CSEC tracking wifi devices at airports and beyond

[Guest Derek L]

The government can change the law. And they often do. So something that was illegal before, is not illegal now. It's still wrong, no matter the legality.

If I was in the airport scanning the wifi networks and accessing other people's computers, I'd be charged with hacking and data theft. If the government does it, it's ok. That is a double standard and should not be tolerated.

If the United States Government is tracking and storing the metadata of Canadians, and passing said info to the Government of Canada, what law are they breaking? Seems far less intrusive then receiving pop-up adds tailored around the individuals internet usage from Google…..So what double standard?

Because as we see there is very little oversight for these things. The ones doing this illegal tracking are the ones making up the rules. This is the exact same scenario that played out in the USA with the NSA.

What's illegal about it?

They could write it into law to make rape legal. Does it make it right? Use some grown up common sense.

I think comparing rape to the perfectly legal collection of metadata is very immature. Simply put, as in relation to the OP, if one doesn’t take advantage of “free wi-fi”, one wouldn’t be a participant in said program.

[Guest Derek L]

Many people who have Smartphones didn't know about the GPS and they could be tracked,which was on the news about a month ago. I asked my son about it and he said he turned his off and it stops the tracking. I can see some workers getting fired by be tracked if they are some place, instead at work. I. also think, MP's and MPP's have to be very careful at these airports and business people.

On the flip side, GPS in cellphones allows 911 dispatchers to more effectively send first responders in an emergency.......

[Argus]

Why the house ? These things are done otherwise, aren't they ? Can you point me to the legislation that authorizes how data can be collected in airports ?

But you weren't talking about how data was collected but how it could be used against people by redefining terrorism. Suppose the government does know where you were last tuesday. What's it going to do with that information?

[Argus]

If I was in the airport scanning the wifi networks and accessing other people's computers, I'd be charged with hacking and data theft.

But that wasn't what they were doing. They were monitoring movements and contacts, not reading your letter to Auntie Ethel. I assure you they have no interest in your letter to Auntie Ethel. Now, your letter to Penthouse, well, that might be more interesting, I suppose.

I doubt they have time to read it though.

[Michael Hardner]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-11.7/

Here's the link when I searched for 'airport' - no results.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/Search/Search.aspx?txtS3archA11=airport&txtT1tl3=%22Anti-terrorism+Act%22&h1ts0n1y=0&ddC0nt3ntTyp3=Acts

Despite the fact that I begrudgingly acknowledge the advantages of these programs, you can't deny that law agencies share information all the time, with or without approval.

[bleeding heart]

"Under the law [CSEC] is prohibited from targeting Canadians." -- Lauri Sullivan, spokesperson, CSEC

[Guest Derek L]

Here's the link when I searched for 'airport' - no results.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/Search/Search.aspx?txtS3archA11=airport&txtT1tl3=%22Anti-terrorism+Act%22&h1ts0n1y=0&ddC0nt3ntTyp3=Acts

Despite the fact that I begrudgingly acknowledge the advantages of these programs, you can't deny that law agencies share information all the time, with or without approval.

Certainly, such information can’t be used in court though….of course it can be used by investigators to obtain further information, with a warrant, that can.

[Guest Derek L]

"Under the law [CSEC] is prohibited from targeting Canadians." -- Lauri Sullivan, spokesperson, CSEC

Does the same law preclude the NSA?

[Michael Hardner]

Certainly, such information can’t be used in court though….of course it can be used by investigators to obtain further information, with a warrant, that can.

Right, but they can use the information to thwart protests, plant informants and such.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does the same law preclude the NSA?

I don't see how it could....no jurisdiction to preclude the NSA.

[Guest Derek L]

Right, but they can use the information to thwart protests, plant informants and such.

Certainly……that’s the name of the signals intelligence game….Of course, as mentioned, there are finite resources available. I’d hazard a guess that Gosthacked reading an online copy of The Catcher in the Rye at the bus depot or coffee shop doesn’t interest “them” that much.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't see how it could....no jurisdiction to preclude the NSA.

I know...Rhetorical question

There’s not enough tinfoil to cover the entire country

[bleeding heart]

I see very little tinfoil-hattery going on, but a lot of concern about government agencies spying on us; not to mention the incontrovertible fact that they have been lying directly into our faces about it...and some of our faces are wan with obedient credulity, while others take a more libertarian approach to the matter.

