| |
to MaynardKrebs
Re: Lawful Access articles - collectionsaid by MaynardKrebs:Vic Toews' predecessor opposed extra power for police
»www.cbc.ca/news/politics ··· day.html
A former Conservative public safety minister says he was against giving the police more power when he was in charge of the department that's now pushing the government's lawful access legislation.
Stockwell Day, who was public safety minister from 2006 until 2008, says he thought anything police did should be accompanied by a warrant.
--- As one commenter on the CBC site wrote:
"By sending the bill to committee for amendment, they create the illusion of openness when in fact all they have done is to change the subject. We have been duped into a debate about the form of the bill rather then the vastly more important discussion about whether the bill should ever have been drafted in the first place."
Kill this Bill, dead.
It will be cause the cons will pass it back to the house with little to no changes and say "Ding!Fries Ready!" ,look when Issa wanted OPEN in the states ,it was the same as SOPA but with alittle modification, the same is happening here.This bill SHALL NOT PASS! "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
Star Trek & 'Lawful Access'One of the enduring lessons from Star Trek (first season episode #18, "Arena") is that the difference between good and evil lies not in their methods but their motives.
To protect my personal identity data from cybercriminals I must also protect it simultaneously against the 'authorities'. |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
Re: Lawful Access articles - collectionTwo comments from » www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 331/125/ struck me. A) If police will not need a warrant, what would keep them from playing roulette? Why not just ask records for a random IP address and then see if you can find something that could be illegal? We're moving away from "innocent until proven" to "we're finding stuff to make you guilty of something, whatever it'll be". That's one way of getting Harper's new jails filled-up... B) Is it conceivable that since they would have warrantless access and the ISP is prevented with big fines from telling consumer he is being spied on, they could PLANT something to frame someone they don't like. An ecologist, a feminist, anyone really? C) Now, extend comment b) with the thought that although the ISP may preserve content for the authorities, the ISP will not likely be retaining any of this information on a long-term basis, nor likely testifying as to the provenance/accuracy of any information entered into evidence, nor is the 'evidence' likely to hashed by the ISP to prove/disprove tampering once handed over to the authorities. D) Then take comment A) and B) together, add C) to it. Thoughts? |
|
| |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-23 4:14 pm
I was going to crop the American flag cartoon, the I realize that we have a Harper government. |
|
 M_
join:2010-05-01
Vancouver, BC |
to MaynardKrebs
The G20 in Toronto should have been the heads up about what the government really does in this country to its citizens.
Remember the police breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night (prior to the event being held) to incarcerate 'known protesters'?
Watch all of the video evidence of police actions during the G20 and you will understand the true meaning of 'police state'.
This is what we will be living under. People in this country are going to be getting rude awakenings in the middle of the night when they hear their doors being broken down and the flashbang grenades being thrown into their homes by police because of postings on the internet that are interpreted by the government as 'terrorism', or some other such convenient term.
Thinking of organizing any kind of anti-government public protest? Think again. They will find you in mere hours and throw you in jail.
That's only the beginning.
Welcome to the new (and improved) Canadaland. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists» www.techdirt.com/article ··· ts.shtmlThe putative reasons given for these proposals are the usual Four Horseman of the Infocalypse: terrorists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and money launderers. One would think, given the hysteria being whipped up by the proponents of these bills, that one could hardly walk down the street without being offered raw heroin by a grenade-throwing child pornographer carrying currency from 19 different countries. Of course, everyone who's actually studied terrorists, pedophiles, drug dealers and money launderers in the context of telecommunications knows full well that nothing in these bills will actually help deal with them. The very bad people who are seriously into these pursuits are not stupid, and they're not naive: they use firewalls, encryption, and tunneling. They use strong operating systems and robust application software. They use rigorous procedures guided by a strong sense of self-preservation and appropriate paranoia. They're not very likely to be caught by any of the measures in these bills because they'll (a) read the text and (b) evade the enumerated measures. Yes, there are occasional exceptions: every now and then, a clueless newbie or a careless dilettante turns up when they're caught. And of course when that happens, there's always a press conference announcing the event, and many claims that it's a "major blow against crime" and a flood of self-congratulatory press releases. But it doesn't mean anything, except that someone was either stupid...or careless...or was set up. The unpleasant reality that these bills are trying to avoid is that catching very bad people requires diligence, patience, expertise and intelligence, aka "competent police work." There's no substitute and there are no shortcuts. This means that these bills will achieve very few of their stated goals; that is, the benefit to society from them will be minimal, if any. ..... |
|
| |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-23 9:38 pm
Out of that list, only pedophiles might use the internet for distribution. The rest don't need internet to function. Drug dealers and money launderers have distribution chains with physical goods, so they could simply pass notes there.
