These are my answers on the Online Consultation on National Security. I was trying to get them posted before midnight, but we’re in the middle of a blizzard and my In ternet connection went out, so I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to get the last 2 submissions posted, but that worked out fine. If they haven’t closed the consultation in the morning, I may do more… I’d append it to the bottom of this…
These are my answers on the Online Consultation on National Security. I was trying to get them posted before midnight, but we’re in the middle of a blizzard and my In ternet connection went out, so I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to get the last 2 submissions posted, but that worked out fine. If they haven’t closed the consultation in the morning, I may do more… I’d append it to the bottom of this if I do. These were my answers, everything off the cuff as I knew I was under a strict deadline; I haven’t proofed it or checked to see if I made any sense at all. I’m sure there are dozens of things I’ve forgotten to say, but I’m too tired to worry about it now.
Q: Should existing review bodies – CRCC, OCSEC and SIRC – have greater capacity to review and investigate complaints against their respective agencies?
A: Yes: they need the staff to be able to review EVERYTHING thoroughly.
It seems to me Independent Commissions of Inquiry are exercises in futility if the resulting recommendations are ignored, as happened in Bill C-51.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Should the existing review bodies be permitted to collaborate on reviews?
A: Sharing information: YES. It would be good for the review bodies to understand what is happening across the board.
Collaborate: NO. Each review body has its own mandate and needs to do its own work. My opinion about collaboration has shifted dramatically PsPAfter the four Liberal MPs in Waterloo Region “collaborated” with The Honourable Maryam Monsef’s Democracy Tour, then passed this off as their own electoral reform consultation.
Q: Should the Government introduce independent review mechanisms of other departments and agencies that have national security responsibilities, such as the CBSA?
A: There needs to be actual SUPERVISION, which is not the same as review.
Reinstate the Office of the Inspector General.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: The proposed committee of parliamentarians will have a broad mandate to examine the national security and intelligence activities of all departments and agencies. In light of this, is there a need for an independent review body to look at national security activities across government, as Commissioner O’Connor recommended?
A: Yes. What would be refreshing would be a review body that was not made up of the usual suspects; A Citizens Assembly, composed of ordinary Canadians much like like those struck in Ontario and B.C. to study electoral reform would be a truly independent review body.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: The Government has made a commitment to require a statutory review of the ATA, 2015 after three years. Are other measures needed to increase parliamentary accountability for this legislation?
A: The BEST review would be a nation wide referendum. Canadians need to be consulted when Parliament pushes through legislation that eviscerates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: The Government would like your views about what shape a national strategy to counter radicalization to violence should take. In particular, it is looking to identify policy, research and program priorities for the Office of the community outreach and counter-radicalization coordinator. What should the priorities be for the national strategy?
There must be actual two way communication with communities.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: What should the role of the Government be in efforts to counter radicalization to violence?
A: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Research and experience has shown that working with communities is the most effective way to prevent radicalization to violence. How can the Government best work with communities? How can tensions between security concerns and prevention efforts be managed?
A: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Efforts to counter radicalization to violence cannot be one size fits all. Different communities have different needs and priorities. How can the Office identify and address these particular needs? What should be the priorities in funding efforts to counter radicalization to violence?
A: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Radicalization to violence is a complex, evolving issue. It is important for research to keep pace. Which areas of research should receive priority? What further research do you think is necessary?
A: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: What information and other tools do you need to help you prevent and respond to radicalization to violence in your community?
A: Civil rights protections need to be restored. The government and government agents and agencies need to reverse the “us against them” mentality where all Canadians are treated like foreign spies from enemy counties. Connecting with Canadians as human beings, treating us with respect is a priority.
Working to ensure racists are not on the front lines would be an excellent start.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: How can the Government address challenges to law enforcement and national security investigations posed by the evolving technological landscape in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values, including respect for privacy, provision of security and the protection of economic interests?
A: The first step would to stop acting as though the digital realm is different than the real world.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be in force for Canadians whether we are online or off.
The reason privacy is a protected human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is because privacy is an important part of how human beings protect ourselves from the wider world, including and especially protecting ourselves from the state. Government is far more powerful than any citizen, so it is important to protect citizens from being crushed under it.