I understand the "meh" response...but given the twin overreach of spying and deception, it's actually a fundamental opposition to democratic principles.

I suppose if one is adolescent enough to believe that powerful men are merely protecting us from Islamist Evil, it's not a big deal. Since I think only stupid people and nationalists--I know, redundant--really are that credulous, I don't suppose offering bedrock principles of the Enlightenment philosophy that undergird modern democracy is going to be much use in such discussions.

As for NSA--I wasn't talking about those draconian bozos, nor the cute little sycophants who applaud them. I was speaking of CSEC. We shall hopefully see how far they've overreached (as their own watchdog suspects, thanks to their (no doubt intentionally) "shoddy record keeping" on the matter of illegal spying on Canadian citizens)...once the Civil Liberties case goes to court, which is in the works as we speak.

[Guest Derek L]

I see very little tinfoil-hattery going on, but a lot of concern about government agencies spying on us; not to mention the incontrovertible fact that they have been lying directly into our faces about it...and some of our faces are wan with obedient credulity, while others take a more libertarian approach to the matter.

I understand the "meh" response...but given the twin overreach of spying and deception, it's actually a fundamental opposition to democratic principles.

What deception though? The raison d’etre of a spy agency is to spy.

I suppose if one is adolescent enough to believe that powerful men are merely protecting us from Islamist Evil, it's not a big deal. Since I think only stupid people and nationalists--I know, redundant--really are that credulous, I don't suppose offering bedrock principles of the Enlightenment philosophy that undergird modern democracy is going to be much use in such discussions.

As for NSA--I wasn't talking about those draconian bozos, nor the cute little sycophants who applaud them. I was speaking of CSEC. We shall hopefully see how far they've overreached (as their own watchdog suspects, thanks to their (no doubt intentionally) "shoddy record keeping" on the matter of illegal spying on Canadian citizens)...once the Civil Liberties case goes to court, which is in the works as we speak.

No overreach:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/page-2.html#docCont

Collection of personal information

4. No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.

Wide berth I'd say.....

• Individual to be informed of purpose

  (2) A government institution shall inform any individual from whom the institution collects personal information about the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected.

• Marginal note:
• Exception

  (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply where compliance therewith might

  • (a) result in the collection of inaccurate information; or

  • (b) defeat the purpose or prejudice the use for which information is collected.

• 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Sch. II “5”.

A law in place long before free internet Wi-FI

Edited February 2, 2014 by Derek L

[bleeding heart]

"What deception?"

You ask directly before you proceed to defend that very deception.

And the defense itself demands absolute trust in government agencies....a brand spanking new worldview for Derek, I would say, given your notions on government generally.

As for overreach....the case is likely to go before the courts--presumably based in part on the findings (well, lack of findings, all thanks to CSEC's illegal activity...or total incompetence, take your pick) of CSEC's watchdog.

[Guest Derek L]

"What deception?"

You ask directly before you proceed to defend that very deception.

How did I defend it? Acknowledgment of a law(s) and in turn, Government agencies working within said law, does not equate a defence or moral ambivalence of said law.

And the defense itself demands absolute trust in government agencies....a brand spanking new worldview for Derek, I would say, given your notions on government generally.

Why would a Government break it’s own laws when it can simply amend them? Common sense and scepticism can be divorced.

As for overreach....the case is likely to go before the courts--presumably based in part on the findings (well, lack of findings, all thanks to CSEC's illegal activity...or total incompetence, take your pick) of CSEC's watchdog.

It might go to court, but I doubt anything will come from it.......I find it ironic that you have a prejudiced legal view of CSEC though…..

[bleeding heart]

Derek,

But you're "doubt[ing] anything will come of it" is not a "prejudiced legal view"....even though you've made a declarative opinion on the outcome...that I have refrained from doing?

As for why the Government would break its own laws rather than amending them...well, first of all, the government cannot always simply amend laws to suit its purposes, however much our little spy-lovers wish it were so.

But it's moot...if CSEC is spying on Canadian citizens, that IS breaking the law.

If you want to know why they didn't simply amend the law instead of breaking it, you'd have to ask them.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek,

But you're "doubt[ing] anything will come of it" is not a "prejudiced legal view"....even though you've made a declarative opinion on the outcome...that I have refrained from doing?

