Categories
Quotations

2013.12.11

That is what the Snowden leaks have exposed — a massive government operation to archive and analyze all the world’s communications. Opposing the surveillance state, and demanding the right as free citizens to know what our government is doing, is not a left- or a right-wing issue; it is one of tyranny versus liberty; it’s about whether we want to live in a communist-style surveillance state, or enjoy the rights and privileges of a free society.

Jesse Kline, “The spy who read my email
Categories
Aside Links

The Oddities of CBC’s Snowden Redactions | Technology, Thoughts & Trinkets

The CBC redacted the Snowden documents concerning NSA surveillance during the G8/G20. While I can agree that some of the redactions were appropriate the majority that were made seem excessive.

Categories
Links Writing

Did Canadian Oil Companies Get a Tip-Off from CSEC?

The Globe and Mail reports on discussions in the Canadian Senate. Specifically, Liberal Senator Wilfred Moore asked:

“Can the [Senate] leader enlighten this chamber as to what was done with the data obtained by CSEC from the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy?”

Alleging that CSEC’s “cyberhacking” was intended to probe Brazil’s claims about discovering billions of barrels of oil in a new offshore-field find, Mr. Moore noted that no Canadian or U.S. corporations have joined the bidding for drilling rights in an auction that was held earlier this week in Brazil.

This is an incendiary question. If it turns out that Canadian companies didn’t bid because CSEC found Petrobras has overestimated the oil reserves in the Libra field, or if CSEC found that it was going to be harder to extract the oil that stated by the Brazilian government, then it’s a very, very big deal on the basis that the Canadian government (and extension of the department of national defence) would then be engaging in espionage on the behalf of Canadian companies.

Categories
Links

Greater Oversight Required for Canada’s Spy Agencies

This is the kind of introspection and critique that all backbenchers should be able to present to the public. They shouldn’t be forced to leave their party caucus to do so.

Source: Greater Oversight Required for Canada’s Spy Agencies

Categories
Writing

How Not To Defend Your Signals Intelligence Agency

Many Canadians, at this point, will have heard that our foreign signals intelligence agency has reportedly been spying in Brasil. Specifically, the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has been accused of using “email and phone metadata to map internal communications within Brazil’s Mines and Energy Ministry through a software program called Olympia.” This has created quite a stir and forced the federal government of Canada to defend itself, and CSEC’s actions.

However, at a technology conference the head of CSEC tried to pacify Canadians by stating that there was already appropriate oversight of the agency’s actions. Referring to the independent commissioner overseeing CSEC, John Foster said, the commissioner “and his office have full access to every record, every system and every staff member to ensure that we follow Canadian laws and respect Canadians’ privacy.”

Foster is playing a game with Canadians. And it’s not a very good one. Given the CSEC reputedly engages in more ‘transactions’ each day than all of the banks in Canada combined, and given the relative size of the commissioner’s staff (usually a dozen or less) compared to CSEC’s staff (roughly 2,000), and the blurriness of the law guiding CSEC’s actions, I really can’t imagine how Canadians could possibly be reassured from Foster’s statements. No, what is clear is that rather than wanting to have a meaningful discussion – perhaps acknowledging deficiencies in oversight, the need to mediate CSEC’s actions so they align with Canada’s foreign policy positions, or something along those lines – he has purely said that Canadians should be satisfied with how things are today.

If Mr. Foster wants to be taken seriously then perhaps as a first, very small, bit of ‘goodwill’ he will disclose how exactly CSEC respects Canadians’ privacy: information on how this is ensured was redacted in documents from CSEC (see page 23). Providing the plaintext would be one first, good, step towards actually – instead of rhetorically – assuaging concerns Canadians might have over how signals intelligence is conducted in Canada.

Categories
Links Quotations Writing

2013.8.23

Neither the GCSB nor a spokesperson for the Embassy of New Zealand in the United States immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment. In June 2013, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key evaded answering whether the GCSB uses or has access to the NSA’s PRISM system.

“I can’t tell you how the United States gather all of their information, what techniques they use, I just simply don’t know,” Key told TV3’s Firstline. “But if the question is do we use the United States or one of our other partners to circumvent New Zealand law then the answer is categorically no. We do exchange—and it’s well known—information with our partners. We do do that. How they gather that information and whether they use techniques or systems like PRISM, I can’t comment on that.”

Cyrus Farivar, “New Zealand appears to have used NSA spy network to target Kim Dotcom”

What’s often missing from reporting about whether intelligence agencies are asking five eyes partners to monitor the agencies’ own citizens is this: rarely would a formal request for such monitoring services be required.

You see, folks in the intelligence and security agencies train with one another. They go to international courses together, just like any other group of professionals. And, as anyone who attends professional events knows, informal networks of information sharing arise. In the context of NSA/CSEC/ASIO/GCHQ/etc this can take the form of one government official complaining about the inability to conduct domestic surveillance on X group(s) that are regarded as a problem and then – independent of a ‘formal’ request! – other partners just might collect information on X given that a problem for the complaining agency just might turn into a problem for all the five eyes partners.

As an example: when a CSEC or NSA official complains that domestic extremists could be plotting a terror attack, but that neither CSEC or NSA can legally conduct the surveillance, a partner might be motivated to conduct the surveillance because, you know, terrorism. And, to turn the intelligence into something that’s actionable the foreign service could turn the collected information to CSEC/NSA/agency that is domestically located.

The great thing about this approach is no formal request needs to have been made. Is this as efficient as “Hey, can you guys spy on X so we don’t break our national laws?” No. But it does have the effect of generating favours and goodwill between the very professionals who are often in close contact with one another. And it also lets information be shared without the clear violation of domestic laws that forbid most intelligence services from spying on their own citizens.

Categories
Links

A handy guide to the hidden meaning behind all those NSA and government statements

A very helpful resource for deciphering ‘government-speak’ surrounding national security surveillance practices.

Categories
Links Writing

DHS, Drones, and Domestic Surveillance

In the name of efficiency and good long-term planning, DHS is ensuring that its Predator Drones over the USA are able to distinguish persons from animals, evaluate whether such persons are armed, and are also integrating signals intelligence systems into the vehicles. From the article:

Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

The analysis and interdiction capabilities being integrated into drones may – prospectively – be considered legal. If they are legal then it should be clear that ethical and normative (to say nothing of constitutional) claims should be brought to bear on the basis that such expansions of government surveillance are almost certain to be used inappropriately and to the disadvantage of American citizens and residents alike.