CSEC tracking wifi devices at airports and beyond

[Michael Hardner]

These are the same 'trusted' people that are using this 'surveillance grid' against the average citizen

Right. That's why I used trusted without quotes - meaning someone who is actually trusted.

But there is no real demand for smart appliances

They'll make demand.

It is depressing as f* once you understand the scope.

Oh, for sure. The technology won't kill us though - it will make us stronger eventually, once we incorporate it in a broadly accepted way.

[Bonam]

Right. That's why I used trusted without quotes - meaning someone who is actually trusted.

Do you think it's possible any longer for a government official today to actually be trusted? Any organization/group/individual given power will have the temptation to misuse it. The surest way to prevent abuse is to limit how much power is available, not to hope every single person you pick to use it will be an incorruptible paragon of ethics and trustworthiness. That's why, for example, constitutions of most advanced nations specifically spell out the limits of government power, rather than allowing it infinite power and simply specifying methods to try to pick trustworthy people to wield it.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think it's possible any longer for a government official today to actually be trusted?

I don't know - maybe not, so maybe a trusted advocate wouldn't be a government official.

Any organization/group/individual given power will have the temptation to misuse it. The surest way to prevent abuse is to limit how much power is available, not to hope every single person you pick to use it will be an incorruptible paragon of ethics and trustworthiness.

I don't think that makes sense, since we need influencers and people with inside knowledge to interpret complex issues for us. It's too much to expect "the" public to dissect policy proposals that encompass science, economics and so on so we need experts at some level, or - my preference - specific publics focused on specific issues. And any influencer or expert naturally holds the power, and can use it for their self-interest.

With experts, there are proven devices to ensure to keep people honest, such as the public reputation. But for that to work, you need an objective press or its equivalent, and transparency.

That's why, for example, constitutions of most advanced nations specifically spell out the limits of government power, rather than allowing it infinite power and simply specifying methods to try to pick trustworthy people to wield it.

Government still can have massive power within those prescribed limits. The Press was incorporated into the model of government that came out of the englightenment movement - as a check on power. But the structure of such institutions necessarily changes over time and needs to be revisited.

[Argus]

You like people or government spying on you? Have fun!

Why would they spy on me? I'm quite uninteresting, I assure you.

[Argus]

Of course it isn't. That's how it's being sold to the peasants.

And you guys are much more knowledgeable and sophisticated, right?

[Argus]

Argus, you may know my position on this issue has been softly pro-government, however I have to say that Kimmy's post a few weeks ago reduced my feeling of support for these measures - although I still see them as necessary.

Apparently, terrorism is being defined loosely enough to allow government agencies to track and interfere with groups that may only be expressing opposition, eg. environmental groups, animal welfare groups and so on.

That's why they might care. I don't think anything but a nuanced view of all of this makes sense, though, since it's so complicated.

There have been some attempts to redefine terrorism in the US, but I haven't heard of any serious efforts at making it possible to charge non-violent people here. But regardless, that is not relevent to the issue of the government apparently having used airport wifi to test out a system for spying on people. There are neither resources nor is there motivation for doing this on a mass scale. But I can see it would be useful in following the movements of certain individuals under suspicion. And I doubt those individuals are likely to be environmentalists, unless they're the kind who blow things up.

[Michael Hardner]

And I doubt those individuals are likely to be environmentalists, unless they're the kind who blow things up.

I'm basing my ideas about how this technology would be used on the tactics used in the past. I could see terrorism being expanded to include trespassing, or threat of trespassing even.

[cybercoma]

Do you think it's possible any longer for a government official today to actually be trusted?

Trusted? hahaha. I would be happy with simply accountable. The Harper Conservatives think accountability means issuing empty apologies. Forget that.

[cybercoma]

And you guys are much more knowledgeable and sophisticated, right?

Believe me. I'm a peasant, just like you.

[cybercoma]

There have been some attempts to redefine terrorism in the US, but I haven't heard of any serious efforts at making it possible to charge non-violent people here.

Except the response at G20 being necessary because we live in a "post 9/11 world." I'll give you that they didn't explicitly refer to protesters as terrorists, though they may as well have.

[Guest Derek L]

There have been some attempts to redefine terrorism in the US, but I haven't heard of any serious efforts at making it possible to charge non-violent people here. But regardless, that is not relevent to the issue of the government apparently having used airport wifi to test out a system for spying on people. There are neither resources nor is there motivation for doing this on a mass scale. But I can see it would be useful in following the movements of certain individuals under suspicion. And I doubt those individuals are likely to be environmentalists, unless they're the kind who blow things up.

This conversation reminds me of one we had almost two years ago:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20413-anonymous-gives-toews-7-days/page-9

Derek L Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:46 AM

……..CSEC doesn’t obtain or store any information on Canadians citizens, within Canada, without a warrant……..If, for example, the RCMP wanted information pertaining to a Canadian citizen, they would make use of our long standing, bilateral agreement (As mentioned by Argus) that allows for a reciprocal transfer of signals intelligence. In this instance, the American NSA would provide said intelligence.