The only way to be consistent with Canadian values, including respect for privacy and the provision of security would be to Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, and any other laws which infringe on the Charter Rights of Canadians.
There is an incredible disconnect in that this question includes “the protection of economic interests.” Canadians are talented, clever and resourceful; we are capable of competing on the world stage without requiring state sponsored spies and dirty tricks. We’re better than that. If Canada’s security forces have so much time on their hands they need top busy themselves spying on Canadian citizens and the competitors of Canadian businesses, we would do better to pension them off instead of turning it into a workfare scheme for public servants.
Q: In the physical world, if the police obtain a search warrant from a judge to enter your home to conduct an investigation, they are authorized to access your home. Should investigative agencies operate any differently in the digital world?
A: In the physical world, if the police obtain a search warrant from a judge to enter your home to conduct an investigation, they are authorized to access only that part of our home spelled out on the warrant. A warrant to search a home does not confer the right to search someone’s safety deposit box.
Investigative agencies must follow the rule of law, substantial probable cause should be required before a judge should be granting warrants into private areas of our lives, whether physical or digital, because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in both places.
If a warrant would be required before investigators can breach the privacy of a citizen’s physical home, likewise a warrant should be required before investigators can breach the Charter protected privacy of a citizen’s digital space. The Charter is meant to protect the rights of Canadians, period.
Which is why it is necessary to repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Currently, investigative agencies have tools in the digital world similar to those in the physical world. As this document shows, there is concern that these tools may not be as effective in the digital world as in the physical world. Should the Government update these tools to better support digital/online investigations?
A: No, the government should most certainly not have extra-judicial access to “back doors.” It should not be conspiring to compromise the digital security of citizens, whether by bringing the weight of government to bear on the security of digital standard, or by introducing invasive spyware into our digital devices under cover of digital locks. Such machinations would not only make it easier for government agents to break through citizen digital security protections, it would similarly make it easier for criminal breaches of our security.
In the same way law enforcement agencies are not routinely given master keys to our physical abodes, or copies of our safe deposit keys, or passwords to our bank accounts such extrajudicial access is not at all acceptable.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Is your expectation of privacy different in the digital world than in the physical world?
A: No.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Since the Spencer decision, police and national security agencies have had difficulty obtaining BSI in a timely and efficient manner. This has limited their ability to carry out their mandates, including law enforcement’s investigation of crimes. If the Government developed legislation to respond to this problem, under what circumstances should BSI (such as name, address, telephone number and email address) be available to these agencies? For example, some circumstances may include, but are not limited to: emergency circumstances, to help find a missing person, if there is suspicion of a crime, to further an investigative lead, etc…
A: .”In 2014, in R. v. Spencer, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the police could not request the name and address of a person in relation to his or her IP address where it would reveal intimate details of his or her anonymous online activities, except in an emergency situation or pursuant to a reasonable law. The Court concluded that the manner in which the police in this case obtained such information interfered with privacy interests protected by the Charter.”
~ Basic Subscriber Information, Our Security, Our Rights: National Security Green Paper, 2016
In spite of the biased way the question was posed, I was able to put this in context, thanks to your backgrounder. In a world where citizen privacy is increasingly under attack, citizen privacy is indeed protected by making it difficult to obtain Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) that ” reveal intimate details of his or her anonymous online activities.”
The problem as I see it is that government agencies act as though they were entitled to our personal information at the drop of a hat. Canadians are expected to cheerfully allow such institutional voyeurism so as not to limit the ability of government agencies to “carry out their mandates.” What we really need is a proper nation wide conversation where the public can be made aware of these issues. When properly informed, Canadians can decide whether the mandates government agencies are willing to sacrifice citizen privacy for are actually worth such a stiff price.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like the Canadian Bill of Rights before it placed reasonable constraints on government agencies, requite law enforcement agents to respect the privacy of citizens, “except in an emergency situation or pursuant to a reasonable law.” Law enforcement agencies have successfully fulfilled their mandate within the legal framework that exists to protect Canadian Charter rights for many years — decades, even — in the physical world. There is no good reason for our Charter protections to be invalidated in the digital realm. Our rights are our rights, period.
