We need a privacy revolution

[GostHacked]

Your characterization of how others think doesn't play into finding a common solution, any more than others characterizing your viewpoint for you.

There is already a solution. If the authorities suspect you of something, then investigate, get a warrant, server warrant and search the premise.

I'll send you a regular mail. Do you care if the government reads it?

I'll send you an email. Do you care if the government reads it?

Maybe you can explain why they are different and need to be treated different.

[bleeding heart]

Michael,

I don't think you understood my point. My point is that you have stated that the electronic snooping isn't a terribly big issue for you...that you've got some concerns, but that it's not one of the biggest issues in your view.

Which is all good, don't get me wrong.

But you also point out that you're not alone...that Canadians are very much divided between those who think this incredibly important, and those who think it less so.

Also true.

I was only pointing out that you, personally, undoubtedly have much more profound and visceral concerns about this or that, when it comes to what the Government is (or isn't) doing....and that, per your argument, lots of Canadians wouldn't give a rat's behind about what you're concerned about.

Meaning only that "Canadians are divided" is not an answer to somebody's concern about government intrusion and authoritarianism; Canadians are very divided on, literally, almost every single issue you could name. Certainly fear of terrorism is not big on Canadian (citizens') radars, for example.

why would this division be an "answer" to those concerned about this issue...and not, say, ones you consider more important?

Edited May 11, 2014 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

A lot of bandwagon logic on the forums lately. I don't get it. It's not usually THIS bad. But this is literally the third thread where someone has appealed to the masses to support an argument or to say someone else's argument is wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Snail mail you are at risk only by the employees of the mail system. With email, the whole world could access your mail if they so desired.

The article I quoted says that the envelope is photographed, and envelope information (presumably including weight) is digitized and stored with the government.

There is already a solution. If the authorities suspect you of something, then investigate, get a warrant, server warrant and search the premise.

That's one solution - but evidently not the one in practice.

I'll send you a regular mail. Do you care if the government reads it?

I'll send you an email. Do you care if the government reads it?

For sure it's more similar than having a cop enter your home. Also, I'm assuming you're not talking about how I feel about my email/mail because I'm not talking about that. It's a different discussion.

Maybe you can explain why they are different and need to be treated different.

I didn't say they did.

[Michael Hardner]

Meaning only that "Canadians are divided" is not an answer to somebody's concern about government intrusion and authoritarianism;

I wasn't answering "somebody's concern" or trying to convince them. I think I have been trying to make two points:

1 ) The email scanning, as much as we know about it, isn't "the same" as having a police officer enter your house at random.

2 ) People are characterizing others' lack of concern over this program as being the wrong response, basically. My point is that these things are decided personally and policy eventually comes out of the aggregate of those personal opinions.

why would this division be an "answer" to those concerned about this issue...and not, say, ones you consider more important?

See above - I'm not looking for an answer. I'm just trying to frame the discussion.

It would probably be a better tactic for those who want a change to these practices to talk about real negative outcomes. Kimmy did that, and it caused me to reconsider my position.

[dre]

The logic that email searches - whatever that means - is not seen as the 'same' as a cop coming into your house without permission - at least in the eyes of most Canadians.

I disagree... Polls that I have seen show a large majority of people are against the government snooping email. The ISA which gave the government the right to do exactly that, was so unpopular amongst both liberals and conservatives that it had to be abandoned.

[dre]

Citizens, voters would not feel that way. That should be obvious, basic, logical, and common sense.

Which is exactly why I said it needs to be drilled into them. People need to realize that the intellectual property thats commonly found in email is no different that in a snail mail or a verbal conversation. The ONLY difference is that its easier for the government to steal

[GostHacked]

The article I quoted says that the envelope is photographed, and envelope information (presumably including weight) is digitized and stored with the government.

Photographed and weighed. This is your so called 'metadata' They could be scanned to help travel through the system. And weight is important when talking about physical delivery of the mail. Your mail guy/gal can only carry so much.

