CSEC tracking wifi devices at airports and beyond

[GostHacked]

Derek L, they broke the law, plain and simple.

The fact they can change any law to make something previously illegal, legal, then what kind of oversight and integrity does this entity have? You are going to see some government backtracking on this like what was done in the USA with the NSA.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-and-csec-spy-chiefs-to-face-public-grilling-today-1.2521166

Canada's security chiefs will face a public grilling over allegations of widespread spying later this afternoon.

The heads of Canada's two spy agencies, CSEC and CSIS, as well as the prime minister's security adviser, are scheduled to appear before the Senate committee on national security and defence. The meeting is to begin at 4 p.m. ET. CBCNews.ca will livestream the proceedings.

Attending the meeting will be John Forster, chief of the Communications Security Establishment, which is Canada's cybersecurity agency; Michel Coulombe, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the country's primary intelligence agency; and Stephen Rigby, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's national security adviser.

This meeting comes just days after CBC News broke the story that CSEC used airport Wi-Fi to track Canadian travellers, according to secret documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

You really trust them that they are doing the right thing? Even after everything else we saw related to security, spying and electronic devices?

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L, they broke the law, plain and simple.

Plain and simply, what law did they break?

[GostHacked]

Plain and simply, what law did they break?

That will come out in time. A few months later, in a very quiet report released some months from now when no one cares.

[Guest Derek L]

That will come out in time. A few months later, in a very quiet report released some months from now when no one cares.

So you don’t know what law CSEC has allegedly broke…What leads you to think any law has been broke?

[bleeding heart]

???

they tracked Canadians' wireless activity. That is spying on Canadians. That is illegal...as even CSEC's spokesperson declared.

[Guest Derek L]

???

they tracked Canadians' wireless activity. That is spying on Canadians. That is illegal...as even CSEC's spokesperson declared.

What law(s) was broken? And where did CSEC’s spokesperson admit to breaking Canadian law?

[bleeding heart]

I didn't mean the spokesperson admitted to breaking the law--paid PR professionals cannot do such a thing, obviously, as much of their job is spin and deception (by definition, actually).. What she said was that spying on Canadian citizens is illegal (and against the explicit mandate of the organization, under law).

The law that was broken is, of course, that CSEC has indeed been spying on Canadian citizens.

You have already conceded this point, earlier, apparently misunderstanding the law and thinking there are cases in which CSEC is allowed to do this. But that is not the case.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sure that there's some legal ambiguity in there - which explains why they can make statements claiming legality. If they're wrong, if the legal process shows this to be illegal, then what ? At a certain point, the politics will come in and paper everything over.

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't mean the spokesperson admitted to breaking the law--paid PR professionals cannot do such a thing, obviously, as much of their job is spin and deception (by definition, actually).. What she said was that spying on Canadian citizens is illegal (and against the explicit mandate of the organization, under law).

Thanks for the clarification.

The law that was broken is, of course, that CSEC has indeed been spying on Canadian citizens.

You have already conceded this point, earlier, apparently misunderstanding the law and thinking there are cases in which CSEC is allowed to do this. But that is not the case.

Sorry, I actually do understand the various laws and legislation associated with the Canadian intelligence and defence community…….

So I’ll rephrase my question, what law(s) do you think I’m misunderstanding, and in turn, CSEC is breaking? Specifically in regards to domestic surveillance, data collection and possessing said information, be it obtained directly from the individual(s) by an agency of the Government of Canada, or given to a GoC agency by a foreign Government agency (I.e. NSA or GCHQ).

[cybercoma]

From Kady O'Malley at the Senate hearing just now: "Forster points out the '5 Eyes' do have an 'agreement' not to target each other's citizens, but.. you know. The internet is messy."

[waldo]

Sorry, I actually do understand the various laws and legislation associated with the Canadian intelligence and defence community…….

So I’ll rephrase my question, what law(s) do you think I’m misunderstanding, and in turn, CSEC is breaking? Specifically in regards to domestic surveillance, data collection and possessing said information, be it obtained directly from the individual(s) by an agency of the Government of Canada, or given to a GoC agency by a foreign Government agency (I.e. NSA or GCHQ).

you've shifted in response to the CSEC representative quote and emphasizing CSEC (by law) can simply call on the NSA to do its bidding and surveil Canadians on behalf of the CSEC. Accordingly, should I rephrase your rephrase to align with the other thread you quoted from earlier in this thread... to ask you what law(s) you believe support CSEC actions in that regard? As I briefly scanned this thread, it seems you've not progressed any farther in this thread to address what you failed to provide in the other thread; specifically:

... simply quote the pertinent specifics of a foreign agency surveillance of a Canadian, in Canada, done at the behest of Canadian policing, sans warrant.

