Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean like "T. Kennedy" was?

.

Ted Kennedy shouldn't even have been allowed to drive...let alone fly. He killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a wake-up call - as seen through the eyes of the Toronto 18 inside informant:

In light of these attacks, Shaikh believes Canada must take more concrete steps against those espousing extremist doctrine—especially when authorities know the individuals plan to wage jihad.

“If somebody goes on Facebook and posts, ‘I’m going to Syria to fight in jihad,’ then we’re going have a discussion over whether this qualifies as evidence. I think, yeah [it does]. Should we wait to arrest somebody? Or release him to go and do something like what we’ve just seen? I mean, come on.

“This is what pisses me off,” Shaikh goes on. “I’ve been going to governments telling them we need something, on-the-ground counter-radicalization programs, something. Instead, they’re giving money for academic research on what causes radicalization. I mean, we’re eight years after the Toronto 18, 13 years after 9/11 and we’re just starting to look into what causes this? While all this other s–t is going on?”

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/toronto-18-informant---we-need-to-get-our-act-together-162749983.html

[Michael Hardner]

You mean like "T. Kennedy" was?

.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If your name matches somebody who is on a 'watch' list, you will endure problems flying and that has been the case since before the current era of security. I don't think anybody would be restricted from flying based on some rule, though.

Again, it's about risks and benefits. With the system as it is, it's too bad for the nice guy who happens to be named Abu Nidal but maybe it's a benefit to millions of flyers.

[Michael Hardner]

Not good enough.

.

Not good enough for whom ? For you ? I guess you can opt to boycott the system due to unfairness. Don't fly, for example.

Is it enough of an issue for people to be moved to political action ? It doesn't seem to be, at this time.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a wake-up call - as seen through the eyes of the Toronto 18 inside informant:

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/toronto-18-informant---we-need-to-get-our-act-together-162749983.html

I'm pretty sure there are other things being done, both in the open and quietly in the background. Still, there was a story about a crown not being able to press charges ... restrictions on the person ... Given all the resources they spend to find these individuals, it boggles the mind that they don't know how to act once they have found one.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

I can't speak to the direct technical means, I'm hardly computer savvy (it took me several days to figure how to turn-off my computer with Windows 8), but you speak of things like Tor.........Did not Snowden say the NSA has already exploited things like Tor/Firefox? Just a quick Google, and found this piece:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/how_the_nsa_att.html

I don't know if what he suggests is true or not, but if I had to choose between the NSA and some of the services you mention, I'll take the NSA in the long run............At the end of the day, you could very well think you're secure with such things as Tor (and you could be....for awhile), but you'll likely never know what the NSA knows.......so whats to worry about? If you feel your information is private, carry on....

[Argus]

By the way... on the subject of electronic wiretapping...

A year or so ago in a conversation with Hardner i warned him that the trend towards state electronic surveillance would come back to bite the government in the ass and actually REDUCE the ammount of access they have. And Iv been proven right... all this snooping has created demand for bullet proof secure communications and the private sector is stepping in. Apple is marketing their latest device as "NSA Proof".

And you think it actually is NSA proof?

The security services can access any electronic device you use, period.

[Argus]

Clueless.

This isnt about terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Opposition to bulk electronic surveillance is global and almost universal.

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

Then those people should grow the hell up and grab a clue or two. The government already has all your most sensitive information. Before I left CRA I could type in a name, an address or a SIN number and get pretty much your entire work history, how much money you made by year, who you worked for, who you donated money to, if anyone, marriages/divorces and kids, etc. etc. If you had any investments I'd know how much you were making there too. I'd know where you banked. If you had some kind of medical issue which affected your taxes I'd know that too. If you owned a business I could get all your details there. If you'd been to prison, I'd know when and where. Or could get the where and why from my contact at Corrections. If you had ever declared bankruptcy, I'd know when. If you were an immigrant, I'd know that too. If you were getting money which was administered by CRA I'd have access to that data. CRA is setting up now to record email addresses as part of the address field, so it can send forms and notices by email. So eventually they'll have almost everyone's email address. That will allow them to put a name and an address to any email address found online. And that's just one agency...

So just what 'sensitive' information, other than your porn surfing habits, do you imagine the government is going to derive from your emails that they don't already know?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

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".