That's one solution - but evidently not the one in practice.

Which is the problem. If the government is not even adhering to it's own rules, why the hell would I expect fair play when it comes to my adherence of the rules?

For sure it's more similar than having a cop enter your home. Also, I'm assuming you're not talking about how I feel about my email/mail because I'm not talking about that. It's a different discussion.

When talking about a privacy revolution, that is THIS discussion. Right to privacy in your home, with your email/communications. Everything.

I didn't say they did.

So what point are you trying to make?

[GostHacked]

I wasn't answering "somebody's concern" or trying to convince them. I think I have been trying to make two points:

1 ) The email scanning, as much as we know about it, isn't "the same" as having a police officer enter your house at random.

Can you explain why they are not the same?

2 ) People are characterizing others' lack of concern over this program as being the wrong response, basically. My point is that these things are decided personally and policy eventually comes out of the aggregate of those personal opinions.

If you defend a criminal and criminal activity, you have the wrong mentality. If you see abuse and do not report it, you are allowing the abuse to continue.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree... Polls that I have seen show a large majority of people are against the government snooping email. The ISA which gave the government the right to do exactly that, was so unpopular amongst both liberals and conservatives that it had to be abandoned.

I Googled it and got this - which says it's a split:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6233

Which is exactly why I said it needs to be drilled into them. People need to realize that the intellectual property thats commonly found in email is no different that in a snail mail or a verbal conversation. The ONLY difference is that its easier for the government to steal

Well, you're backing off from the point I was addressing about having somebody physically enter your house, so yes that position is much easier to defend in terms of similarity. As I mentioned above, Kimmy simply pointed out some actual negative results which helped me modify my stance, much more effective than just "drilling" ie. pushing that these things are the same.

[Michael Hardner]

Photographed and weighed. This is your so called 'metadata' They could be scanned to help travel through the system. And weight is important when talking about physical delivery of the mail. Your mail guy/gal can only carry so much.

You haven't been reading the posts above. This is done for security reasons.

Which is the problem. If the government is not even adhering to it's own rules, why the hell would I expect fair play when it comes to my adherence of the rules?

Rules have to be interpreted, you see, and they're obviously using liberal interpretations of the law.

So what point are you trying to make?

Well, not the points you're making for me. Again, read up on the thread - I outlined my two points just above, in response to some of the hyperbole and hectoring on the thread.

Can you explain why they are not the same?

Yes, I did so above.

If you defend a criminal and criminal activity, you have the wrong mentality. If you see abuse and do not report it, you are allowing the abuse to continue.

And I have not done either of these things.

[eyeball]

I Googled it and got this - which says it's a split:

That poll you posted says Canadians think and believe a lot of stuff but you implying that half of Canadians think it's A-okay to just riffle through whatever digital stuff whenever the authorities feel like it is just not true.

The most egregious violation, according to Canadians, would be if the government was to read through emails. Six in ten (61%) believe this is completely unacceptable, while four in ten (37%) say it is acceptable in some circumstances. Only 2% think it is completely acceptable.

I get it that you're probably in the 2% which is probably a good thing to know.

I'd like to see a comprehensive survey that gauges how Canadians feel about probing and penetrating the state's secrecy and how deeply we should monitor the government's internal activities.

[Michael Hardner]

That poll you posted says Canadians think and believe a lot of stuff but you implying that half of Canadians think it's A-okay to just riffle through whatever digital stuff whenever the authorities feel like it is just not true.

Again - I'm seeing a pattern here of you, GH and perhaps others taking my RESPONSE to a point as some point that I am trying to make.

I'm not "defending" these practices, or trying to say they're accepted. I'm responding to others' points and I think I will just ask people to read up on the thread moving forward.

I get it that you're probably in the 2% which is probably a good thing to know.

You don't "get it", clearly.

I'd like to see a comprehensive survey that gauges how Canadians feel about probing and penetrating the state's secrecy and how deeply we should monitor the government's internal activities.

That would be interesting, I think.

