The two associations representing police chiefs in B.C. should be subject to freedom of information laws, according to B.C. Privacy and Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham.
After years spent covering the issue, journalist Rob Wipond is finally getting some transparency into how police chief organizations operate in BC!
The border agency says that in 2012, only 25 of its 19,000 requests were refused by the telecoms, and only 13 customers were notified that the government had sought their records. Aspects of the handovers seem to happen automatically – with the telecoms typically charging only $1 to $3 for a “BSI” request and the answers usually coming back within three business days.
Every other federal investigative agency says it cannot or will not publicly provide such precise details of their relationships with the telecoms.
…
In this context, the CBSA disclosure is important and unprecedented, say digital privacy experts, who argue that the agency’s numbers suggest many more exchanges are occurring between the telecoms and other government agencies as well.
“It makes me wonder what other structures and costs are in place,” said Christopher Parsons, a researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. He pointed out that the Mounties and Canada’s intelligence agencies failed to release data.
Though CBSA is being pilloried at the moment for the number of times that it accessed telecommunications data (18,849 times in 2012), the agency should be congratulated as comprehensively responding to MP Borg’s questions. Only the Transportation Safety Board provided a comparable degree of accountability to the Parliamentarian. While I’d like CBSA to go further – we shouldn’t depend on a Parliamentarian’s curiosity to learn about state surveillance practices – the agency has, ultimately, created the model that other federal institutions ought to be forced to follow.
Source: Border agency asked for Canadians’ telecom info 18,849 times in one year
…Justice Canada says the proposed legal shield against liability offers nothing new. “This protection already existed under the jurisprudence,” said spokeswoman Carole Saindon in an e-mail responding to Globe questions. She added that the “language in the bill is not a substantive change.”
Privacy advocates are not reassured by any of this.
The “unaccountability is absolutely unacceptable,” blogged Chris Parsons, a researcher for the University of Toronto Citizen Lab on Thursday. “And it’s made worse by the fact that the currently proposed lawful-access legislation, C–13, would indemnify [Internet Service Providers] for sharing even more information with state authorities while not requiring these authorities to report on how often, and to what extent, they ‘request’ such information.”
Needless to say, I fundamentally disagree with Justice Canada’s position that they sufficiently account for federal agencies’ surveillance programs. And if the liability shield that is being introduced in C-13 isn’t needed and the language not a substantive change then the government should be happy to remove it when the lawful access bill goes to committee.
I’ve been busy parsing a nice hefty government document that documents a lot of federal agencies’ surveillance practices the past few days, and my post on “Accountability and Government Surveillance” is the result. It’s admittedly long but is fairly interesting. Go read!
The report repeatedly emphasizes that the protests had been peaceful, but considers possible triggers for escalation. The sections of the documents that actually deal with what evidence the government had that the protests might have taken a violent turn, and what it would have done if that had happened, were not disclosed.
…
The report repeatedly emphasizes that the protests had been peaceful, but considers possible triggers for escalation. The sections of the documents that actually deal with what evidence the government had that the protests might have taken a violent turn, and what it would have done if that had happened, were not disclosed.
Given CSIS’s ongoing efforts to monitor for threats against national oil interests and other resource extraction companies and associated policies, it’s not necessarily a surprise that the security agency was focusing in on Idle No More. Native land is, after all, required to effectively mobilize resources across Canada.
This said, Canadians generally should be mindful that our security agency was “planning for every eventuality, concerned by the decentralized, leaderless nature of the protests and the multiple motivations and influences that drove them.“ Mindfulness is needed for two reasons: first, because CSIS’s concerns will likely lead to enhanced attempts to map communications patterns to divine ‘leaders’ and ‘centralization’ within activist groupings. Second, because CSIS’s activities are known to include stretching or breaking the law by lying to federal justices. CSIS’s targeting of Aboriginal groups shouldn’t be ignored by other Canadian citizens as not ultimately affecting them as well.
What might be most damaging about CSIS’s actions is how they will (continue to) damage relations between Canada and the Aboriginal people’s. Rather than trying to find a way of working with Canada’s native peoples the Canadian government has again classified them as prospective threats: that’s not how you develop a trusted negotiating relationship, let alone try to heal age-old wounds. And no matter how much surveillance CSIS engages in they can’t guard every mile of roads or pipelines that are used in extracting and transporting Canada’s natural resources.