What is a right? There are basic rights, like not being tortured or thrown into jail for no reason, being able to speak your mind, being able to move from town town or leave the country, being free to practice or not practice your religion, which are the bedrock of what we used to term 'human rights'. These are things pretty much everyone agrees on.

Anything beyond that is a legal definition.

[Icebound]

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.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Discriminatory practices are anti-democratic, and should be abolished. Just because there are discriminatory practices that "can and do differ" does not make it acceptable.

...

[jacee]

Here's a wake-up call - as seen through the eyes of the Toronto 18 inside informant:

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/toronto-18-informant---we-need-to-get-our-act-together-162749983.html

Really interesting link KiS. Thx.

The purpose of terrorism ...

Theyve realized, hey, if our intent is to scare the st out of peopleto trigger heavy-handed responses by government, to force isolation of the Muslim community, pushing them to more radicalizationwhat do you have to do? Take two guys into a mall, shoot it up, and youre done.

Arousing general anti-Muslim sentiment is the goal of terrorists.

.

[Icebound]

Then those people should grow the hell up and grab a clue or two. The government already has all your most sensitive information. Before I left CRA I could type in a name, an address or a SIN number and get pretty much your entire work history, how much money you made by year, who you worked for, who you donated money to, if anyone, marriages/divorces and kids, etc. etc. If you had any investments I'd know how much you were making there too. If you had some kind of medical issue which affected your taxes I'd know that too. If you owned a business I could get all your details there. If you'd been to prison, I'd know when and where. Or could get the where and why from my contact at Corrections. If you were an immigrant, I'd know that too. If you were getting money which was administered by CRA I'd have access to that data. And that's just one agency.

So just what 'sensitive' information, other than your porn surfing habits, do you imagine the government is going to derive from your emails that they don't already know?

The point is that as a CRA executive or employee... had you tried to use that information or made it public or given it to a third party, you would be subject to severe penalties.... and if not, then maybe it is REALLY time for a change of culture and government in Ottawa.... but if CSIS or CSEC or the RCMP or any such "intelligence" agency were to do so, they would claim "national security" and be by-and-large immune.

Also, while the CRA filings may well paint a picture of my life, it is still limited. It says nothing about my hobbies, exercise preferences, extended family gatherings, births, deaths, funerals, marriages, divorces,anything..,my travel habits, alcohol and drug use or NOT, medical status, preferred news sources, etc. All stuff that could be determined from emails, and all stuff that should stay private, if I want to make it so.

Sure, some of that stuff IS being collected in databases even now.... but only because our governments and financial institutions have made it too easy, and the public has opted for convenience over privacy, probably without actually understanding how much privacy is being given up.....

I think the push-back is already starting.

...

...

[Topaz]

IF its so easy to get info. on anyone, why is it for people who have their ID stole, so hard for THEM to prove who they are?? By the sounds of it, the government know exactly who we are and has the proof. Right or wrong??

[jbg]

Ted Kennedy shouldn't even have been allowed to drive...let alone fly. He killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

Hot summer nights with hot women in July 1969 do strange things to people.

[Derek 2.0]

A little more on the Bibeau's motives:

The RCMP says it has evidence that indicates the attack that killed a Canadian soldier in Ottawa and resulted in a gunfight on Parliament Hill was driven by ideological and political motives.

Gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau made a video recording before last week's attack, the RCMP said on Sunday.

I wonder if/when it will be made public?

[Big Guy]

I hope it is made public. There is no reason to keep it private. There is not going to be a court case so why not make it available to the public. I would like to know what he was thinking.

Did the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and/or Libya and or this latest Iraq war trigger his actions.

I would think that his motivation is crucial to the process of preparing a defense for the future.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Discriminatory practices are anti-democratic, and should be abolished. Just because there are discriminatory practices that "can and do differ" does not make it acceptable.

...

I didn't say that one has to like it, but airline travel has many restrictions and discriminatory practices that are acceptable by many airline passengers based on flight bookings and air miles. Before and after the cabin door closes, "democracy" is hardly the highest priority.

[On Guard for Thee]

I didn't say that one has to like it, but airline travel has many restrictions and discriminatory practices that are acceptable by many airline passengers based on flight bookings and air miles. Before and after the cabin door closes, "democracy" is hardly the highest priority.

