But security analysts and civil liberties advocates say the revelations raise serious concerns about how the privacy of Canadians is being protected when such programs are in use.
Last week, the Guardian and Washington Post newspapers began a series of reports indicating that the United States National Security Agency was operating a dragnet of phone records from major American telecom firms like Verizon, and had the ability to clandestinely vacuum up Internet traffic from around the world as it flowed through US internet exchange points. The stated purpose was anti-terrorism.
Slides from a leaked document indicated the NSA had the help of major service providers like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft—extensively used by Canadians—to directly access content like search history, emails, file transfers, or chat logs, in a program called PRISM. Several companies denied involvement.
The news led to the revelation that the NSA’s analogous agency north of the border, Communications Security Establishment Canada, was also operating an electronic eavesdropping program of its own, collecting locations and address of messages and phone calls, aimed at foreign communication.
‘Privacy laws are powerless’
Security experts warned Canadians would likely be alarmed at the extent of the spying.
“Any Canadian citizen under these kinds of programs may well be subject to various kinds of electronic surveillance, in ways that our privacy laws are powerless to provide any protection against,” said Wesley Wark, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa.
“There is a massive surveillance infrastructure within our communications networks that may literally track every phone call. This is far more than was envisioned by current law and more than most Canadians would reasonably expect is occurring,” wrote Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.
Civil liberties advocates also raised privacy concerns about the programs. Sukanya Pillay, director of the National Security Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the programs “raise serious concerns for us on a number of levels,” and that the association was looking for more information.
“Any time we have mass information grabs, we have a lot of things that we have to worry about, such as...are we creating profiles of individuals, and to what purpose, and who has access to this?” she said.
“Typically in Canada, we insist upon warrants for a reason: they provide constitutional safeguards. We don’t want the requirement of a warrant to be suddenly no longer a requirement, nor do we want it to be a requirement in name only.”
David Hutton, executive director of whistleblower advocacy group FAIR, called the revelations about the programs “terribly troubling.”
Federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is planning on investigating the Canadian surveillance program, news reports indicate.
But Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who is responsible for CSEC, has said Canadians shouldn’t be worried.
“As the Communications Security Establishment works to keep Canadians secure, it does so knowing strict legislation protects the individual’s right to privacy,” wrote Mr. MacKay’s spokesperson, Paloma Aguilar, in an email.
CSEC activities are subject to a watchdog, retired judge Robert Décary, the communications security establishment commissioner. Mr. MacKay receives classified reports from Mr. Décary about CSEC operations, and Mr. MacKay’s office said those reports show CSEC activities are legal.
Even so, the minister found himself on the defensive on June 10 and 11 in Question Period.
“This program is specifically prohibited from looking at the information of Canadians,” said Mr. MacKay on June 10, after the first barrage of questions from opposition members.
Five Eyes in question
The revelations have also sparked debate within US intelligence-sharing partners such as Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand—collectively known as the Five Eyes—that domestic privacy laws were being skirted by information being passed around to allies.
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, for example, denied on June 11 that his county was circumventing local laws through its partnerships with foreign spy agencies.
“Is there some kind of circuitous method of information-sharing that enables passing through the safeguards that we have in place?” asked Ms. Pillay.
Mr. Geist and Mr. Wark both argue that the American and Canadian programs are connected.
“The metadata program in the US and the metadata program is Canada are surely linked,” wrote Mr. Geist.
“Given that each country’s laws allow for surveillance of foreign nationals, it would appear that the two programs can be used by intelligence agencies to share information as needed.”
Mr. Wark agreed the programs were “interlocked.”
“One has to assume that because CSEC is a close partner of NSA, that CSEC does have access to these pools of American signals intelligence, and therefore, CSEC conceivably has access to a wide range of, not just global communications or domestic US communications, but also conceivably the Canadian communications embedded in those streams,” he said.
CSEC declined to say whether its data-mining program and the American program are related, saying “it would be inappropriate to comment on the activities or capabilities of our allies,” as CSEC spokesperson Ryan Foreman wrote in an emailed response to questions.
“CSEC works in partnership with the Five Eyes...to share foreign intelligence. Within that international partnership, each agency works under its own domestic legal frameworks. CSEC must comply with Canadian law and Canadian law also applies to CSEC interactions with international partner agencies.”
CSEC operates within all Canadian laws, Mr. Foreman insisted, and its activities were reviewed by the commissioner.
When asked if Mr. Décary had looked into this issue, the commissioner’s spokesperson said the commissioner continually reviews elements of CSEC operations.
“If he finds any weaknesses or gaps on issues of compliance or privacy protection, he makes his recommendations to the minister of national defence,” said spokesperson Bill Galbraith.
Whistleblower in the spotlight
The leaked information came from ex-US Army soldier Edward Snowden, who outed himself in stories and videos on June 9.
He had worked contracts at the NSA and was a former US Central Intelligence Agency employee, but became disillusioned with what he saw as the US turning into Big Brother.
“With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting,” he told the Guardian.
“I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”
He called the extent of the NSA’s capabilities “horrifying.”
“We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.”
Mr. Snowden allowed a video of himself to be recorded in Hong Kong, where he fled because, in his words, “Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People’s Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech.”
Original Article
Source: embassynews.ca
Author: Carl Meyer
No comments:
Post a Comment