Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: A Canadian Field Guide
"Access to strong encryption technology is integral to the defense of
human rights in the twenty-first century. This technology is also
essential for securing digital transactions, ensuring public safety, and
protecting national security interests. Yet many state agencies have
continued to argue that encryption poses an unacceptable barrier to
their investigative and intelligence-gathering activities. In response,
some governments have called for limits on the public availability and
use of secure, uncompromised encryption technology.
Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: A Canadian Field Guide
— co-authored by the Citizen Lab and the Canadian Internet Policy and
Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) — examines the parameters of this
debate, paying particular attention to the Canadian context. It provides
critical insight and analysis for policymakers, legal professionals,
academics, journalists, and advocates who are trying to navigate the
complex implications of these technologies."
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online privacy. Show all posts
Keep Police Use of Big Data to "Acceptable Boundaries," Says Study
"Despite evidence that state and federal law enforcement agencies have contracted with data analytics firms to mine information from social media users, policymakers have still not moved to protect Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association from the misuse of 'Big Data,' according to an expert on information and privacy law.
The revelations underline the need for new approaches to transparency in order to ensure that police use of Big Data remains within 'acceptable boundaries,' Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, wrote in a paper posted in Scripted."
View the Full Text Article
"Despite evidence that state and federal law enforcement agencies have contracted with data analytics firms to mine information from social media users, policymakers have still not moved to protect Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association from the misuse of 'Big Data,' according to an expert on information and privacy law.
The revelations underline the need for new approaches to transparency in order to ensure that police use of Big Data remains within 'acceptable boundaries,' Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, wrote in a paper posted in Scripted."
View the Full Text Article
There is now Proof the NSA Overindulges in Data Collection
"National security officials are continually reassuring Americans that their communications aren’t getting caught in massive dragnets, and that when it does happen, the communications are handled responsibly. But recently-released opinions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)—the seven-judge panel charged with oversight of National Security Agency (NSA) spying programs—show just the opposite is true.
The heavily redacted documents, released on June 13 by the Department of Justice in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), show troubling abuses of surveillance powers granted under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act."
"National security officials are continually reassuring Americans that their communications aren’t getting caught in massive dragnets, and that when it does happen, the communications are handled responsibly. But recently-released opinions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)—the seven-judge panel charged with oversight of National Security Agency (NSA) spying programs—show just the opposite is true.
The heavily redacted documents, released on June 13 by the Department of Justice in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), show troubling abuses of surveillance powers granted under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act."
Pleading the Case: How the RCMP Fails to Justify Calls for New Investigatory Powers
"A pair of articles by the Toronto Star and CBC have revealed a number of situations where the authors report on why authorities may be right to ask for new investigatory powers. A series of cases, combined with interviews with senior RCMP staff, are meant to provide some insight into the challenges that policing and security agencies sometimes have when pursuing investigations. The articles and their associated videos are meant to spur debate concerning the government’s proposal that new investigatory powers are needed. Such powers include a mandatory interception capability, mandatory data retention capability, mandatory powers to compel decryption of content, and easy access to basic subscriber information.
This post does not provide an in-depth analysis of the aforementioned proposed powers. Instead, it examines the specific ‘high priority’ cases that the RCMP, through a pair of journalists, has presented to the public. It’s important to recognize that neither the summaries nor underlying documents have been made available to the public, nor have the RCMP’s assessments of their cases or the difficulties experienced in investigating them been evaluated by independent experts such as lawyers or technologists. The effect is to cast a spectre of needing new investigatory powers without providing the public with sufficient information to know and evaluate whether existing powers have been effectively exercised."
"A pair of articles by the Toronto Star and CBC have revealed a number of situations where the authors report on why authorities may be right to ask for new investigatory powers. A series of cases, combined with interviews with senior RCMP staff, are meant to provide some insight into the challenges that policing and security agencies sometimes have when pursuing investigations. The articles and their associated videos are meant to spur debate concerning the government’s proposal that new investigatory powers are needed. Such powers include a mandatory interception capability, mandatory data retention capability, mandatory powers to compel decryption of content, and easy access to basic subscriber information.
This post does not provide an in-depth analysis of the aforementioned proposed powers. Instead, it examines the specific ‘high priority’ cases that the RCMP, through a pair of journalists, has presented to the public. It’s important to recognize that neither the summaries nor underlying documents have been made available to the public, nor have the RCMP’s assessments of their cases or the difficulties experienced in investigating them been evaluated by independent experts such as lawyers or technologists. The effect is to cast a spectre of needing new investigatory powers without providing the public with sufficient information to know and evaluate whether existing powers have been effectively exercised."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)