In Toronto there’s a small group of people that are responsible for spending big and not thinking about the longer-term implications of their decisions now. This article highlights the current life that one such person has, with lots of time spent on how much he travels and drinks and parties while he travels. The subject of the piece consistently devalues experiences that are inexpensive, a devaluation of those who decide to have a family, and a broader (incorrect) focus on life just being about what wine you drink or what car you (temporarily) drive. It’s definitely one of the lowest ‘hate reads’ I’ve come across in recent memory.
Category: Links
The RCMP Is Trying to Sneak Facial and Tattoo Recognition Into Canada:
“That the RCMP is looking at purchasing this kind of capability is in line with what the FBI and other [law enforcement agencies] around the world are doing,” said Christopher Parsons, a postdoctoral fellow at Toronto-based surveillance research hub Citizen Lab.
A previously published RCMP document notes that all of the new system’s scanners for fingerprints and facial images “must have undergone testing by the FBI and be listed on the FBI Certified Products List.”
“However,” Parsons continued, “in all of those jurisdictions there are significant privacy concerns, concerns about the general efficacy of the technology, concerns about whether too much data is collected in the first place, and concerns linked to the risks associated with information sharing between departments.”
The FBI’s biometric database, called the Next Generation Identification (NGI), has been widely criticized by civil rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union due to the potential for abuse by officers. As numerous incidents in the UK and US have shown, police are sometimes unable to resist the urge to dip into a database of personal information to settle their own very personal scores.
There may be an additional privacy risk in Canada, Parsons wrote, thanks to recent legislation that made it even easier for federal agencies to share information. A January 2016 email sent to S/Sgt. Michael Leben, manager of RCMP latent fingerprint operations in Ottawa, states that the force’s new AFIS system is part of a joint venture with Canada Border Services Agency to identify people entering Canada.
The RCMP has a bid out where companies would have to be able to add-on facial recognition capabilities to the primary fingerprint-biometric system. And the RCMP currently lacks the authority to engage in such facial and bodily recognition. But that’s not stopping it from planning for the future…
The Megaupload saga has a new chapter, as the only person convicted by the US in relation to Mega’s file sharing system has broken his silence. Tänavsuu’s article is an in-depth interview with Andrew Nõmm, who did programming for the site and service. Nõmm takes strong issue with Kim Dotcom — he asserts regularly the Kim did nothing to assist Nõmm in his legal efforts — as well as with the Estonian government for their lack of support.
This is a relatively unique piece, insofar as it discusses the experiences of people within the Kim Dotcom empire, and from the perspective of someone who has directly suffered as a result of their association with the project and company. It’s worth the read, if only to understand how the US system deals with persons found guilty of significant copyright violation and some of the inner workings of the Mega projects.
In Germany it isn’t enough to say ‘no’ during intercourse: a person must actively resist, and that resistance be overcome, for the person to legally claim to have been raped. As a result of this Germanic understanding of rape a woman who alleges she was raped was found by a judge to have falsely accused her attackers and, as a result, led to renewed calls in the country to update its sexual assault and abuse laws.
This piece is excellent if incredibly depressing: for funding reasons (or, more cynically, failure of predominant male politicians to raise this issue on the political agenda…) women who are assaulted are often unable to access rape kits. These kits are used to collect evidence for potential criminal investigations pertaining to the assault.
But the end of the (very long, and detailed) article ends with an important reminder for readers who have gotten to the end:
Rape kits, ultimately, are only a small piece of a bigger problem with the justice system, says Hilla Kerner, a front-line worker at Vancouver’s Rape Relief Shelter.
She said rape kits are only helpful in cases that the attacker denies any sexual contact and DNA evidence can contradict that claim. It’s rare that this is a line of defense, she said—but when it is, the evidence gathered with a rape kit is vital.
Basically, if the accused’s DNA is found on the complainant’s body, it removes the line of defence of: ‘I don’t know her, I’ve never seen her before.’
“We shouldn’t fool ourselves that a rape kit is the solution to getting more cases through the criminal justice system,” Kerner said. “There is a need for urgent reform in the criminal justice system, and rape kits are just one element of the whole transformation that needs to happen.”
In other words, though we need to improve access to forensic services, we shouldn’t imagine that such access alone will alleviate the incredibly hostile approach the criminal justic system takes towards the victims of rape and sexual assault.
New York DA Wants Apple, Google to Roll Back Encryption:
[Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.] said that law enforcement officials did not need an encryption “backdoor,” sidestepping a concern of computer-security experts and device makers alike.
Instead, Vance said, he only wanted the encryption standards rolled back to the point where the companies themselves can decrypt devices, but police cannot. This situation existed until September 2014, when Apple pushed out iOS 8, which Apple itself cannot decrypt.
