Canadians need to get angry about government spying revelations | Hacker News Reader

Canadians need to get angry about government spying revelations

blogs.montrealgazette.com

110 pointsTheLegace56 comments

Some things I have been able to dig up.

In his final report to Parliament, commissioner Robert Decary says some of the spying at Communications Security Establishment Canada may have affected Canadians in the past year. However, thanks to poor record-keeping, Mr. Decary – a retired judge who has been the agency’s independent watchdog since 2010 – said he can’t be sure.[1]

CSEC is forbidden from intentionally collecting or analyzing information from Canadian citizens in Canada or abroad. However, the National Defence Act allows the defence minister to give CSEC written ministerial authorization to intercept private communications unintentionally while collecting foreign-signals intelligence.[1]

Doesn't this contradict with the Canadian Privacy Act?

Yet, while Mr. Binney compliments the surveillance acumen of Communications Security Establishment Canada, he also urged the Canadian public to scrutinize CSEC – especially given its long-standing close ties to the NSA. “They have integrated reps,” he said, referring to how the agencies swap personnel. He pointed out that they also share technology, such as a very powerful, recently revealed Internet-surveillance tool, code-named “XKeyscore.” “CSEC does not direct its activities at Canadians and is prohibited by law from doing so,” its chief, John Forster, said in a rare public statement. Yet, records recently obtained by The Globe show that CSEC has been developing its own secretive programs to “incidentally” monitor at least some Canadian telecommunications traffic.[2]

Some of Mr. Snowden’s leaks speak to the NSA’s close relationship with CSEC – suggesting, for example, that the two agencies teamed up to spy on foreign diplomats at a 2009 G20 meeting in London, and may have also been in cahoots to install a back door to spy on encrypted messages on the Internet in 2006.[2]

At the time, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment ran the standards process for the international organization, but classified documents describe how ultimately the N.S.A. seized control. “After some behind-the-scenes finessing with the head of the Canadian national delegation and with C.S.E., the stage was set for N.S.A. to submit a rewrite of the draft,” the memo notes. “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor.”[3]

So CSEC was being coerced by NSA and completely gave up control. Although I can respect the apparent "restraint" Canadian government has, but clearly system can be abused and will stay way under the radar compared to NSA and GHCQ. [1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/watchdog-says-s... [2]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/beware-of-data-spy... [3]http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce

As a Canadian, I'm more angry about the proposed human rights violations in Quebec.

This "charter of values" is blatantly racist.

http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/3

The 'values' charter is an attempt to make Quebec undesirable for immigrants who are less likely to vote for seperation. This is all the Bloc care about the whole religious symbols is a smoke screen

It's still a project from minority government and all institutions/cities can withdraw from it. Montreal(1.65M pop) said that it will not apply the charter in their city.

It still has a long way to go, but it's a good way to change the political agenda and pit rural areas and cities against each other.

The worst thing about this charter is not that it makes a clear separation between church and state (like in France), but rather that some religions are "more equal" than others (for example, the crucifix will remain in the legislative chamber).

So yeah, it's more of a "let's get everybody in the province riled up and angry at each other instead of creating jobs and fixing real problems." And since the separatist option is stuck at 30%, that's pretty much the best the Parti Québecois can do to please their troops.

I agree. As a Canadian this makes me much more angry. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be the starting point, and the fact that Quebec wants to override it makes me furious.

Not sure I'd necessarily say racist...

They should simply require all religious jewellery to be hidden/covered up for employees, and not allow covered faces. The ban on turbans and head-scarves is too much though.

It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right...

"Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..." "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..."

Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.

Since when is covering your face a religious issue?

My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony.

So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on someone's religious beliefs?

Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a baseball cap?

To be entirely honest, I don't really care what your wife wears.

This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them.

I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too.

(Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)

> No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them.

So police and government officials shouldn't be able to identify someone wearing a Niqab? Hiding one's identity is a safety issue, and harm could follow...

I fully agree with the rest BTW, but you do need to realize, there are unsavoury practices around the world that are justified by 'religious' belief...

I'm not sure how wearing a Niqab while doing your desk job somehow constitutes a security risk.

I don't subscribe to the "if you are wearing a Niqab you are a terrorist" belief. You have a better chance of choking on your own vomit then being attack by a terrorist. Politicians use the "safety" concern argument to make you accept it, but just because the news lady tells you about a single incident about a person wearing a Niqab doesn't mean anything.

the unsavory things you speak of around the world, well, they aren't here.

Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam.

> Should government employees have no dress code?

Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.

> Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam.

Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional, including many Sunni scholars, and every moderate Islamic sect.

Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?

Canada infringes on polygamy for a very specific reason, from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_...

In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage.[21] Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news[21]):

    "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage".

Bauman argued that there are cases where the "wives" (who may be rather young; sometimes as young as 12 years) are abducted and abused, but because they believe in a faith promoting polygamy, they are not willing to bring complaints to the authorities. He reasons that these offences sometimes may be stopped by applying anti-polygamy legislation.

The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news,[21] some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.

===

reference [21] is a broken link on wikipedia, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy... so i offer this one instead: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-u... it is more focused on the harm aspect and does not notice the polyamorous angle.

I understand this angle, but the harm described here has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with oppressive, criminal behaviour. A man could easily commit the same crime on a single woman, there's nothing inherent to polygamy that is more harmful than a monogamous relationship.

> Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional

Which doesn't stop it from being a religious issue.

> Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?

Whether something is a bona fide religious issue is not, alone, dispositive of the treatment it should have by the State. So pointing out that other religious practices are prohibited by the State is irrelevant when the discussion at hand was over whether the issue was really a religious issue.

I don't think polygamy is specifically disallowed by the state, depending on how you define polygamy. Since marriage comes with tax and legal benefits, the state has an active interest in controlling what is legally defined as marriage (specifically, how many people are party to one marriage. I'm not talking about controlling any kind of two-party marriages like one man and one woman, two men, or two women).

For the religious definition of marriage, there are no laws saying you can't be married in your religion to multiple people. The only stipulation is that you can only be legally married to one person because of the aforementioned legal and tax benefits. There's no law prohibiting me from having six female roommates who are exclusively in a relationship with me. There is a law saying I can only be legally married to one of them at a time. The rest of the women would be legally single and religiously married.

> My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face

How does this behavior of your wife say anything about what is or is not a religious issue for others?

It doesn't, but it is a little anecdote to illustrate that what some people claim is an essential religious belief isn't necessarily so.

Plenty of questionable behaviour gets glossed over as a 'religious' belief. Carrying weapons, polygamy, subjecting women and minorities, violence, etc... There absolutely has to be a line in the sand concerning what we as a society are willing to accept.

Some fundamentalist Christians think they should burn witches and homosexuals, and in the past, did. Yet our society no longer considers that acceptable.

Completely off topic, but what is your issue with polygamy? This is something that is illegal in Canada, and I find it puzzling. TBH, I don't see the issue with it. If you take away the fact that Warren Jeffs is complete fuck tart, polygamists seem to have the same issues you would find in monogamous relationships. Are there stories that are horrible, yes, but you find that everywhere else. When you look at the facts, are there more/worse issues in plural marriages?

"Polygamy" is a word that really isn't used to mean the thing its component parts imply (marriage for polyamorous people.)

Instead, it's usually both mixed-age and arranged: effectively, families coercing their daughters to join the harem of a rich man. (There may also be a dowry, in which case the family is selling their daughter into the harem of a rich man.)

This is a pretty bad thing, but it's hard to write a fully-general (e.g. gender-neutral) legal definition of it that doesn't also cause problems for regular poly people.

I have no issue with Polygamy. But some people do, and our governments evidently do as well.

Polygamy is accepted by many religions, and we have no problem trouncing those rights, yet we will bend over backwards for other questionable 'rights' (like the Burqa/Niqab, which is not 'required' except by extremist sects - and is nearly universally regarded as a tool of oppression).

I would honestly say that we need to look at our stance on polygamy. It seems kind of pointless to make it illegal (from the little knowledge I have on this specific topic).

I mean, every everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?

Since when is covering your face a religious issue?

The proposal forbids a variety of religious adornments, for more than those involving face covering. I have no problem identifying someone in a hijab (headscarf), for example, which would also be outlawed for government employees under this proposal.

"It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..."

It's still wrong to lose your government job because of religious descrimination.

This will result in a brain drain for Quebec. There are many people who wear "religious symbols" that I know that are doctors, engineers in Quebec to whom their religion matters. They will most likely leave the province if this comes into effect.

So Quebec now wants to regulate which hat you can wear and which shapes your earrings can be. Good work. I propose Pastafarians to adopt a religious dogma that one should wear clothes while in public. Let's see Quebec deal with that.

It's mostly racist as long as they keep the existing Christian symbols.

France did this ten years ago, there's not much analysis.

Gov't employees would also be banned from wearing Christian symbols.

Why though?

I mean I am an Indian who emigrated here, athiest now.

But honestly what difference does it make. Do we want to live in a society where we have to concious about what religious symbol offended who.