The only groups that governments are increasingly afraid of are protesters and mobs. They are more likely to coordinate by means of tweeter or similar social networking. |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-23 9:58 pm
Old classic about warrantless domestic spying by the N.S.A. 10 pages long story that is worthwhile to read. A Reporter at Large, "The Secret Sharer - Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?" by Jane Mayer May 23, 2011 » www.newyorker.com/report ··· ct_mayer |
|
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Out of that list, only pedophiles might use the internet for distribution. The rest don't need internet to function. Drug dealers and money launderers have distribution chains with physical goods, so they could simply pass notes there.
The only groups that governments are increasingly afraid of are protesters and mobs. They are more likely to coordinate by means of tweeter or similar social networking.
In other words - the government fears the citizenry. Somebody ought to do a remake of Apple's '1984' commercial with Herr Harpler as the drone on the screen. |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Old classic about warrantless domestic spying by the N.S.A. 10 pages long story that is worthwhile to read.
A Reporter at Large, "The Secret Sharer - Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?" by Jane Mayer May 23, 2011 »www.newyorker.com/report ··· ct_mayer
» www.thenation.com/articl ··· ollapsesThe case collapsed - he copped to a charge of unauthorized us of a computer when the NSA was directed to disclose details of a surveillance system so he could defend himself, and that other information was declassified already or nearly so. He probably could have walked with no conviction at all. "All of these whistleblowers at least claim to have been exposing corruption, waste, and abuse. After DOJ has spent over four years investigating Thomas Drake and over a year trying to prosecute him, in part, for possession of two unclassified documents, DOJ should probably worry more about people reporting on its own waste and abuse than using the Espionage Act to criminalize whistleblowing. "Herr Harpler probably wants his Pedophilia Act partially for the same reasons - to go after whistleblowers. Lord knows there's enough need for whistleblowers in The Harper Government(tm). And no, whistleblowing isn't a pedophilia thing....though from the sounds of it, it could be.  |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
Interesting bits in C-30...... 14.(4) The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with an order made under this section.This clause is very reminiscent of what went on @ ATT in San Francisco and other locations in the USA - equipment which was installed by the NSA » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A 34.(1)(4) The inspector may be accompanied by any other person that they believe is necessary to help them perform their functions under this section. NSA, CIA tagging along perhaps?? |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
Say a Canadian ISP has records of customers (general customer information, logs, etc....) but those records are encrypted with two keys, one key held by the ISP itself, the other by a non-Canadian citizen living outside of Canada. The non-Canadian can probably safely refuse to provide his key ....... perhaps worrying only about illegal rendition, or something like this » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De ··· _flights. |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
An interesting read - not about Bill C-30, but some parallels apply » www.thenation.com/articl ··· -toys-it |
|
| |
to MaynardKrebs
>are encrypted with two keys
You mean 'can be decrypted with two keys', right? If it is a symmetric encryption, then the ISP would already have that 2nd key for encryption. Unless this is a case where the person and the ISP encrypted the data and left the country.
For Asymmetric Encryption, the party that does the encryption with the public key does not necessarily hold the private key that is needed for decryption. (This assumes that the public key is not already in a database owned by the government.) This presents some interesting legal issues. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
Ooops. You are correct .... 'decrypt'. |
|
| MaynardKrebs |
I wonder if indies will be force to rent more space @ 151 in order to install the racks of equipment the gubbmint wants them to install?
Who will pay for the space? |
|
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON |
booj
Member
2012-Feb-24 12:16 pm
I think we all know that Bill c-30 costs are a lot easier to swallow for Robellus than the independents. I believe this is why they are silent about the issue. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
said by booj:I think we all know that Bill c-30 costs are a lot easier to swallow for Robellus than the independents. I believe this is why they are silent about the issue.
