Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[Derek 2.0]

No. Whats collected are raw bytes which are becoming more and more useless as plain-text communication dies out. They have some bytes but they dont know whats in them unless they are unencrypted. And they have IP addresses and aliases but they cant connect those to people without help from the ISP or service provider, and they dont have to give that help without a warrant (although they are spinless and often do)

I'll stop you right there.........what you're describing is domestic surveillance by such agencies........There are no restrictions on the NSA preventing it from collecting any form of Canadian communications (barring communications between someone in Canada and the United States), nor on the inverse are there restrictions on CSEC from doing the like with American communications (barring communications between someone in Canada and the United States).

Thats why governments and organizations like the NSA and CSIS routinely make hundreds of thousands of requests per year to ISP's and Service providers. They DONT have your data. And this is why bills like the Internet Surveillance act include provisions that allow the government to force ISP's and Service providers to give the government access to their systems, install hardware onsite, or even force the companies to install it on their behalf.

Not CSIS, but CSEC...........As I said, CSEC won't collect your (Canadian) data, the NSA can and does.

And the door is about to get shut in the governments face by the next generation of E2EE devices. These spy agencies have wasted billions of dollars on information collection systems that wont be able to do anything besides collect encypted data. Apple estimates it would take the NSA 5 years to crack one of its new E2EE encrypted communications. But even if they are grossly underestimating the NSA and the NSA can crack one per minute, thats still only only 1440 per day that they can crack, and index to be data-mined. Theres 180 billion emails sent every single day.

The whole data-mining concept is almost over.

If you're content with that, what is there to worry about?

People almost universally dont like the idea of bulk electronic surveillance, and no matter what the government does the private sector will respond quickly with a solution. Its almost inconceivable that the government was stupid enough to go down this road and invest money in it.

Who regulates and taxes private industry?

[Icebound]

Who regulates and taxes private industry?

Nobody. Because if they DO regulate it (too much), it dissappears offshore..

And if you try to regulate the people to the point of saying: "you can't use this device built in a foreign country", then you essentially become North Korea.

Democracy was born out of rebellion. And rebellion to autocratic governments will continue forever.... or at least once can only hope.

[Keepitsimple]

If that 'conspiracy' had merit ... why is there still only an unarmed security guard at the door of parliament?

Somebody didn't take it very seriously it seems.

And I think there should be more secure arrangements.

The incident in question involved one disturbed person carrying a very noticeable rifle.

It's the element of creating fear with "what ifs" that I find bothersome.

.

I admit that there will always be those who totally exaggerate things - but doing "what if" scenarios is exactly what security is all about. It's time to acknowledge that terrorism, twisted ideologies and radicalism are a fact of life - and they are here. It's not about creating fear. It's about making practical choices that at least give us a fighting chance to thwart disasters before they become reality - or having safeguards and security in place to minimize of eliminate the ones that sneak through. Security and policing - what a crappy job nowadays - blamed for not enough preventative actions, blamed for too much and "taking away freedoms", blamed for brutality. Somebody once said "nobody likes a cop - but they always holler for one when they're in trouble".

[Keepitsimple]

There's been a hue and cry about how we have lost so much freedom since 911 and our freedom is in further jeopardy with the tweaks that are expected to come as a result of the recent attacks. Don't know about anyone else but personally, I have not felt one iota of change since 911 - nothing at all that has affected me in the slightest. Oh - one thing - the check-in at airports - and I guess the border although I don't go to the US. Big deal. Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Icebound]

But if the courts found this to not be a violation then it would not be a violation. It's really up to whatever the courts decide is or is not a violation of the Charter. If the government passes legislation which the courts approve, then whatever that legislation is would not be illegal or a violation of rights.

So why would anyone say they would pass legislation that will violate people's rights?

Some nice semantics here.... of course it does not "violate" the "rights", if the "law" says that it does not "violate" the rights, in the strict sense of legal definition.

But the "legal" law may still violate my own personal definition of "my rights", and the question becomes, at what point does democratic society agree with the "legal" law, and at what point does it agree with "ME".

So we do have a framework in the Charter (which helps), but all of the systems for interpreting it are human and subject to human failures and human bias. Is it possible for the court to bend too far in the direction of stifling rights? It is possible for enforcement agencies to interpret the courts' rulings further toward stifling rights.... than the court actually intended? ... and then I have to fight for 10 years to get my life back.

And how far is "too far"? For that, perhaps we should study history rather than depending on knee-jerk enforcement.

And just as an aside.... whatever technology ends up in the hands of government, eventually also ends up in the hands of criminals and terrorists... whether it is guns, or nuclear weapons.... tanks or electronic eavesdropping. So I would not be so blase about allowing the government to read my emails... email is becoming rapidly the de facto method of doing business, and without secure email, our economy has a good chance of crumbling. Fraud is already costing North America multiple BILLIONS of dollars, and if emails remain unsecured, it can only grow.