“Tim Cook was absolutely right when he told his shareholders that the iPhone changed the world,” Vance said. “It’s changed my world. It’s letting criminals conduct their business with the knowledge we can’t listen to them.”
Vance cited a recording of a telephone call made from New York City’s Riker’s Island jail to an outside line. In the call, a defendant in a sex-crimes case tells a friend about the miraculous powers of the new smartphone operating systems.
“Apple and Google came out with these softwares that can no longer by encrypted by the police,” the defendant allegedly said, mixing up encryption with decryption. “If our phones [are] running on iOS 8 software, they can’t open my phone. That might be another gift from God.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but if you’re able to quote the conversation they had about the encryption of the device, then isn’t it the case that law enforcement can, in fact, listen in to at least some of these supposedly sophisticated criminals? Regardless of their adoption of consumer-grade (i.e. incredibly common) tools and security protocols?
But more to the point: it has never been the case that government agencies have been able to compel, or access, all of the information they might find useful in the course of their investigations. That’s normal. Government agencies enjoyed incredible access to persons’ information for the course of a decade or so, as technology companies matured into firms that took the security and privacy of their customers seriously. Asking for the industry to return to a less-mature state is bad for everyone.
Finally: while domestic agencies might be worried about the situations where they cannot access the data at rest on the device, you can be sure that governmental staff who are abroad are very happy that they can use their devices with the knowledge that even foreign state actors will be challenged in accessing the data at rest which is stored on their smartphones. American (and Canadian) law enforcement agencies are understandably pushing for greater access to information but, by the same token, their success would mean that their compatriots in China, Brazil, France, Israel, and other friendly and unfriendly states would be able to lawfully gain entry to foreign agents’ devices. I’m pretty sure that diplomatic staff and military personel abroad are pleased that such an attack vector has been narrowed by Apple’s actions.
We are getting closer and closer to the Summer Olympics and, as they approach, more critical eyes are turned to Rio and the city’s state of preparation. The New York Times, in particular, has done a good job of synthesizing the various concerns and critiques associated with Brazil hosting the games: corruption and a functional coup have absorbed the electorate’s attention, costs are overrunning and major projects may only barely be finished on time, pollution at venues may lead to health issues with athletes, and the general economic and security conditions of the city are poor at best.
There is almost no doubt that Rio would not win the bid were they bidding for the games, today, given the state of things. But I also think that it’s important to remember that almost all countries and host-cities face incredible criticism in the run-up to any games. This was true of Beijing, of Vancouver, and of the various venues which have recently held the World Cup.
What will perhaps be most telling is the impact of the games after everyone has left. Will it be the case that the spending on infrastructure for the games prevents Rio from investing in desperately needed additional kinds of services for those worst off? Or will it be that many of the legacy improvements — such a the alert system that was set up to warn those in favelas of forthcoming major storms that could lead to mudslides — that are less talked about will genuinely improve the status of the most impoverished? And what, if anything, will be the lasting effects of Pacification that has taken place in recent years after the major events are over and the economy continues to contract?
A long read by the author of Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal, which unpacks the return of one of Twitter’s co-founders. It’s an instructive read into the poisonous culture of Twitter and the backbiting that characterizes the company…and seemingly has meant that it’s been unable to really determine what it’s about, for whom, and how it will be profitable to investors. The end is particularly telling, insofar as Twitter is seen as having one last chance — to succeed in ‘live’ events — or else have to potentially sell to a Microsoft or equivalent staid technology company.
An Internet Censorship Company Tried to Sue the Researchers Who Exposed Them:
Netsweeper is a small Canadian company with a disarmingly boring name and an office nestled among the squat buildings of Waterloo, Ontario. But its services—namely, online censorship—are offered in countries as far-flung as Bahrain and Yemen.
In 2015, University of Toronto-based research hub Citizen Lab reported that Netsweeper was providing Yemeni rebels with censorship technology. In response, Citizen Lab director Ron Deibert revealed in a blog post on Tuesday, Netsweeper sued the university and Deibert for defamation. Netsweeper discontinued its lawsuit in its entirety in April.
This woman is fed up with sexual harassment on the TTC:
Ross said the TTC does not track complaints of sexual harassment but it does track complaints about sexual assault. “Regardless of the number, one is too many.”
He said the TTC is developing an app that would allow riders to report harassment through their smartphones and it will give riders another tool to protect themselves when on TTC trains.
The TTC is developing an app, so people can report incidents, while mobile phone service isn’t offered to 90% of riders and wifi isn’t installed on the trains themselves.
Brilliant.