Derek L Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:46 AM

As was mentioned prior by myself and Argus, the Government, if it so desired, via foreign Governments (Namely the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand directly, and via working relationships with Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Denmark and the Dutch) are capable of “listening” and storing the cell phone conversations and internet traffic of any individual within Canada. As for the “agents” involved, quite clearly, the equivalent agencies of the RCMP, CSIS and CSEC from all the above mentioned countries.

As was mentioned by Argus though, they don’t monitor every person due to lack of need and resources, and are generally concerned with Terrorism and the actions of other “unfriendly nations”………but that’s not to say if a individual or group became, as I said, more than a nuisance, they are quite capable of monitoring them.

Then of course several posters derided myself for saying there was/is such laws that allow said practice…Oh how the tune has changed..None the less, here we are.

[Argus]

I'm basing my ideas about how this technology would be used on the tactics used in the past. I could see terrorism being expanded to include trespassing, or threat of trespassing even.

And if anyone should ever be so idiotic as to propose such a massive change in the law you can be sure I would strenuously oppose it.

But seriously, can you honestly imagine that getting through the House? Can you really see even the tories proposing something that ridiculous?

[Argus]

Except the response at G20 being necessary because we live in a "post 9/11 world." I'll give you that they didn't explicitly refer to protesters as terrorists, though they may as well have.

I was very much opposed to the absurd and illegal behavior of police in their treatement of G20 protestors, as you might recall. In my opinion the police officer in charge should all have been fired, and scores of police officers fired and arrested for criminal behavior.\

But electronic intelligence operations at airports really have little to do with that sort of thing.

[jbg]

If you're not doing anything wrong what IS the issue?

Hey, CSEC, feel free to track my movements.

I generally agree but at least once in our country's history the Republican Party abused that kind of information for partisan purposes.

[Michael Hardner]

But seriously, can you honestly imagine that getting through the House? Can you really see even the tories proposing something that ridiculous?

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 ?

[cybercoma]

Then of course several posters derided myself for saying there was/is such laws that allow said practice…Oh how the tune has changed..None the less, here we are.

They're allowed to exchange information, but the agreement is not supposed to allow foreign intelligence agencies to share information with the Canadian government about Canadian citizens.

[Guest Derek L]

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 ?

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

[Guest Derek L]

They're allowed to exchange information, but the agreement is not supposed to allow foreign intelligence agencies to share information with the Canadian government about Canadian citizens.

In the thread from two years ago that I linked above, I 've already provided the laws and several agreements for exactly that.

Simply put, there is no Canadian law that prevents a foreign government from giving us information about a Canadian citizen(s) that they have gathered or received info on. Of course, the use of said information is inadmissible within a Canadian court.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Derek L

[waldo]

This conversation reminds me of one we had almost two years ago:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20413-anonymous-gives-toews-7-days/page-9

Then of course several posters derided myself for saying there was/is such laws that allow said practice…Oh how the tune has changed..None the less, here we are.

if you're going to link back to that 2-year old thread... and coincidentally start with a post of mine (since its the first on the "page-9" link reference used), I would prefer one of the re-cap posts that coincides with you finally advising your "matter of fact statements/claims" were, in fact, just your opinion; an opinion you were most hesitant to actually substantiate given expressed concerns of, "self-incrimination and imprisonment". Try this post instead:

let's recap: the principal MLW member 'Derek L' assertion was one that Bill C-30 was not needed since, effectively, it's 'reach' was already occurring. That morphed somewhat into a suggestion that Bill C-30 was simply Harper Conservative 'streamlining'. Of course, this all centered on the underlying premise that, as a matter of routine operation, Canadian policing regularly circumvents the need for judicial oversight (i.e. warrants) in order to monitor/gather information of a domestic nature... regularly circumvents judicial oversight by doing a roundabout, end-around, by simply calling up the U.S. NSA. Routine, matter of fact, standard op! Apparently, 'asking Derek L' for qualified substantiating support for such an assertion is verboten... something to do with said claims of "self incrimination and imprisonment"!

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Defense.

[On Guard for Thee]

And that Minister would be?

Defense

[Guest Derek L]

Canadian policing regularly circumvents the need for judicial oversight (i.e. warrants) in order to monitor/gather information of a domestic nature... regularly circumvents judicial oversight by doing a roundabout, end-around, by simply calling up the U.S. NSA.

Define "regularly".........Also the usage of:

circumvents the need for judicial oversight

Suggests the Government of Canada is doing something wrong…….How can that be when they write the laws?

[Guest Derek L]

Defense

Yes, like I said.

[GostHacked]

Suggests the Government of Canada is doing something wrong…….How can that be when they write the laws?

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. 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.

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

[Topaz]

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.