[eyeball]

Again - I'm seeing a pattern here of you, GH and perhaps others taking my RESPONSE to a point as some point that I am trying to make.

To put a finer point on it I think a lot of people are probably wondering if you work for these bastards.

I'm not "defending" these practices, or trying to say they're accepted. I'm responding to others' points and I think I will just ask people to read up on the thread moving forward.

You have a very odd way of demonstrating that and I guess what piques my interest in trying to nail down just where the hell you're coming from is to gain some insight into what it takes to shake people's complacency. Would you care to share what it was that kimmy said that apparently shook your's?

[Michael Hardner]

To put a finer point on it I think a lot of people are probably wondering if you work for these bastards.

I think if I did, I'd be putting together a stronger case for the need for these programs. Instead, I'm trying to frame the discussion in tones other than outrage, and even providing good strategies for increasing awareness of negative effects.

As a reward for my approach, people speculate whether I work for CSIS, imply or state that I'm "defending them", and try to turn every point towards my personal POV.

Would you care to share what it was that kimmy said that apparently shook your's?

Yes - she brought out some clear evidence as to what is being considered as terrorist acts by people who are simply protesting, although they were in briefing manuals not actual laws. Also the groups considered were animal rights and environmental groups not particularly known for violent acts.

This also mixed in with my knowledge of how insidious the intelligence establishment can be - things I know from stories I heard late last year from CBC's The Current, as well as personal anecdotes from activists in my family who have experienced harassment going back to the 1930s.

That said, many Canadians as well as myself see an obvious value in giving intelligence tools to aggregate web traffic and search it. The devil is, of course, in the details and everybody (including people on this thread, the government, security agencies etc) is doing their part to not discuss details.

[eyeball]

I think if I did, I'd be putting together a stronger case for the need for these programs. Instead, I'm trying to frame the discussion in tones other than outrage, and even providing good strategies for increasing awareness of negative effects.

As a reward for my approach, people speculate whether I work for CSIS, imply or state that I'm "defending them", and try to turn every point towards my personal POV.

I see a lot less tones of outrage than you I guess, I also see concern, resignation and of course lots of complacency, which is probably as outrageous as anything.

Yes - she brought out some clear evidence as to what is being considered as terrorist acts by people who are simply protesting, although they were in briefing manuals not actual laws. Also the groups considered were animal rights and environmental groups not particularly known for violent acts.

I recall...this seemed more like one more insight into an authoritarian mindset - following mountains of evidence of a state that had already long since gone quite mad.

This also mixed in with my knowledge of how insidious the intelligence establishment can be - things I know from stories I heard late last year from CBC's The Current, as well as personal anecdotes from activists in my family who have experienced harassment going back to the 1930s.

What sort of activism?

That said, many Canadians as well as myself see an obvious value in giving intelligence tools to aggregate web traffic and search it. The devil is, of course, in the details and everybody (including people on this thread, the government, security agencies etc) is doing their part to not discuss details.

Well, I guess some of us are still trying to bring this back to a discussion of why the government even needs such tools in the first place. Have you forgotten the tones of outrage that preceded the rapid ramping up of intelligence gathering? Outrage along with gobs of unreasoning fear were induced, stoked and used to justify and defend what's happened? We're so far past that now, complacency is now what mostly nurtures it..

FWIW I'm nowhere near as outraged as I am resigned. There's no turning back this disaster, the time for outrage and counter-fear mongering is past. The future is here. The people that hate our freedoms have won, hands down.

[Michael Hardner]

... and of course lots of complacency, which is probably as outrageous as anything.

We're having a provincial election where 1 out of 12 or more was able to identify which party the leaders were associated with, when named. This was in downtown Toronto.

I think that the time has come to require the masses to identify themselves as a public and engage with them, rather than rely on the mass model for democracy.

I recall...this seemed more like one more insight into an authoritarian mindset - following mountains of evidence of a state that had already long since gone quite mad.

It's specific, though, therefore more easy to assess than a general warning.

