Tag: Government

Can Nulpunt “Abolish Government Secrecy?”

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date July 18, 2012

In a word: No.

Nulpunt is an online database that lets individuals subscribe to topics and, when a freedom of information request on the topic becomes available, ‘pushes’ the content to the user. This mediates the present format for such requests, where individuals tend to be hunting for specific information and the population generally has no effective means to see or understand the information divulged to fellow citizens.

The aspiration of the service is that government secrecy can be undermined by making information more prominently available. I’m not confident that this can possibly be the case because the service fails to address the primary means by which states keep citizens in the dark: it does not prevent state agents from refusing requests nor from redacting significant elements from released documents.

While it may be effective in nations such as the Netherlands, which have recently adopted new transparency laws, I can’t imagine Canada or the US moving to entirely new document release processes without a significant stick. Nulpunt is not, and cannot, function as that stick so long as governments refuse to recognize their situatedness as servants, rather than masters, of the population at large.

Tags ATIP, Citizens, Government

Videos

“There’s nothing to fear but fear itself, and the people who are spreading it.”

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date March 28, 2012

Tags Canada, Fear, Government, Harper

Links Writing

FYI: Governments Spy On Citizens. A Lot.

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date March 8, 2012

You often hear that if you’ve nothing to hide then government surveillance isn’t really something you should fear. It’s only the bad people that are targeted! Well….sorta. It is the case that (sometimes) ‘bad people’ are targeted. It’s also (often) the case that the definition of ‘bad people’ extends to ‘individuals exercising basic rights and freedoms.’ This is the lesson that a woman in the US learned: the FBI had secretly generated a 436 page report about her on the grounds that she and friends were organizing a local protest.

What’s more significant is the rampant inaccuracies in the report. The woman herself notes that,

I am repeatedly identified as a member of a different, more mainstream liberal activist group which I was not only not a part of, but actually fought with on countless occasions. To somehow not know that I detested this group of people was a colossal failure of intelligence-gathering. Hopefully the FBI has not gotten any better at figuring out who is a part of what, and that this has worked to the detriment of their surveillance of other activists. I am also repeatedly identified as being a part of campaigns that I was never involved with, or didn’t even know about, including protests in other cities. Maybe the FBI assumes every protester-type attends all other activist meetings and protests, like we’re just one big faceless monolith. “Oh, hey, you’re into this topic? Well, then, you’re probably into this topic, right? You’re all pinkos to us.”

In taking a general survey of all area activists, the files keep trying to draw non-existant connections between the most mainstream groups/people and the most radical, as though one was a front for the other. There are a few flyers from local events that have nothing to do with our campaign, including one posted to advertise a lefty discussion group at the university library. The FBI mentions that activists may be planning “direct action” at their meetings, which the document’s author clarifies means “illegal acts.” “Direct action” was then, and I’d say now, a term used to talk about civil disobedience and intentional arrests. While such things are illegal actions, the tone and context in these FBI files makes it sound like protesters got together and planned how to fly airplanes into buildings or something.

You see, it isn’t just the government surveillance that is itself pernicious. It’s the inaccuracies, mistaken profilings, and generalized suspicion cast upon citizens that can cause significant harms. It is the potential for these profiles to be developed and then sit indefinitely in government databases, just waiting to be used against law abiding ‘good’ citizens, that should give all citizens pause before they grant authorities more expansive surveillance powers.

Tags Citizens, FBI, Government, Privacy, Surveillance, United States

Links

Liberal Party of Canada Comes Out Against IMSI Catchers

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date March 5, 2012

I was surprised – and delighted – to see the Public Safety Critic for the Liberal Party of Canada recently come out against the use of IMSI catchers. Specifically, Francis Scarpaleggia said to Xtra!