I find incredibly hypocritical that Quebec doesn't want a "Canadian" identity, they want their own. Yet they will prevent you from having our own identity. Since when was the state responsible for culture and identity. I thought that was for the people.....

Since when was the state responsible for culture and identity. I thought that was for the people.....

Maybe you have to live here, to see the scope of how much the government thinks that it is their business.

I received mail from the government, touting "Nos Valeurs", a pamphlet that was printed and then mailed to me using my tax money. This is just plain old propaganda. The government has decided that these are "our" values, and it will use the power of the State to enforce it.

yes but I'm referring to the crucifix in the assembly.

wrong.

not racist.

it only affects people in government, and doesn't affect your household. If you work for the government, and don't like it move out.

it's a simple social contract. If you don't like what the government is doing, or what the citizens and government value more than your religious convictions, move somewhere else.

yes, i'm canadian

I don't understand your logic.

Can you edit/modify/respond to my post in a way that shows that choosing to limit what certain people who work in the government wear is not racist?

I don't want to start a flame war, but want to understand your opinion, which I honestly don't understand. The only way to have meaningful political dialogue is to understand each other.

Religion != race

Keep spinning it that way, if you'd like. But the people who are (for example) Muslim or Sikh in Quebec tend to not be white. The Jewish population is another matter, but the Quebec nationalists have it in for them, too, and that goes back decades.

not racist.

Many feel it's targeted at immigrants like Muslims and Sikhs.

If you work for the government, and don't like it move out.

People would be FORCED to move out on the account of something that was not a problem until the PQ decided it was (for political gain too).

yes, i'm canadian

What an embarrassment.

What people feel doesn't make it fact.

An embarrassment? Hardly. You don't agree with me and therefore I am an embarrassment? How convenient of you.

Values can change. PQ are doing that. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.

Great bait. I took it.

Why don't you leave Canada, go live in Arizona or Utah.

Have you read the Charter of Rights of Freedom, you know that law the entire country including Quebec is suppose to follow. I mean your to busy undermining the values of the country so you can have your own crappy value system. Why don't you people go live somewhere else like France where this sorta thing is so popular and productive.

Doesn't seem like the rest of Canada agrees with you. And I'd argue letting Quebec do whatever the fuck they want is the reason this is an issue in the first place.

Cognitive dissonance to the max.

I have read the charter, yes. have you? Do you forget that the religious freedoms part is mean that neither the citizens nor government dictate what religions to follow or practice. What Quebec is trying to change is how the government dictates how the government may represent itself, that is as secular. It still does not affect you personally, or how you identify yourself publicly at all; unless you work in government, but why would you want to work for the government? Doesn't pay well and is shit.

I don't think you understand cognitive dissonance at all. Do you presume to know how all of Canada feels? Perhaps the majority of people nearest you do share the same thoughts on the subject, and that you don't feel it's right. Just because someone happens to offer a different viewpoint than you, and you happen to disagree with it, doesn't mean that I have cognitive dissonance. I'm more than capable of accepting new ideas. This idea in particular is different than the one I grew up with and I happen to see value it in.

You clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I don't care what people practice, or how they are in their own homes or out in public. I don't feel untoward or speak ill of anyone who is religious or wants to wear things they consider to be part of whatever it is they consider to be their identity. What I do think is fair is that anyone representing government not display their beliefs. It's not fair that quebec has made distinctions between what is acceptable and not. Nothing should be worn by individuals. It doesn't matter nor does it help to perform your job. If you work somewhere, it'll most likely have a dress code. Consider this an extension of that.

I don't mind that many canadians feel this is a violation of the charter; maybe they should be thinking about what they value more: how government represents and polices itself or social identity. This has nothing to do with how the government treats citizens. Yes, citizens make up the government; but guess what - you're not representing segments and races: you're representing canada.

But isn't canada made up of many races? Am I seriously suggesting people not represent things they cannot change, which is skin colour or whatnot. no. but what are you really trying to accomplish in government? represent canada or whatever background you happened to be born into without choice.

you don't like my thoughts since it doesn't fit your ideal and initial world view: that's cognitive dissonance. I can accept people for who they are, and I really don't care about this issue as much as it may seem, despite replying to your bait and various others. At the end of the day, Quebec isn't going to get what they want, and canada is going to keep on rolling; you'll have your way, and I won't care what Quebec's decision is.

Still want me to leave? I bet you'd relish the thought. I'll stick around long enough to challenge your views though. enjoy.

Its quite embarrassing that discrimination is going to be a part of Quebec's official values.