The Court was absolutely correct in concluding “that the manner in which the police in this case obtained such information interfered with privacy interests protected by the Charter.”
Judicial warrants are a good thing; they help to uphold the protections guaranteed us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Anyone reading this should make a point of seeing the excellent East German movie, “The Lives of Others,” because it is a powerful demonstration of the necessity for personal privacy rights.
Clearly we need to Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Do you consider your basic identifying information identified through BSI (such as name, home address, phone number and email address) to be as private as the contents of your emails? your personal diary? your financial records? your medical records? Why or why not?
A: Yes.
Because it is none of your business.
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
~ Cardinal Richelieu, on Privacy
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Do you see a difference between the police having access to your name, home address and phone number, and the police having access to your Internet address, such as your IP address or email address?
A: Yes. My home address is static; it is also public information. IP and email addresses are neither
When you add up all the bits and pieces of digital data, it can reveal far more information than anyone deserves.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: The Government has made previous attempts to enact interception capability legislation. This legislation would have required domestic communications service providers to create and maintain networks that would be technically capable of intercepting communications if a court order authorized the interception. These legislative proposals were controversial with Canadians. Some were concerned about privacy intrusions. As well, the Canadian communications industry was concerned about how such laws might affect it.
A: And we are incredibly lucky that there are people who were aware of the issues far earlier than most; fortunately they tend to be good citizens who have worked to educate the less digitally literate that we might understand and so be able to protect ourselves online.
That the government would try to enact legislation requiring the service providers Canadians pay for digital service to create and maintain networks -that would be technically capable of spying on Canadians — with or without a court order authorizing interception of our private communications is incredibly galling. Perhaps the most offensive part is that we would effectively be footing the bill to allow our communications to be insecure.
It is well known that most domestic communications service providers, small and large, have shown willing to give up their customer’s private data without a court order, simply by being asked.
Here’s the thing; Canadians are footing the bill for the government that seems to believe spying on is 24/7 is somehow in the public good. in spite of the fact the few bona fide experts allowed to testify at C-51 hearings both before the Parliament and the Senate. Fortunately for Canadians, the Harper Government’s agenda was to pass Bill C-51 in spite of its copious flaws, and so much valid expert testimony was turned away; but since this is the Internet age, many of those potential expert witnessed shared their testimony with Canadians online. This had the result of creating an exceptionally a well informed population, and once informed, even middle aged moms like myself found ourselves well enough informed to be truly horrified about this legislation. No doubt this is why Canadians all across Canada had both the information and motivation to hold Stop Bill C-51 rallys in big urban cities and small rural backwaters.
Yes, such legislation was and is controversial, and well it should be. DON’T DO IT.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Should Canada’s laws help to ensure that consistent interception capabilities are available through domestic communications service provider networks when a court order authorizing interception is granted by the courts?
A: When the Canadian government is willing to pick up the tab for our digital access (without dipping into tax dollars… perhaps CSIS agents could host chocolate bar campaigns and other fundraisers much like families are obliged to hold public school fundraisers to make up for school funding shortfalls), then we can talk about whether service providers should in fact be compelled to build special infrastructure which can be used to spy on their customers (with or without a warrant.)
Q: If the Government were to consider options to address the challenges encryption poses in law enforcement and national security investigations, in what circumstances, if any, should investigators have the ability to compel individuals or companies to assist with decryption?
A: The idea that government might compel individuals or companies to betray family, friends, customers and the public good through undermining the encryption and the the quality of personal security is staggering.
I often wonder if Blackberry personal user market would have gone so emphatically bad had it not become known that the end to end private communications RIM was selling was not private from any government who asked.
Judicial warrants, rule of law. Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption by those not involved in illegal activities?
A: Law enforcement and national security agencies can’t reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime without reducing the effectiveness of encryption for Canadian citizens and Canadian businesses too.