\

The presumption of innocence within our society is not a prejudiced point of view though……As to my opinion, it’s declarative nature is fostered by the actual laws already on the books.

As for why the Government would break its own laws rather than amending them...well, first of all, the government cannot always simply amend laws to suit its purposes, however much our little spy-lovers wish it were so.

Sure it can.......With “spying” itself, both the Chrétien and Harper Governments have done exactly that……Or another example, the Firearms Act……All changes to existing laws to accommodate a given political ideology.

But it's moot...if CSEC is spying on Canadian citizens, that IS breaking the law.

CSEC doesn’t need to break Canadian laws to spy on Canadians, they just have the Americans, British, Australians and New Zealanders etc do it for them…….And likewise the inverse.

And like I posted above (the Privacy Act) Government of Canada agencies are allowed to posses personal information of Canadians.

If you want to know why they didn't simply amend the law instead of breaking it, you'd have to ask them.

That’s just it, there is no mens rea on the part of the Government of Canada…….as such, your stance is a fallacy……or…Show me the law(s) that you think has been broken.

[eyeball]

And the defense itself demands absolute trust in government agencies....a brand spanking new worldview for Derek, I would say, given your notions on government generally.

The raison d’etre of a spy agency is to spy.

The raison d’etre of a drone is to comply.

[Guest Derek L]

The raison d’etre of a drone is to comply.

Compliance of the law of the land has put this drone in rather good steed…….What I find funny, most Canadians are actually ambivalent to said “domestic spying allegations”, but I’d bet those that aren’t, have little qualms with the State having your physical and mental health info readily available……or tax info…..or retirement plans and savings…..etc etc.

From a philosophical standpoint, the majority of Canadians feed their personal information to not only the State, but private corporations, hand over fist………clearly the majority of Canadians are then drones……..So what are you “free thinkers” going to do about it?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Derek L

[GostHacked]

Many people who have Smartphones didn't know about the GPS and they could be tracked,which was on the news about a month ago. I asked my son about it and he said he turned his off and it stops the tracking. I can see some workers getting fired by be tracked if they are some place, instead at work. I. also think, MP's and MPP's have to be very careful at these airports and business people.

Your device is still tracked via MAC address and each connection attempt to the cellular network or any wifi hotspot.

[bleeding heart]

Derek, the presumption of innocence is a legal term (and a crucially important one, yes); but the majority of cases that go to court (yes, including civil court) are actually guilty. That's because the Prosecution cannot afford--financially, politically, and ethically--to put too many probably innocent people before the judge.

In other words, while presumption of innocence is absolutely necessary, I don't think that you genuinely believe that the majority of people being charged with crimes are actually innocent, beforehand.

If I tried to make that argument, you'd laugh it out of the room, and properly so.

What you're doing is offering special pleading for the more powerful entities.

Hell, even such a power-worshipper as Conrad Black had his eyes opened about the difference between the legal treatment of the weak vs the strong, despite his own case being a rare exception.

As for CSEC spying on Canadians...well, of course they did (do), as you concede. And it is illegal.

[eyeball]

From a philosophical standpoint, the majority of Canadians feed their personal information to not only the State, but private corporations, hand over fist………clearly the majority of Canadians are then drones……..So what are you “free thinkers” going to do about it?

Probably divulge a lot less, lie a lot more, mostly mind our own business when it come ratting out our peers - notwithstanding sycophants who had better be really diligent when it comes to keeping their own noses clean from now on.

[Argus]

Yer just gonna have to learn to live with it, I think...

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/02/01/its-creepy-location-based-marketing-is-following-you-whether-you-like-it-or-not/?__lsa=35d2-0b99

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, the presumption of innocence is a legal term (and a crucially important one, yes); but the majority of cases that go to court (yes, including civil court) are actually guilty. That's because the Prosecution cannot afford--financially, politically, and ethically--to put too many probably innocent people before the judge.

In other words, while presumption of innocence is absolutely necessary, I don't think that you genuinely believe that the majority of people being charged with crimes are actually innocent, beforehand.

Of course not, but I try not to pick or choose beforehand when I’m devoid of the facts.

If I tried to make that argument, you'd laugh it out of the room, and properly so.

What you're doing is offering special pleading for the more powerful entities.

No more so then I would for a less powerful entity.

As for CSEC spying on Canadians...well, of course they did (do), as you concede. And it is illegal.

What law(s) is it breaking?