The fact that the police do have technology that allows them to capture IMSIs, that means that they could theoretically, with that information, go to an ISP and get the identity of that person, even if the person’s just walking by innocently but they happen to be observing the crowd

This is a very, very good step in the right direction, and it’s terrific to see the technical concerns with forthcoming lawful access legislation actually rising to the attention of federal politicians. Hopefully we’ll see this kind of technical awareness rise all the way to statements in parliament and committee hearings on the legislation.

Tags Canada, Government, IMSI, Lawful Access, Liberal Party, Politics

Links

Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities write to Google

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date March 2, 2012

From the APPA’s letter to Google concerning Google’s new privacy police:

Initially, I would like to say that the TWG recognises Google’s efforts in making its privacy policies simpler and more understandable. Similarly, it notes Google’s education campaign announcing the changes. However, the TWG would suggest that combining personal information from across different services has the potential to significantly impact on the privacy of individuals. The group is also concerned that, in condensing and simplifying the privacy policies, important details may have been lost.

It’s a short, but valuable, letter for clarifying the principles that have privacy professionals concerned about Google’s policy changes. Go read it (.pdf link).

Tags Asia, Canada, Google, Government, Privacy

Links Writing

Canadian Carriers: No, You Can’t Compare Our Plans

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date March 1, 2012

I’ve talked about trying to pull together a measurable comparison of Internet service in Canada for a while, but as of yet haven’t had the resources to build a tool which meets my criteria. Industry Canada had a similar idea for basic cell phone services. Specifically, the government department created a calculator to help Canadians easily compare text/voice plans across Canada’s various mobile provides. We’ll never see the calculator, however, because:

Internal departmental records released to Postmediareveal that Clement’s decision came after direct lobbying from the likes of Rogers Communications, Telus and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. Clement defended the decision to shut down the calculator by stating that it was “unfair” in that it didn’t include bundled services mainly offered by, yes, the big telecommunications providers.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that this tool wasn’t provided – it would have been of real assistance to the large number of Canadians that aren’t using bundled services. What’s worse is that, rather than providing the tool in a ‘basic’ state and then scaling it depending on demand (the approach planned by Industry Canada) the whole project was scrapped. Not even the source code has been made available. Consequently, Canadians paid a fortune to develop a tool which met its basic design specs, and have nothing to show for it save for a large government bill and the continued hassle of trying to decipher the cacophony of mobile phone plans. Carriers: 1 Canadians: 0.

Tags Canada, Government, Mobiles

Links

Good, Brief, Interview on Trust and Security

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date February 28, 2012

An excellent piece from Bruce Schneier, in interview, concerning the relationship between trust and security. It’s short, so just go read it. For a taste:

My primary concerns are threats from the powerful. I’m not worried about criminals, even organised crime. Or terrorists, even organised terrorists. Those groups have always existed, always will, and they’ll always operate on the fringes of society. Societal pressures have done a good job of keeping them that way. It’s much more dangerous when those in power use that power to subvert trust. Specifically, I am thinking of governments and corporations.

Tags Crime, Government, Security, Terrorism, Trust

Aside Links

The Big Threats to Internet Security

Post author By Christopher Parsons
Post date February 26, 2012

Dan Goodin has a good piece on one of Bruce Schneier’s recent talks. From the top of the article:

Unlike the security risks posed by criminals, the threat from government regulation and data hoarders such as Apple and Google are more insidious because they threaten to alter the fabric of the Internet itself. They’re also different from traditional Internet threats because the perpetrators are shielded in a cloak of legitimacy. As a result, many people don’t recognize that their personal information or fortunes are more susceptible to these new forces than they ever were to the Russian Business Network or other Internet gangsters.

The notion that government – largely composed of security novices – large corporations, and a feudal security environment (where were trust Apple, Google, etc instead of having a generalizable good surveillance footprint) are key threats of security is not terribly new. This said, Bruce (as always) does a terrific job in explaining the issues in technically accurate ways that are simultaneously accessible to the layperson. Read the article; it’s well worth your time and will quickly demonstrate some of the ‘big’ threats to online security, privacy, and liberty.