Which is why private industry if FINALLY recognizing what governments should have mandated years ago... and actually starting to INCREASE the encryption security of electronic transactions.

[Icebound]

There's been a hue and cry about how we have lost so much freedom since 911 and our freedom is in further jeopardy with the tweaks that are expected to come as a result of the recent attacks. Don't know about anyone else but personally, I have not felt one iota of change since 911 - nothing at all that has affected me in the slightest. Oh - one thing - the check-in at airports - and I guess the border although I don't go to the US. Big deal. Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

Your experience and my experience are not the issue. About 20 million people in Canada were "not affected" when the war measures act was invoked in 1970.... but several hundred innocent people certainly were.

As a simple example.... since 9-11 have there been people put on the no-fly lists, when they should NOT have been? THOSE are the people that you ask whether they have been affected.... not you or me.

[eyeball]

It's time to acknowledge that terrorism, twisted ideologies and radicalism are a fact of life.

I think it would have been more transparent and accountable of our governments to acknowledge how terrorism, twisted ideologies and radicalism would become a fact of life as a result of our foreign policies.

Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

My growing sense of resentment towards our government's policies are changing my mental state by making me more depressed and angry - bit by bit the impact just keeps adding up.

I can also point to tens and hundreds of millions of examples of the same thing happening here and around the world. What sorts of facts of life that results in is anybodies guess but I'm guessing they won't be pleasant and I'm betting they'll lead to state's reacting with more police and more authority.

[Michael Hardner]

Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

No, they don't. It's an affront to some that your email *could* be read, you might be eavesdropped on etc. and I think that's what fuels such arguments. There are sensible limits as to what governments should be able to do, and I do think that the data will likely be used at some point to put pressure on legitimate protest groups.

[Michael Hardner]

but several hundred innocent people certainly were.

As a simple example.... since 9-11 have there been people put on the no-fly lists, when they should NOT have been? THOSE are the people that you ask whether they have been affected.... not you or me.

Fair enough, but is the no-fly list situation compelling enough for us to NOT have them ?

[jacee]

Fair enough, but is the no-fly list situation compelling enough for us to NOT have them ?

I'm surprised at you setting up a straw man argument, Michael.

I think such restriction of freedoms should not occur without a hearing of some kind - an opportunity to face your accuser, present evidence. A 'suspicion' without a hearing shouldn't be enough.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Don't know about anyone else but personally, I have not felt one iota of change since 911 - nothing at all that has affected me in the slightest. Oh - one thing - the check-in at airports - and I guess the border although I don't go to the US. Big deal. Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

Good point and question. I would add that the U.S. and other nations routinely restricted travel across their borders long before 9/11. There is certainly no Charter right to enter or fly over the territory of other nations. Pointing to no-fly lists as examples of reduced rights is a very bad example.

[Icebound]

Fair enough, but is the no-fly list situation compelling enough for us to NOT have them ?

Well, I could use KeepItSimple's argument:

If the no-fly lists were NOT implemented the way they were, would it have changed YOUR day-to-day existence? and for 300 million North Americans, the answer would probably be "NO".

Should there be extra vigilance as to who gets on a plane... sure. If you want to include criminal record as a basis for exclusion, by all means... (although the airlines would probably go broke; also the resulting anger might provoke even MORE lone-wolf attacks). Fake id, weapons in your luggage, lying, behaviour... absolutely! Name?....not so much.

I admit to not having counted, and correct me if I am wrong.... but is it not true that since 9-11 more airline passengers have died worldwide due to pilots (a la Malaysia) than due to terrorists (Ukraine)? And that one was brought down from the GROUND.

[Icebound]

Good point and question. I would add that the U.S. and other nations routinely restricted travel across their borders long before 9/11. There is certainly no Charter right to enter or fly over the territory of other nations. Pointing to no-fly lists as examples of reduced rights is a very bad example.

No it is not a bad example at all.

Part of the idea on democracy is that laws are applied equally. There is no problem with restriction of travel across borders, but in a democracy, that has to be applied EQUALLY. If you choose to restrict somebody strictly on account of their NAME, that is not democracy. Especially if they are innocent in all other respects.

It took Senator Ted Kennedy 3 weeks to get his name off the no-fly list. Which shows how easily a piece of stupidity like that can be manipulated into a political weapon.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Part of the idea on democracy is that laws are applied equally. There is no problem with restriction of travel across borders, but in a democracy, that has to be applied EQUALLY. If you choose to restrict somebody strictly on account of their NAME, that is not democracy. Especially if they are innocent in all other respects.