I’m not sure why today’s law enforcement and national security agencies expect their jobs to be done for them. Nobody said it would be easy, it’s hard work. The thing is, they would have far greater resources to employ in breaking through criminal encryption if they moved all the resources currently deployed to spy on innocent law abiding citizens.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Should the law require Canadian service providers to keep telecommunications data for a certain period to ensure that it is available if law enforcement and national security agencies need it for their investigations and a court authorizes access?
A: No.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: If the Government of Canada were to enact a general data retention requirement, what type of data should be included or excluded? How long should this information be kept?
A: No.
Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Q: Now that you have had a chance to consider the sections above, please consider taking the time to answer some general questions below. The questions below are in addition to the more specific and detailed questions that you will find in each of the 10 sections.
What steps should the Government take to strengthen the accountability of Canada’s national security institutions?
A: First and foremost, Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Reconstitute the Office of the Inspector General, staffed appropriately to ensure it is capable of providing direct supervision of intelligence agency activities.
Increase funding and staff to SIRC to ensure all intelligence activities are subjected to adequate review.
When Commissions of Inquiry are established to get to the bottom of a thorny issue, then determines a course of recommendations intended to prevent the same mistakes being repeated — as in the:
The Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar;
The Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin; and,
The Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 —
Such recommendations need to be seriously considered, and unless there are compelling reasons not to, the recommendations should be incorporated into subsequent policy.
Every one employed in Canada’s national security institutions should be very much aware of the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to follow this absent probable cause and a judicial warrant to the contrary.
Q: Preventing radicalization to violence helps keep our communities safe. Are there particular prevention efforts that the Government should pursue?
A: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
Sensitivity training; screening agents for racial/gender/protected class bias
Community outreach.
Implementation of a Universal Basic Income program would go a long way toward easing the ongoing financial marginalization faced by the under and unemployed, particularly youth.
Q: In an era in which the terrorist threat is evolving, does the Government have what it needs to protect Canadians’ safety while safeguarding rights and freedoms?
A: Experts agreed that Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, did nothing to make Canadians safer, and most certainly failed to safeguarding rights and freedoms. Repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015.
Q: Do you have additional ideas or comments on the topics raised in this Green Paper and in the background document?
A: This can not be stressed enough: Repeal Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
I’ve written more about this issue in:
Bill C-51 – The Antiterrorism Act 2015
and last year in
“Liberal Leader Gets Bill C-51 Wrong“
REPEAL Bill C-51
Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada
Today is the last day Canadians can participate in the online consultation.
Please participate, even if it is only to tell the government to repeal Bill C-51
If you’re new to this issue, Bill C-51 – The Antiterrorism Act, 2015 is my backgrounder to this most concerning issue.
I saw this documentary, and it was incredible. I was shocked by what the Canadian Government was doing… and when C-51 became law, such rights abuses can now be visited upon Canadian citizens, too.
Watch the film: http://secrettrial5.com/
Repeal Bill C-51
Privacy is that thing we used to call Liberty
REPEAL Bill C-51 ~ LAST DAY (until midnight) … the clock is ticking
Online Consultation on National Security
Today is the last day Canadians can participate in the online consultation.
Please participate, even if it is only to tell the government to repeal Bill C-51
If you’re new to this issue, Bill C-51 – The Antiterrorism Act, 2015 is my backgrounder to this most concerning issue.
This was what one of the many ordinary Canadians who spoke at the first Stop Bill C-51 Day of Action in Waterloo Region last year had to say.
LAST DAY… DON’T DALLY
Online Consultation on National Security
Today is the last day Canadians can participate in the online consultation.
Please participate, even if it is only to tell the government to repeal Bill C-51
If you’re new to this issue, Bill C-51 – The Antiterrorism Act, 2015 is my backgrounder to this most concerning issue.
This was what one of the many ordinary Canadians who spoke at the first Stop Bill C-51 Day of Action in Waterloo Region last year had to say.
Online Consultation on National Security
Today is the last day Canadians can participate in the online consultation.
Please participate, even if it is only to tell the government to repeal Bill C-51
If you’re new to this issue, Bill C-51 – The Antiterrorism Act, 2015 is my backgrounder to this most concerning issue.