What sort of activism?

Members of family was heavily involved in the On-to-Ottawa trek in the 1930s, as well as offering refuge to Chilean expatriates after 1973. Most of these things were done through liberal religious groups, and as such I'm only highlighting the ones that would have brought the kind of attention we're discussion.

Have you forgotten the tones of outrage that preceded the rapid ramping up of intelligence gathering?

Yes, part of a mass communication approach. We're a public here, so we can go further than that.

The future is here. The people that hate our freedoms have won, hands down.

If I had truly given up as you seem to have, then I would stop caring and stop posting about these things.

[bush_cheney2004]

Strange that we don't see similar concern and support for citizens fighting for gun rights. Why is that ?

[eyeball]

If I had truly given up as you seem to have, then I would stop caring and stop posting about these things.

I've only given up my expectation that our federal government will ever back off on relinquishing or reigning in it's powers on it's own and I doubt it'll happen along the lines of an On-To-Ottawa movement although that would be a truly refreshing change. We've driven it till it's broken and now I'm doing the best I can to brace myself for the impact of a hard landing.

I post and follow events to keep a finger on the pulse of the masses, so I can better understand it and use that to maybe help brace the little publics I live in - my family, community, island and maybe the province. To hell with country though, it's just a helpless undifferentiated mass without a clue - like downtown TO.

I think that the time has come to require the masses to identify themselves as a public and engage with them, rather than rely on the mass model for democracy.

What do you mean by require, required by whom...Ottawa...the mass itself? It tried that back in the 30's, all for naught apparently. It's every public for itself, notwithstanding the wealthiest most influential one.

Edited May 12, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

What do you mean by require, required by whom...Ottawa...the mass itself? It tried that back in the 30's, all for naught apparently. It's every public for itself, notwithstanding the wealthiest most influential one.

A requirement as entry into a more traditional level of public engagement. That is - the government designs a public for a certain area of interest, and enlists citizens to identify themselves as members of that public.

[Michael Hardner]

If they don't know your name, then you're not part of a public.

[eyeball]

A requirement as entry into a more traditional level of public engagement. That is - the government designs a public for a certain area of interest, and enlists citizens to identify themselves as members of that public.

Right. I've seen these being parachuted in from time to time for 25 years now. Good work too if you can get in on one.

If they don't know your name, then you're not part of a public.

That's okay, the funding usually dries up in a hurry and they soon forget who you ever were.

[Michael Hardner]

Right. I've seen these being parachuted in from time to time for 25 years now. Good work too if you can get in on one.

Online will be a much more open process, and will be able to include people from far away.

That's okay, the funding usually dries up in a hurry and they soon forget who you ever were.

Once they get one that works, they will all be that way. Managed consultation with a public will produce much better solutions than the top-down politically-centred solutions we get today, trust me.

[eyeball]

No they won't. Trust me. Our local management board has been plugged in online with government officials in Ottawa and elsewhere for years now but you'd never know it. The back channels are still just as closed off for all but the wealthiest amongst us...Jimmy is still the most powerful fisherman on the coast.

That's the only public the state is interested in really consulting with. The rest are all for show. I remember the sweet taste of the kool-aid too. It tastes bitter once the funding dries up and they turn back to the Jimmy's of the world. Trust me.

Edited May 12, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

No they won't. Trust me. Our local management board has been plugged in online with government officials in Ottawa and elsewhere for years now but you'd never know it. The back channels are still just as closed off for all but the wealthiest amongst us...Jimmy is still the most powerful fisherman on the coast.

It's much harder to cloak the backroom with a well designed online process.

Look at it this way, at one time the press was supposed to keep an eye on such things. It worked for awhile, but not anymore.

That's the only public the state is interested in really consulting with.

Only because money buys votes more easily when you have a mass model. You can buy TV ads to convince the masses to vote against their interests. This works for both sides of the political coin.

With a public, you have a group that understands their own interests, and the issues at stake. There's no other way to get to them other than through policy.