No...democracy has nothing to do with inherent rights to airline travel, which encompasses many restrictions implemented by administrative regulation and carrier polices, which can and do differ. "Innocence" or guilt has little to do with it. Current U.S. Code establishes that U.S. citizens have the "right" to travel through navigable airspace, but it doesn't say how. And of course, Canada is perfectly capable of pieces of stupidity without reference to the U.S. or the late Ted Kennedy.

[dre]

I'll stop you right there.........what you're describing is domestic surveillance by such agencies........There are no restrictions on the NSA preventing it from collecting any form of Canadian communications (barring communications between someone in Canada and the United States), nor on the inverse are there restrictions on CSEC from doing the like with American communications (barring communications between someone in Canada and the United States).

I wasnt talking about legal restrictions, I was talking about technical restrictions. Like I said, all the NSA can do is collect raw bytes. Data packets and their headers. Even if the content is plain text or can be decrypted they still dont know who sent the communications.

From a practical standpoint, the NSA only has the communications of people that could care less about their privacy, and dont bother to take any basic steps to protect their privacy.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I admit to not having counted, and correct me if I am wrong.... but is it not true that since 9-11 more airline passengers have died worldwide due to pilots (a la Malaysia) than due to terrorists (Ukraine)? And that one was brought down from the GROUND.

Doesn't this lend support to added measures that are intended to stop terrorist hijackings and attacks for commercial aircraft ? Pilot error has long been established as one of the the leading causes of airline crashes.

[dre]

There's been a hue and cry about how we have lost so much freedom since 911 and our freedom is in further jeopardy with the tweaks that are expected to come as a result of the recent attacks. Don't know about anyone else but personally, I have not felt one iota of change since 911 - nothing at all that has affected me in the slightest. Oh - one thing - the check-in at airports - and I guess the border although I don't go to the US. Big deal. Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

I had a friend that died in Afghanistan... And we were all forced to pay for that. And I have been inconvenienced while travelling in various ways.

Overall though you are right... Not much difference. Then again the existance of terrorists in the middle east hasnt impacted my life either. It doesnt effect my daily life if Alqeada blows up a bunch of muslims in a market somewhere, or if ISIL takes over another Iraqi city. Judging by the number of Canadians that support interventionalist foreign policy in places that have nothing to do with us, it would seem that direct personal impact is not a prerequisite for being concerned about something.

And keep in mind... Much of what the government has tried to do has been struck down by the courts. The internet surveillance act for example would have cost tax payers a mountain of money and increased the cost of internet access. So while it might not effect our lives today its still reasonable to worry about the potential effect of extremely stupid and misguided policies like warrantless wiretapping etc.

And in the case of electronic surveillance, governments and the clueless supporters of these policies are inadvertantly providing aid to the terrorists, by creating mainstream demand for secure communications technologies. Online surveillance used to be a valuable tool... you could get a warrant to read a suspects email, or intercept their phone communications because most of the communications were being sent as plain text. Now though we are seeing the private sector design and market NSA Proof devices that use technologies like E2EE, and once these technologies are commonplace law enforcement will have lost the effective surveillance powers they once had.

Bulk electronic surveillance has also spawned new services like TOR which would allow terrorists on the internet to be completely anonymous rendering much of what the NSA does obsolete.

The following power point slide leaked from an NSA conference a while back...

Internet surveillance has made us LESS SAFE. Not to mention billions has been spent on data collection techniques that will soon be obsolete.

Edited October 26, 2014 by dre

[jbg]

Does anyone have any examples of how they personally have been impacted by any changes - changes that have affected their daily lives even a tiny bit?

Yes. Every time I go to work I pass through a gate electronically controlled by my firm's ID card. Same thing at my previous job. Somehow the cost of all this "security" must get passed through to the rent, and that cost gets passed back to employees, customers or, possibly, company or firm profits. Also, there is massive waste of time. Before 9/11 people used to walk directly to elevators, and in to work. Now, time is added for cuing up just to get into buildings. Someone has got to be paying for this time-wasting, unneeded equipment and foolishness.

You correctly mention airports. The inability to profile for behavior on the grounds that it is "discrimination" means that 80 year old grandmothers have to endure the same security procedures as 17-30 year old Arabs traveling in groups.

[dre]

No, they don't. It's an affront to some that your email *could* be read, you might be eavesdropped on etc. and I think that's what fuels such arguments. There are sensible limits as to what governments should be able to do, and I do think that the data will likely be used at some point to put pressure on legitimate protest groups.

This post shows the same tragic misunderstanding that Argus showed a few pages back. Here was my reply...

This is about people that dont want their personal or sensitive information to be sitting in a government datacenter somewhere. Thats why we are starting to see NSA-Proof devices marketed and companies investing in new ways to keep the spooks out... Do you think when apple made an E2EE device they were targetting the lucrative "paranoids and terrorist supporters" demographic?

