metadata and Civil Liberties:
There are now three lawsuits in Canadian courts related to the Communications Security Establishment Canada’s intercept of metadata. These are:
- BC Civil Liberties Association’s action for a declaration in BC Superior Courtalleging that CSEC’s intercept activities violate sections 8 and 2 of the Charter.
- BCCLA’s class action in Federal Court, brought “in order for those persons whose private communications and/or metadata have been intercepted to have access to remedies under s.24 of the Charter once the issues of the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions, Authorizations and Directives are resolved in the [BC Supreme Court] Declaratory Action”.
- Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)’s application for a declaration in Ontario Superior Courtthat sections 7 and 8 of the Charter are violated by those provisions in the FederalPersonal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act(PIPEDA) that permit government agencies (including, it is alleged, CSEC) to obtain personal information from Canadian telecommunications companies with prior judicial authorization.
These cases overlap. The BCCLA class action is intended to be derivative of its BC Superior Court declaratory action. The CCLA case seems likely to engage the question of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy of metadata in the possession of third party telecommunications providers. That question must inevitably also arise in the BCCLA declaratory action.
If you track surveillance and national security issues in North America you know that litigation of these issues has been ongoing and active in the United States. An oft-heard critique of Canada has been ‘where is the litigation?’ As Craig Forcese notes, there are a series of important actions ongoing in Canada that may significantly affect how our signal intelligence agency conducts its business on behalf of Canadians.
Here’s Proof Canada Is Snooping on People’s Twitter Accounts:
The government logged all those “asshole” tweets directed at Vic Toews.
I’m am increasingly impressed with the length, clarity, and directness of Vice’s tech reporting in Canada. It’s quickly becoming one of the best sources in Canada for this kind of news.
The Pressure’s On Harper to End Online Spying — Let’s Keep it Up:
And let’s not forget that criticism of the online spying bill comes from across the political spectrum. We’ve seen leading figures from the NDP, the Liberals, and the Green Partyall speak out against this reckless online spying plan. None of this would have happened without you and tens of thousands of other Canadians taking action to pressure decision-makers. And our own Steve Anderson is planning to take your voices directly to leading MPs. Steve is currently scheduled to testify on June 3 before key MPs on the Parliamentary committee examining Bill C-13 – we’ll let you know early next week how you can help shape Steve’s testimony.
That’s not all. In the past few days alone we’ve seen two major efforts from members of Canada’s largest-everPrivacy Coalitionto curtail the government’s out of control spying. First, coalition members at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association joined with leading expert Dr. Chris Parsons to announce alandmark constitutional challengeto the parts of Canada’s privacy legislation that enable the government to obtain our private information without a warrant.
Second, dozens of top privacy experts, supported by pro-privacy groups including OpenMedia.ca, launched the Ottawa Statement on Mass Surveillance – a set of high-level proposals to rein in out-of-control government spying for once and for all. (Learn more and sign on to the Statement here)
A good summary piece of the actions taking place in opposition to contemporary Canadian government surveillance practices. There’ll be another piece coming out in a while that’s even more comprehensive: it’s actually pretty amazing how much is going on in Canada post-Snowden once you list it all!
Declaration on mass surveillance calls for new privacy measures:
One of the voices behind a new declaration on mass surveillance says Canada needs a commission of inquiry to ensure governments and corporations respect privacy in an era of big data.
While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment behind the Ottawa Statement, I remain unclear about how useful it is – when presenting the Statement to the media – to state that the current government of the day is unlikely to listen to anything the signatories have signed off on. If that’s the case, then what is the aim of the Statement itself?
Categories
The Internet Is Burning
Online security is a horrifying nightmare. Heartbleed. Target. Apple. Linux. Microsoft. Yahoo. eBay. X.509. Whatever security cataclysm erupts next, probably..
One of the better, more cogent, recent articles on the hell that is contemporary Internet security.
RCMP use of data may spark probe:
Canada’s privacy watchdog is considering a formal review into the RCMP’s use of Canadians’ personal data gleaned from telecom and Internet companies without a warrant. The potential review comes after the Mounties admitted to Parliament in April that they do not track how often requests are made for “basic subscriber information” from telecom and Internet service providers.
At this point, there is a Supreme Court of Canada case concerning warrantless disclosure of data, a constitutional challenge being mounted against the section of Canadian commercial privacy law authorizing such disclosures, newspaper editorials calling for a Royal Commission on Spying (based, in part, on these warrantless disclosures), along with additional (related) legal, policy, and advocacy efforts to reform contemporary surveillance in Canada. Something in the current regime has to give.
Stockwell Day calls for changes to cybercrime bill:
Former public safety minister Stockwell Day says he hopes the Conservative government takes “another look” at its bill to fight cybercrime and curtails some of the powers it would give to police.
This is a unexpected voice, now added to the chorus of experts calling for the lawful access provisions of C-13 to be split from the anti-sexting aspects of the legislation.
Federal privacy law faces constitutional challenge:
In 2011, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association said its members received a total of 1.2 million requests in one year, and disclosed information about 780,000 customers.
The civil liberties group acknowledges that law enforcement may need access to some personal information in specific circumstances, but says the current law is “too broad.”
Cara Zwibel, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the sheer scale of the disclosures concerns her group and makes it question the legitimacy of the requests.
“We know that there are implications for people when this kind of information gets shared, there’s also a lack of transparency,” she told CBC News in an interview.
Zwibel noted that people have trouble finding out from their telecom provider if government agencies have asked about them, and the government isn’t clear about what it does with the information, including sharing with foreign governments. Meanwhile, some people find themselves on no-fly lists without knowing how or why.
Civil liberties group seeks to have parts of online surveillance law struck down:
A national civil liberties group is challenging the constitutionality of a federal privacy law that allows Internet providers and other firms to disclose personal information to the government without a warrant.
…
The association is joined in the court action by researcher Christopher Parsons, who has helped lead an effort to ask Canadian telecommunication companies when and how they hand customer information to police and security agencies.
The association says the consequences of allowing government to have and share personal information without the person’s knowledge or consent can be very serious and violate fundamental constitutional rights.
Excited Pixels 