or most pointedly as I examine that other thread, this appears to be the most pertinent last post in that thread... as you never came back to the thread. In summary (from that thread):

you'll allow me to once again highlight you have never provided anything to substantiate that your assertion actually even occurs, what foundation in Canadian law would support it (if it did actually occur), let alone why Canadian authorities would opt for it. Clearly, your assertion is predicated upon Canadian authorities purposely, knowingly and wantonly foregoing not just their own capabilities/means, but also bypassing Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization)... foregoing and bypassing all that to, instead, request foreign agencies perform surveillance on individuals in Canada.

and why would Canadian authorities do such a thing? Why? Just answer the question... oh, wait... you already did! Your telling answer was... wait for it,... "well, do you expect them to just give up"? An answer that was simply just another of your many 'own goals' throughout this thread. Let me go down the grab bag list of you scrambling and thrashing about trying to find some foundation in law to support your claim... yes, you had googly firing on all cylinders, over many, many days! From your outrageous leap to the 'Privacy Act'... then you ramped it on up to the 'Charter' (no less)... then scaled it back down to an agreements 'inherent authorization'... to then settle down into the weeds of 'Criminal Code' exceptions. Of course, out of all that, nothing even remotely lined up with your assertion - nothing!

[GostHacked]

From Kady O'Malley at the Senate hearing just now: "Forster points out the '5 Eyes' do have an 'agreement' not to target each other's citizens, but.. you know. The internet is messy."

This is crazy, the amount of metadata they are collecting is huge. This hearing is going on 2.5 hours now.

[Guest Derek L]

you've shifted in response to the CSEC representative quote and emphasizing CSEC (by law) can simply call on the NSA to do its bidding and surveil Canadians on behalf of the CSEC. Accordingly, should I rephrase your rephrase to align with the other thread you quoted from earlier in this thread... to ask you what law(s) you believe support CSEC actions in that regard? As I briefly scanned this thread, it seems you've not progressed any farther in this thread to address what you failed to provide in the other thread; specifically:

Certainly:

National Defence Act 273.64

1) The mandate of the Communications Security Establishment is

• (a) to acquire and use information from the global information infrastructure for the purpose of providing foreign intelligence, in accordance with Government of Canada intelligence priorities;

• (b) to provide advice, guidance and services to help ensure the protection of electronic information and of information infrastructures of importance to the Government of Canada; and

• (c) to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their lawful duties.

And in the case of Surveillance in aiding airport security performed namely by the CBSA and the RCMP:

Limitations imposed by law

(3) Activities carried out under paragraph (1)(c) are subject to any limitations imposed by law on federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their duties.

Which would be inclusive and pertaining to both:

National Defence Act 273.65 (5):

An authorization made under this section may contain any conditions that the Minister considers advisable to protect the privacy of Canadians, including additional measures to restrict the use and retention of, the access to, and the form and manner of disclosure of, information derived from the private communications.

Coupled with:

Criminal Code 184.4:

A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that

• (a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

• (b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

• (c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

All exemptions that would be afforded to both the CBSA and RCMP at Canadian airports, and in turn CSEC in it’s above mentioned, legal role, providing federal law enforcement with technical assistance, in the course of preventing and responding to criminal acts (such as Terrorism or Kidnapping etc) at Canadian airports.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Derek L

[waldo]

Certainly:

no - you're not replying to what was said/what was referenced. There have been several posts through recent pages of this thread where you reverted to an emphasis/reliance by CSEC on 'foreign agencies' (NSA, etc.)... as you did in the other thread.

[Guest Derek L]

no - you're not replying to what was said/what was referenced. There have been several posts through recent pages of this thread where you reverted to an emphasis/reliance by CSEC on 'foreign agencies' (NSA, etc.)... as you did in the other thread.

Mea culpa, I thought your emphasis was in relation to the laws pertaining to the story within the OP........Said laws and treaties associated with foreign agencies were provided in “the other thread”……feel free to revisit it, fore I’ve no inclination at this time to do so for you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Simple question. If you parse the CSEC mandate where is the phrase "meta data"? If it's not there, how can they say it's legal to collect it with regard to Canadians?

[waldo]

Mea culpa, I thought your emphasis was in relation to the laws pertaining to the story within the OP........Said laws and treaties associated with foreign agencies were provided in “the other thread”……feel free to revisit it, fore I’ve no inclination at this time to do so for you.

you revisited the thread by quoting from it in this thread... as did I following your revisit. As I quoted, and as was exhaustively shown through the progress of that thread, you failed to support your assertion. Setting aside that fact, did you miss or choose to ignore member cybercoma's most recent post; again:

From Kady O'Malley at the Senate hearing just now: "Forster points out the '5 Eyes' do have an 'agreement' not to target each other's citizens, but.. you know. The internet is messy."

aside from your inability to support your claim concerning 'foreign agencies' (particularly the NSA you mentioned many times), John Forster (head of CSEC), states the '5 eyes have an agreement not to target each other's citizens'..... will you now acknowledge you failed to support your claim... and will you provide your cover by reverting to his "The internet is messy" suggestion?

