Canada's CSE cyberwarfare toolbox revealed
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/23/canada-cse-hac...
One of the documents (PDF, 46 pages):
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1690...
I don't know about Canadian law, but most likely the spirit of:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
Was certainly not: Ask the Canadians to seize it for you and then they can give it back to you without due process.
(This is exactly the kind of Hostile Act the NSA should be protecting American's against, not cooperating with).
This is not a "cyberware toolbox." This is an IDS. For real, I bet they are using Snort inside one of their codeworded intrusion detection/response systems. Companies try to defend themselves from hackers by analogous systems. Is this any different?
I would bet that strategy (2) is the more likely one to gain traction and make a difference against the infringement of our rights as citizens.
David Cameron also relatively recently argued that encryption should be banned or controlled to prevent anyone hiding things from the intelligence services.
Widespread deployment of encryption would probably just result in more offensive tactics from intelligence agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law
And this is what happened in Canada recently:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/quebec-resident-al...
(I'd say TEMPEST style attacks might exist too, but display technology advancing might put a crimp in that, maybe.)
We've seen places use MAC addresses and WiFi probes to track people. In the future, it may be possible to do active monitoring via cameras, then correlate to identity by sweeping up organic pieces and sequencing DNA. (Maybe? I don't think there's any theoretical problem here, is there? We shed hair and skin all over.) Heck, I'm a bit surprised places aren't collecting fingerprints left and right.
It does not seem like there are available countermeasures. You'd need a constant energy+matter shield everywhere you go. Instead, making surveillance tech strictly limited seems like the only real defense. (Just like nuclear defense relies heavily on restricting access.)
This is a prediction of a shitty future, but do we realistically expect tech advances to stop soon? If you went back 30 years and polled people, they'd probably think the surveillance that's done today to be inconceivable.
The worst part is that if this was part of evidence-based policy, strategy, or tactics, it would at least be arguably not stupid.
Sigh.
Makes you wonder what will be more powerful in five years. These kinds of weapons that can attack and bring down parts of a countries infrastructure or a nuclear bomb?