Most Canadians I know have fallen prey to the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Those who have not seem discouraged/depressed about trying to hold back the tide of governmental privacy invasion AND/OR focusing all their attention on more visible issues like oil pipelines | religious symbols | taxation...

There is an easy way to dispel the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy. Ask them how much money they made last year, how long their penis is, and what medication they are currently on.

Then inform them that you don't have the power to imprison them but the government does.

I have successfully changed the mind of a dozen people in about 90 seconds. You have to shock people out of their stupor.

Since I am in the < 25 years age category, I tend to hit them where it huts the most. Here is what a usual conversation goes like:

Me: You should care about these things. X: But I have got nothing to hide! I don't care. (Then I get the look, "Do you have something to hide?") Me: OK. Since you have nothing to hide, please give me your Facebook password so that I can go through your FB inbox. Also, your Gmail and Skype passwords would be good to have, since you have nothing to hide.

Never fails to work.

I think the issue is that people tend to place certain "trust" with the government and that their information won't be misused and have this notion that the government can't do no wrong. But they tend to forget that there are people in a government.

A society that "permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to remain a liberal democracy."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2175406

Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics, though we certainly should shine more light about the issue, and maybe take away Steven Harper's majority if they don't respect our wishes.

At least we have a (mostly) functional political system, with viable 3rd parties, better representation, etc... Harper has to call elections by 2015 I believe, and it wouldn't be a stretch for an NDP-Bloc-Green coalition to form a government...

Steven Harper is my MP, maybe I'll send him an email.

Edit - also seems as though current polls show a slim lead for the Liberals...

I think that's a negative, in a way (the not being too angry or upset on politics). It seems not a lot of us (the general Canadian population) cares, or even understands what's going on.

Everyone I talk to is either too ignorant about international, or even domestic affairs, or simply responds with "uhuh," or "meh." People don't seem to truly understand what kind of effect this has. Not only on people's privacy, but on the ultimate government control. If nobody responds, it basically gives the government a green light to do it again, and again.

I'd disagree with our "functional political system." There's so many systems in-place that warrant a conservative behaviour. Such as the vote of non-confidence, first-past the post, no set terms or set maximum time in office, etc... It encourages the government to only act in their best interest. Only being interested in staying in office. Thus, potentially controversial or progressive bills would be worthless to make. So they do the same "safe" thing.

I would also argue that we have really bad representation (not relative to any other country - just an absolute bad). Some have proposed other voting systems such as proportional representation. But this creates even more problems, such as common coalition, which I wouldn't classify as a good thing.

But perhaps this is only because I'm ready for a lot of change in how things work, and not always acting on the status-quo. It seems the only way to really fix things, is to radically change a slew of systems - which most likely won't happen.

It's infuriating how passive Canadians can be. The answer I hate the most when I get worked up over privacy issues is "Well we all knew this was happening". I just wanna tell them "enjoy your Nazi Canada then", but somehow I feel that might not exactly win them over to my argument either.

Sorry for venting, I haven't been able to discuss politics or anything of consequence in a critical way with a real-live person for quite some time.

haha. I feel the same way :). I find privacy, for the majority of the people, is a non concern. They love their little lives, with a job, paying taxes, and living. The government doesn't exactly encourage participation, they'd love to hide these things. The more people participate, the less likely they'll be able to get away with it.

It's quite disappointing here that not many people care. I find it appalling, and ignorant.

"Us Canadians aren't too prone to getting angry about politics"

Absolutely right. Except my comments further down, we tend not to get too upset. Although, I'm really happy Vic Toews is gone. That man was horrid.

Since Canada, Australia, NZ and UK are part of the 5 eyes alliance obviously our agencies are just as rogue and illegal as the NSA. This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered

<I>This is precisely why they dissolved the CSIS/CSE watchdog authority so they could spy on us unhindered</I>

Well, that's factually incorrect since the Security Intelligence Review Committee oversees CSIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Co.... And there have been several hearings to which Richard Fadden has testified in front of MPs.

However, it's worth pointing out that SIRC's credibility is shot with the appointment of people like Arthur Porter.

They axed the Inspector General of CSIS who was critical of their escalating privacy violations and cut the position permanently

I don't know aboot 'angry' but there should be defined laws on the books about what organizations (i.e. anti-keystone ppl) get placed under added scrutiny. Also, some of the ways attempted recently to garner support for internet censorship have also been somewhat offbeat. But they are at the vangaurd of things, pretty important stuff.

Both the NSA and CSE claim to avoid gathering data on their own citizens, yet there's unprecedented sharing of information going on between the "5 eyes" agencies, so those assurances have little practical value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com