[Michael Hardner]

What is the nature of this agreement, though, and does it constitute a 'law' ? If these agencies are doing things illegally, why do they obtain special permission from the courts some of the time ?

I will go back to my statement that the politics will decide what happens, moving forward. What is legal, what is ethical is not clear and not agreed upon, and it's dependent on the aspect of this that is least visible: what is actually happening.

To add: There's a type of reaction to these activities that is more emotional, specifically angry but without a clear path forward to channel that anger. I have changed my mind on this topic a few times recently, and one of these changes is that I now support such emoting at this early stage of the controversy. Such reactions are a precursor to thought and discussion, which are a precursor to political action.

[eyeball]

Simple question. If you parse the CSEC mandate where is the phrase "meta data"? If it's not there, how can they say it's legal to collect it with regard to Canadians?

I think it all comes down to the belief in reasonable grounds. Given the depth and duration that debates on what the word belief even means these days pretty much ensures the state and it's minions can pretty much do whatever, whenever, wherever to whoever they like...why is often even more subjective but who cares when our children and communities are threatened at every turn?

Edited February 4, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

This also seems to include metadata.

1) The mandate of the Communications Security Establishment is

(a) to acquire and use information from the global information infrastructure for the purpose of providing foreign intelligence, in accordance with Government of Canada intelligence priorities;

Of course, this is why we need courts to interpret things from time to time.

[On Guard for Thee]

This also seems to include metadata.

Of course, this is why we need courts to interpret things from time to time.

I don't have a copy of the mandate but reports I hear claim it makes it illegal to target Canadians, either inside or outside the country.It sure sounds to me like they may have exceeded that mandate. Of course it will have been couched in legalease so deep that a roomful of lawyers will take forever to agree, all at taxpayer expense. I hasten to add that I am happy there are police forces out there keeping an eye out for the bad boys, I just don't really want one sitting on my couch in case I decide to have some friends over for an "illegal" bit of a poker game, with real penny ante bets. In seriousness, I get that they can't reveal everything they are up to, but perhaps a little more oversight might be in order.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/csec-s-collection-of-metadata-shows-ability-to-track-everyone-1.2522916

Lots of data about the data, enough to BE the data.

Metadata may not be readily apparent, but for an average internet user, it just takes a bit of digging to find it. When you download a song from iTunes, for example, the file will contain details about the artist, album, date of the recording and copyright information, which can usually be found simply by right-clicking on the file.

As Deibert points out, metadata will also become visible any time you upload an image to a site such as Flickr, where you might notice that the image contains information about the model of camera used to take the picture, the time it was taken and the geographical coordinates of where it was shot.

The most controversial type of metadata is the information attached to phone calls and emails. A smartphone can contain information about the date and time of the communication, the number of both the caller and the receiver, their respective geographic locations and the amount of data transmitted.

This information is shared every few seconds, as the smartphone sends out a signal to the nearest Wi-Fi hotspot or cellphone tower in order to establish the most stable connection for the device.

Ambiguity in the law which does not talk to metadata.

Without even looking at the substance of a phone call or email, surveillance agencies have the ability to track your movements, as well as map out a network of your interactions. This could be far more incriminating than something you might have expressed in a phone call or email, Lewis says.

While being able to see a network of communications between disparate people could lead to the capture of a potential terrorist, it could also ensnare an innocent individual, Lewis adds.

....

Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's privacy commissioner, thinks the law needs to be updated to include metadata.

She says it is "a fiction" to say that the act authorizes metadata, since the law makes no specific reference to metadata, Cavoukian told Evan Solomon, host of CBC News Network's Power & Politics.

"It's an interpretation — the way I interpret it, any interception is not permitted."

Lewis says the collection of metadata is part of the Canadian security establishment’s growing ability “to track everyone, anywhere, anytime.”

Tracking you through various means. Phones, Internet, wifi hot spots, CCTV/mic, and soon that tech will be in all cars.

A good thing to do for yourself is look around you. Check your surroundings, take note of these things that are all around you tracking your every movement.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, Metadata IS data. They're trying to create legal room to track everything but the conversations themselves but that's just a tactic. Taking pictures of people, noting where they are, how long they spoke is arguably not "the" data but it's still surveillance.

But again, it doesn't matter. The story doesn't seem to be continuing in the media, meaning that the outrage isn't there, meaning that the practice will continue.

[Topaz]

Ok , government says Canadians aren't being tracked at airports but what if a person did say or text something to cause concern using the wifi? First, if they aren't tracking how would they know of the info., secondly, how would they know if the person is Canadian for foreign? I just don't believe them and the government can always change the laws to fit what the CSEC wants.

[cybercoma]

But again, it doesn't matter. The story doesn't seem to be continuing in the media, meaning that the outrage isn't there, meaning that the practice will continue.

But it does matter, whether there's popular support for it or not.