Quebec’s organized-crime crackdown hinges on BlackBerry intercepts:
Code-named Operation Clemenza, the operation by a joint anti-mob squad of Mounties and Montreal police targeted two organized crime cells
Over 1 million PIN to PIN messages intercepted. Hopefully consumers will begin to realize that Blackberry has largely been blowing smoke about the security of their consumer-grade backend infrastructure.
Cyberbullying law would let police ‘remotely hack into computers, mobile devices, or cars’:
Experts say police would be able to install viruses, or malware, into the electronics of anyone suspected of a crime, after gaining judicial approval.
…
“There’s a series of different tactics that they could adopt. They could engage in phishing schemes — deliberately serving infected files to computers — or it could involve sending URLs to people’s emails and when they click it, it infects their computers,” he said, adding that it could also involve installing malicious apps onto Canadians’ smartphones that work as listening devices. Police could even hack into a car’s OnStar to keep tracking of location, and call logs.
…
While C–13 is intended to target transmission data — call information, IP address, and location data — Mr. Parsons said it’s entirely possible that C–13 could capture basic data from Canadians’ Skype conversations, as well as a vast field of other digital information. “That’s the way that it reads,” he says.
The powers would still be subject to judicial oversight. The warrants are valid for two months for most crimes, but extends that to a year if the crime is terrorism-related, or if the suspect is connected to a criminal organization.
“Compounding that, there’s no reporting required,” Mr. Parsons said. “We won’t know if it’s 10 requests a year, a hundred requests a year, a thousand requests a year, or a million requests a year.”
Mr. Parsons calls it the dawn of Canadian ‘‘Govware.’’ Passing this bill, as is, said Mr. Parsons, “risks introducing significant, and poorly understood, new powers to the Canadian authorities.”
…
Mr. Fraser and Mr. Parsons raise the practical implication of the procurement process for this sort of software. If Ottawa contracts out the creation of a digital snooping program, it risks legitimizing the creation of malware, said Mr. Parsons, adding that Ottawa should be fighting to improve the security of our electronics, not exploiting their weaknesses.
Another good piece by Justin Ling, who is quickly becoming a key go-to reporter for all federal government issues privacy- and surveillance-related issues.
A Crisis of Accountability — The Canadian Situation:
The significance of Edward Snowden’s disclosures is an oft-debated point; how important is the information that he released? And, equally important, what have been the implications of his revelations? Simon Davies, in association with the Institute of Information Law of the University of Amsterdam and Law, Science, Technology & Social Studies at the Vrie Universiteit of Brussels, has collaborated with international experts to respond to the second question in a report titled A Crisis of Accountability: A global analysis of the impact of the Snowden revelations.
You can read about the state of Canada, as well as the rest of the report, over at Technology, Thoughts, and Trinkets.
TekSavvy, Rogers break silence over government requests for data:
Two telecommunications companies have released details regarding the number of demands for customer data they receive from police and government authorities, signalling a shift in how communications providers plan to deal with subscribers’ privacy concerns.
…
TekSavvy’s report goes so far as to invoke the transparency principles of Edward Snowden, the U.S. security contractor – now charged with espionage – who one year ago started leaking top secret documents about Washington’s access to American citizens’ phone records.
“The Edward Snowden leaks based in the U.S. … have helped underline a key commitment that is required to achieve this mission, which is strong data privacy and transparency,” Bram Abramson, the company’s chief legal and regulatory officer wrote, adding, “TekSavvy has taken steps to strengthen our internal team dedicated to legal and regulatory matters.”
Mr. Abramson’s letter was written in response to requests from a group of privacy-oriented academics led by Christopher Parsons, a research fellow with Citizen Lab, which is part of the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. “[TekSavvy’s report] is the first time any telecommunications carrier in Canada has, in a public way, identified the conditions and the laws under which it may be required to preserve or capture or disclose information,” Mr. Parsons said in an interview.
Cartoon by Greg Perry
Spidey Senses tingling over C-13:
Critics of the new omnibus privacy-restricting legislation, says a Conservative Member of Parliament, would tie Spider-Man’s web-slinging hands.
This is the piece of the day – stylistically, perhaps the past month – on C-13. You should read it. Now.
Canadians are lax on privacy, Senate committee hears:
Bill S-220 would create parliamentary committee to oversee intelligence and security efforts
The fact that a former director of CSEC is asserting that it’s Canadians’ own fault that their privacy is being infringed upon is hopefully just rhetoric and not reflective of his real beliefs. As he must know, there are enormous pressures that individuals face to use contemporary communications services and never be cognizant of the full ramifications about the use of those services.
Such pressures have little to nothing to do with social media: just consider the leaking of information from mobile and desktop systems that follows from just leaving the device on or using it for the most basic functionalities. In the drive to make corporate consumer surveillance ‘transparent’ consumers have become grossly disadvantaged; learning and understanding how systems work, today, requires an immense effort. Such an effort should not be demanded to log into email or social media accounts, or fully grasp why a targeted ad has been displayed.
Of course, Mr. Adams knows this. He understands that privacy has not been designed into services and that, once alerted to gross and pervasive failures, informed people are routinely astounded, shocked, and angry. Most of the Internet uses the equivalent of Pintos and the NSA, CSEC, and other five eyes partners know exactly where the gas tanks are. They’re just reluctant to tell the rest of us and then blame us when we learn we’ve been rolling around the Internet-equivalent of privacy deathtraps.
Critics decry new Privacy Commissioner’s appointment:
Daniel Therrien, nominated as Canada’s next privacy commissioner, is too close to the data-mining programs he must critque, the opposition says
For the letter the civil liberties groups, academics, and concerned citizens signed onto, see this .pdf
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.
Excited Pixels