Democracy depends on air miles? Jeez, I should be the Prime Minister.

[Keepitsimple]

Really interesting link KiS. Thx.

The purpose of terrorism ...

Theyve realized, hey, if our intent is to scare the st out of peopleto trigger heavy-handed responses by government, to force isolation of the Muslim community, pushing them to more radicalizationwhat do you have to do? Take two guys into a mall, shoot it up, and youre done.

Arousing general anti-Muslim sentiment is the goal of terrorists.

.

That's not the goal - it's just a tactic.....all part of infecting our democracy - trying to destroy it from the inside. We haven't seen anything yet.

[dre]

So just what 'sensitive' information, other than your porn surfing habits, do you imagine the government is going to derive from your emails that they don't already know?

So you didnt even read my post before you replied then?

[dre]

And you think it actually is NSA proof?

The security services can access any electronic device you use, period.

Maybe in your little fantasy world.

In the real world though theres limits to what you can do to break cryptography. Poor implementations of algorithms can be hacked... side channel attacks can be possible for a while... we had vulnerabilities in the keygen systems based on random numbers. But once an algorithm has matured you are left with no options besides brute force, and a 256 bit key would take a billion computers about a billion years to crack.

And cryptography isnt the only issue. All kinds of anonymization services are popping up like TOR. A NSA slide from presentation called "TOR STINKS" was leaked where they admited they would never be able to de-anonymize any significant ammount of TOR users.

So already your beloved security services are completely in the dark in terms of content belonging to anyone with half a brain.

[dre]

I can't speak to the direct technical means, I'm hardly computer savvy (it took me several days to figure how to turn-off my computer with Windows 8), but you speak of things like Tor.........Did not Snowden say the NSA has already exploited things like Tor/Firefox? Just a quick Google, and found this piece:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/how_the_nsa_att.html

Theres absolutely no question that the NSA has been able to compromise a lot of security systems and even some cryptographic algorithms... When you are allowed to spend 20 thousand million dollars per year spying on the very people giving you all that money youre obviously going to get SOME results. But theres practical limits to what can be done as the keys get longer and longer, and the NSA is up against a private sector that is about 1000 times as tech savvy as a government agency. And as I said the NSA itself has admitted it will never be able to deal with systems like TOR.

Like I said, this whole idea that the government could datamine everyones communications is pretty much done. It was a flawed idea in the first place that never worked very well and works less and less all the time. Add to that the fact that the NSA cant even control its own data... they leak classified information like a sieve, so its relatively easy for the private sector to develope opposing technologies. And thanks to bulk surveillance policies and the idiots that support them developing the means to circumvent them is now a global industry.

Government vs. Tech Industry: Fury Over Phone Encryption

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13200CZDJMU0#

Tell me this... if a government staffed by civil servants and temporary contracts goes up against the private sector component of an entire industry made up of all the biggest companies and best and brightest minds in the field.... Who would you expect to win? And if you think the government is better at IT than the private sector then why not just nationalize it?

Edited October 27, 2014 by dre

[On Guard for Thee]

.

[jbg]

Rex Murphy said it best

Link to story, excerpts below:

To the most enduring question of ours — what does it mean to be Canadian? — the passersby who tended the soldier, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the young solider at the tomb, and WO Vincent, the career military man going about his business in the uniform he earned the right to wear, gives us the answer we need.

It was a dark week, but one too that had more than its share of special light. We will remember our fallen, and the light that they shone.

I opened a thread based upon his response (link to thread on Murphy article).

[jacee]

I think this captures my fears:

Government exploits attacks on military to push security agenda, Greenwald says

Unless citizens rebel and demand transparency and accountability, Greenwald believes one ultimate consequence could be an endless war between the West, Muslim nations, and extremist movements.

Future generations will look back and say that in the wake of 9/11, the U.S. and its allies put themselves in a mindset and a policy approach that guaranteed not only a long war but a war that had no end.

The pattern is clear. We do something (militarily) in that part of the world that generates all sorts of rage and fury, rightly or wrongly. That rage and fury causes a tiny percentage of the people in that world to want to bring violence back to us.

When the violence is brought back to us, we immediately demand that our government further erode civil liberties and we need even more militarism, which in turn inflames that part of the world more and causes more violence to be brought back to us in a never-ending spiral.