I can just see an indie whose rack/cage space is at the limit now and the Gubbmint says, "Install this rack.". That means incurring the next quantum in rent at a carrier hotel for the next size-up cage (if one is even available & it's not cheap space either), planning & migration costs (labour, overtime, benefits, etc....) all for zero incremental revenue. Next is the Gubbmint going to require that the equipment be installed in a 'secure' facility. Some ISP's are smaller than spit - are they going to be required to install mantraps, video cameras, biometric locks, etc.... if the facility their in today doesn't have them? What happens if the Gubbmint refuses to pay the all-in costs of installing Satan's seed (the surveillance equipment) and the ISP refuses to foot the bill for the difference or the whole cost? Does the Gubbmint invoke some clause in another obscene law to forcefully close the ISP down (ie. revoke their business registration)? Does the Gubbmint then provide immunity for itself against lawsuits resulting from actions like this? |
|
| |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-24 12:53 pm
There was the 100,000 customers threshold in C30 for small ISP. Below this size, all you need to do is probably provide a port to the traffic for the goons.
If the G-Man want to dunk their fiber via the sewers and park their van with equipment disguises as a service vehicle + tent on top of a manhole near the small ISP facility, I am sure that could be accommodated. |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable to booj
Anon
2012-Feb-24 1:04 pm
to booj
I am sure this has been posted before: "Online surveillance bill setup costs estimated at $80M" » www.cbc.ca/news/politics ··· sts.html>C-30, a bill to update Canadian law when it comes to crimes committed online, will cost $20 million a year for the first four years and $6.7 million a year after that, Public Safety Canada told the CBC's Hannah Thibedeau on Wednesday. This would amount to less than $3 a person and $0.50 per person per year. I don't think they are using paper note books and pens here. As with all government IT budgets, someone probably missing one or more zero(s) somewhere. Very likely this cost is government side only and not including the equipment, software, storage, space, employees, security Clearance, expenses etc. that the affected ISP and customers have to shoulder. |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-24 1:38 pm
If you assume that the recurring cost of $6.7 million a year is primarily for extra government paper pusher employees for C30. Using a load labor cost of $100k to $150k a year, this means somewhere between 40 to 60 people.
Even if 70% of the people are analysts, you are only looking at 30-40 people to look at all the new raw data. That number doesn't seem enough. Pretty sure that CSIS, RCMP etc would need to hire more people to parse through the data. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
said by Ott_Cable :If you assume that the recurring cost of $6.7 million a year is primarily for extra government paper pusher employees for C30. Using a load labor cost of $100k to $150k a year, this means somewhere between 40 to 60 people.
Even if 70% of the people are analysts, you are only looking at 30-40 people to look at all the new raw data. That number doesn't seem enough. Pretty sure that CSIS, RCMP etc would need to hire more people to parse through the data.
I'm pretty sure that they don't actually want to look at the data just yet. What they want is a Canadian equivalent to TIA - John Poindexter & the NSA's Total Information Awareness. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In ··· s_Office» www.aclu.org/technology- ··· a-mining» www.aclu.org/technology- ··· -programAlso see the New Yorker article link posted earlier in this thread for more info on the ongoing NSA efforts in this area. |
|
| |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-24 4:23 pm
>I'm pretty sure that they don't actually want to look at the data just yet.
So there is no urgency to not to get a warrant then. ;P
I think this whole thing is a pretext to get domestic spying legal in Canada and at the same time outsourcing it to the ISP and other telecom facilities making Canada's listening post on the cheap.