The reality is that NOBODY with any sensitive data wants the government to have their communications in a hard drive somewhere. Government leaks like a sieve... The US for example loses control of millions and millions of sensitive documents every year. Hundreds of thousands of employees and subcontractors have access to this data at any given time.

So if you are a company that is using electronic communications during the development of proprietary technology... or a company discussing a big risky litigation with its attorneys... or ANYBODY that has ANY sensitive electronic communications about ANYTHING, the very last thing you want is the government to take those communications and put them in a data center somewhere.

Yet more opposition comes from people that realize what a bottomless pit that the whole "data-mining" concept is, and what a flawed plan it is from a technological standpoint. Because nobody wants their data to be snooped theres now huge demand for solutions that keep the government out. People are researching new encryption techniques, and companies are marketing anti-spook devices. Not to mention the ammount of electronic data is exploding. So not only is the government going to end up in an "electronic arms race" with the private sector using taxpayer dollars, the ammount of data they need to store and the costs associated with it will never stop increasing.

THe government surveillance industry in the US is already bigger than the entire automobile manufacturing sector.

So... Opposition to this kind of thing has very little to do AT ALL with people worrying they will be personally caught planning some kind of crime. It comes from everyone with a modicum of technologic knowledge, a healthy distrust of government, or just any common sense what-so-ever.

This is not about people not wanting their email read. Im a strong opponent of these kinds of measures even though I have never sent a sensitive email in my life. All the government could learn from intercepting my personal communications is what time I pick my daughter up at soccer.

And the people that DO use email for sensitive communications (almost every corporate on earth these days) arent not so much worried about the government reading those mails either. They are worried about the government warehousing this data, and losing control of it to other parties. Governments leak like sieves, and like we learned from Mr Snowden any data that NSA has is intermittently accessible by hundreds of thousands of subcontractors and employees that are required to analyze data and keep the system running.

And as I explained above... people with basic IT knowledge are concerned because they know that whole plan just flat out wont work, and they know the cost to the taxpayers that will result in the government engaging in a technology arms race with the private sector. Nobody with sensitive data is going to allow their information to be stored in a government data center, and concern over bulk surveillance has spawned a whole host of new technologies that can easily prevent that. We have inadvertantly armed terrorists (and everyone else) with tools to provide truly secure communication.

And then theres others who recognize the stifling effect that government access to peoples private communication can have to our democracy.

And then theres others that worry about a government that spent 200 million dollars creating an online database of a handful of long-guns being involved in ANY IT PROJECT AT ALL, never mind the warehousing and datamining of billions of communications per day.

None of these people are worrying about their personal emails being read... the concerns are much much broader in scope than that.

Edited October 26, 2014 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

I think such restriction of freedoms should not occur without a hearing of some kind - an opportunity to face your accuser, present evidence. A 'suspicion' without a hearing shouldn't be enough.

.

I don't know why these things aren't done - maybe they could be. I suspect it's not practical in most cases to put a process in place for what amounts to a private decision based on an intelligence hunch.

[Michael Hardner]

If the no-fly lists were NOT implemented the way they were, would it have changed YOUR day-to-day existence? and for 300 million North Americans, the answer would probably be "NO".

That's an even harder question to answer. What has the effect of these lists been ? I'd like to see a cite. Otherwise, we're in common sense/maybe/guesstimate territory.

Should there be extra vigilance as to who gets on a plane... sure. If you want to include criminal record as a basis for exclusion, by all means... (although the airlines would probably go broke; also the resulting anger might provoke even MORE lone-wolf attacks). Fake id, weapons in your luggage, lying, behaviour... absolutely! Name?....not so much.

I'd be shocked if I found out that people are systematically restricted from flying based on their name.

but is it not true that since 9-11 more airline passengers have died worldwide due to pilots (a la Malaysia) than due to terrorists (Ukraine)?

Are you trying to prove that the extra security measures are working ? Or that they're not working ?

[Michael Hardner]

This is about people that dont want their personal or sensitive information to be sitting in a government datacenter somewhere.

Well, your medical and financial data resides there today, so ...

THe government surveillance industry in the US is already bigger than the entire automobile manufacturing sector.

Cite ?

people with basic IT knowledge are concerned because they know that whole plan just flat out wont work,

Basic IT knowledge ? You need more than that, though, to understand how data cubes work. The costs of storage go down over time.

[jacee]

You correctly mention airports. The inability to profile for behavior on the grounds that it is "discrimination" means that 80 year old grandmothers have to endure the same security procedures as 17-30 year old Arabs traveling in groups.

Being a "17-30 year old Arab"

is not a "behavior".

[jacee]

I'd be shocked if I found out that people are systematically restricted from flying based on their name.

You mean like "T. Kennedy" was?

.

[jacee]

I don't know why these things aren't done - maybe they could be. I suspect it's not practical in most cases to put a process in place for what amounts to a private decision based on an intelligence hunch.

Not good enough.

.