Talking with Salmon, Goodman said she has an “enormous amount of evidence, including evidence which is not public,” persuading her Dorian Nakamoto is the right guy. “Goodman has not decided whether or how she might publish that evidence… What’s more, she has also made it clear that she was in possession of evidence which other journalists could not obtain,” Salmon wrote.
And that’s a problem, because many aspects of the story already look like a caricature of journalism gone awry. The man Goodman fingered as being worth $400 million or more is just as modest as his house suggests. He’s had a stroke and struggles with other health issues. Unemployed since 2001, he strives to take care of basic needs for himself and his 93-year-old mother, according to a reddit post by his brother Arthur Nakamoto (whom Goodman quoted as calling his brother an “asshole”).
If Goodman has mystery evidence supporting the Dorian Nakamoto theory, it should have been revealed days ago. Otherwise, Newsweek and Goodman are delaying an inevitable comeuppance and doubling down on past mistakes. Nakamoto’s multiple denials on the record have changed the dynamic of the story. Standing by the story, at this point, is an attack on him and his credibility.
Ars Technica has written one of the better critiques of the Newsweek story which (likely incorrectly) identified the man believed to have invented Bitcoin. It’s worth the read, if only to have the current state of debate over Newsweek’s story nicely summarized.
Source: The colossal arrogance of Newsweek’s Bitcoin “scoop”
I’ve just put up a longish thought piece on how Canadian telecommunications companies can practically move to improve the transparency of their corporate practices. Sometime in the next few weeks I intend on writing up how governments can develop accountability reports, and the importance in distinguishing between corporate transparency and government accountability as it relates to state surveillance.
We take a look at how Android Wear works, and even manage to break some stuff.
This is the most in-depth analysis that I’ve seen of the Android Wear API and functionality. I have doubts that predicating most/many of the ‘active’ uses of the Wearable through voice is going to be a super popular thing: I can’t recall the last time that I saw someone ask Siri a question, or used Google’s voice-based search. I’m sure that some people do engage in such behaviours, but I’ve never once seen it while riding public transit or walking around the cities I’ve visited or lived in. As a result, I’m left wondering: who is actually using voice-based commands to control their devices? And will expanding the kinds of devices that can receive such commands actually lead to mass changes in how people engage with technologies?
Source: In-depth with Android Wear, Google’s quantum leap of a smartwatch OS
I can take issue with an awful lot of academia, but was fortunate to have an incredibly supportive dissertation supervisor who did (and continues to do) his best to ensure that I landed either in a good academic, government, non-profit, or corporate position. And there’s never been a stigma attached when I’ve pursued these various options (really: there’s just been support and encouragement!)
But I know that my experiences aren’t common. The series that Karen is running over at her website on leaving academe is useful in just exposing what it’s like to leave an academic ‘life’, and the baggage that is often associated with that choice. Allesandria Polizzi’s pieces, in particular, strike me as explaining to academics and non-academics alike what it’s like to straddle academe and corporate life, and the difficulties that a lot of people face in simply trying to explain themselves to their academic and corporate colleagues.
Source: How I Left Academia: A Recovering Academic’s Introduction – Polizzi 2
If you find yourself wishing your province had a competitive fourth provider, you could move to friendly Manitoba or set up shop under Saskatchewan’s living skies. But you wouldn’t have to stay for long. It’s hard to believe, but this is the truth: it’s cheaper to buy a roundtrip plane ticket to Regina or Winnipeg, subscribe to one of these plans and then use it back home, than it would be to sign a contract in Toronto or Calgary.
For the Telus 1GB plan, you could fly roundtrip from Calgary to Regina for $369 and save yourself $350 (after paying for the plane ticket) on a two year 1GB plan.
For the Rogers 10GB plan, you would save a whopping $1,180 dollars after the price of airfare if you flew from Toronto to Winnipeg and signed up for service there.
It might sound crazy, but check for yourself. If you decide to fly to Winnipeg, look me up. I’ll even pick you up at the airport.
Aside from pushing up demand for air travel, it’s hard to see how this kind of pricing is beneficial to anyone but the wireless carriers’ shareholders and management. Canadian carriers like Bell, Telus, and Rogers are supposed to be affected with the public interest – not opposed to it.
We as a country won’t even get close to having a fair market until you can walk, not fly, to a provider offering reasonably priced service.
Ben Klass, “Wireless Carriers’ High Flying Prices”
Ben’s written a nice, punchy, piece about the new cellco price hikes. You should go read it.
Excited Pixels