It is not like most of our internet data doesn't pass through the US, NSA not already snooping it on the way... May be US not playing nice sharing as much data as we wish. |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-24 5:03 pm
"Facebook's Top Cop: Joe Sullivan" » www.forbes.com/sites/kas ··· ullivan/>With longish light-brown hair and gray-speckled goatee, he looks more like a bouncer at a country music bar than an ex-federal prosecutor, let alone the guy responsible for safeguarding and investigating Facebooks 845 million users. >Most of his security team is based at headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif. and sits at clusters of desks close enough to take dead aim at one another with Nerf darts. Broken roughly into five parts, the team has 10 people review new features being launched, 8 monitor the site for bugs and privacy flaws, 25 handle requests for user information from law enforcement, and a few build criminal and civil cases against those who misbehave on the network; |
|
| Ott_Cable |
Ott_Cable
Anon
2012-Feb-24 7:19 pm
"How to Fix Canada's Online Surveillance Bill: A 12 Step To-Do List" » www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 339/125/ 1. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence 2. No Mandatory Warrantless Access to Subscriber Information 3. Reporting Warrantless Disclosure of Subscriber Information 4. Remove the Disclosure Gag Order 5. "Voluntary" Warrantless Data Preservation and Production 6. Government Installation of Surveillance Equipment 7. Reconsider the Internet Provider Regulatory Framework 8. Improve Lawful Access Oversight 9. Limit the Law to Serious Crimes 10. Come Clean on Costs 11. The Missing Regulations 12. Deal With The Failure of Privacy Laws To Keep Pace |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
said by Ott_Cable :"How to Fix Canada's Online Surveillance Bill: A 12 Step To-Do List" »www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 339/125/
1. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence
2. No Mandatory Warrantless Access to Subscriber Information
3. Reporting Warrantless Disclosure of Subscriber Information
4. Remove the Disclosure Gag Order
5. "Voluntary" Warrantless Data Preservation and Production
6. Government Installation of Surveillance Equipment
7. Reconsider the Internet Provider Regulatory Framework
8. Improve Lawful Access Oversight
9. Limit the Law to Serious Crimes
10. Come Clean on Costs
11. The Missing Regulations
12. Deal With The Failure of Privacy Laws To Keep Pace
The biggest issue is - should a law like this exist in the first place? If one should, then the way the law should have been written would to have included this as its first two operative statements after the definitions/preamble section...... 1) No provider of telecommunications shall provide any personalized customer information to any person, company, body, agency, or any level of government - domestic or foreign - without first being presented a warrant duly executed by a judge of competent jurisdiction under this Act. 2) It is incumbent upon the provider of telecommunications to verify the warrant has been lawfully issued by contacting the jurisdiction under which it has been issued within 2 hours of receipt of the warrant. Absent confirmation within 72 hours of receipt of the warrant, the telecommunications provider must not release any information to the requesting party. |
|
 mazhurg
Premium Member
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
|
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
Somebody commented @ the Globe site on that article:
Seeing that the police and AGs really want this capability vis a vis C-30 so they can join the club of other countries who have the ability to spy on all of their citizens, I can only imagine what their next request for expanded powers will be?
I believe its an 'envy' thing. I modestly propose that a bill C-31 be introduced to complement C-30 which will likely be bull-dozed through Parliament while we are all enjoying the summer this year.
Bill C-31 - The Lawful Interrogation Bill (short name - The Bill To Protect Us From Curb Side Car Dealers Selling Bad Cars, or words to that effect).
The bill will lay out the methods of torture, er interrogation methods the police will be allowed to have to extract confessions and gain information not stored on a computer but held within our minds: Repeated tazering for suspicious people at the airport, water-boarding for jay-walkers, electro-shock treatment for red-light runners, the rack for protestors, flaying for those identified writing negative comments against the police and government in the Globe and Mail, etc.
Torture used to be a legitimate investigative tool in the middle ages and not something for someone's sadistic amusement. Other countries have this capability and our police and AGs are probably envious and likely lobbying for it behind closed doors right now. Why shouldn't we have this ability?
If C-30 gets passed we will already have ceded our constitutional rights, and therefore we must demand C-31 n'est-ce pas? |
|
| |
Vomio
Member
2012-Feb-25 11:51 am
I think you are right it is all part of the whole package.
For years all this kind of stuff took place illegally behind the scenes forcing various law enforcement agencies into a moral dilemma.
Now it will be legal, the moral dilemma will be gone.
Since all this "fact finding" took place anyway in the past, legitimizing it like this adds to the transparency of government, something we were promised in previous elections.
We should all feel safer with our transparent, benevolent overlords eliminating the pedophilic automotive hucksters, that threaten the very fabric of our society. |
|
| |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:Somebody commented @ the Globe site on that article:
Seeing that the police and AGs really want this capability vis a vis C-30 so they can join the club of other countries who have the ability to spy on all of their citizens, I can only imagine what their next request for expanded powers will be? America's Present IS what Canada's future will be.(No rights,Checkpoints,NDAA,etc.. "If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live." -Ron Paul |
|
