Communication Security Establishment's Cyberwarfare Toolbox Revealed
"Top-secret documents obtained by the CBC show Canada's electronic spy
agency has developed a vast arsenal of cyberwarfare tools alongside its
U.S. and British counterparts to hack into computers and phones in many
parts of the world, including in friendly trade countries like Mexico
and hotspots like the Middle East.
The little known Communications Security Establishment wanted to become more aggressive by 2015, the documents also said.
Revelations about the agency's prowess should serve as a 'major
wakeup call for all Canadians,' particularly in the context of the
current parliamentary debate over whether to give intelligence officials
the power to disrupt national security threats, says Ronald Deibert,
director of the Citizen Lab, the respected internet research group at
University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs."
Showing posts with label surveillance state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surveillance state. Show all posts
Our data, our laws
Over the past six months, the steady stream of disclosures from
former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden has
revealed a massive surveillance infrastructure that seemingly touches
all Internet and telephone communication across the globe.
While the issue has generated robust debates in many countries, the Canadian political response has been relatively quiet. In an effort to address the lack of oversight over Canadian surveillance activities, Liberal MP and former public safety minister Wayne Easter recently introduced Bill C-551, which would establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians.
The bill is a welcome move towards providing greater transparency and accountability for Canadian intelligence agencies, yet attention to oversight is not enough. We also need to address the legal framework under which these agencies operate, and the privacy protections granted to Canadians under the law.
Read on...
While the issue has generated robust debates in many countries, the Canadian political response has been relatively quiet. In an effort to address the lack of oversight over Canadian surveillance activities, Liberal MP and former public safety minister Wayne Easter recently introduced Bill C-551, which would establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians.
The bill is a welcome move towards providing greater transparency and accountability for Canadian intelligence agencies, yet attention to oversight is not enough. We also need to address the legal framework under which these agencies operate, and the privacy protections granted to Canadians under the law.
Read on...
How a Law Aimed at Sex Offenders Could Feed into the Growing Surveillance State
A new precedent for chilling 1st Amendment rights.
Last November, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) Act. Like “tough on crime” anti-trafficking legislation around the country, Proposition 35 was presented as bolstering law enforcement's ability to fight human trafficking by introducing a bundle of new laws that, most prominently, increased penalties for those convicted of trafficking human labor, made prostitution a sex crime, and with less public attention, created a new requirement for registered sex offenders.
Under this last provision, all 73,000 registered sex offenders are required to submit their Internet service providers and "Internet identifiers” to their local police department within 24 hours of creating each new one, or face up to three years in jail. “Identifiers” include every name or username a registrant uses for any online activities he engages in, from posting a comment in a news outlet to shopping.
The day after Prop 35 was voted into law, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California filed a class action complaint on behalf of two anonymous registrants and the advocacy group, California Reform Sex Offender Laws, against the provision under question, claiming that it was unconstitutionally broad and would create a chilling effect on registrants’ free speech and associative rights. In response, the District Court immediately issued a temporary restraining order on Nov. 8, 2012, and eventually, a preliminary injunction on Jan. 11, 2013.
Read on...
Last November, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) Act. Like “tough on crime” anti-trafficking legislation around the country, Proposition 35 was presented as bolstering law enforcement's ability to fight human trafficking by introducing a bundle of new laws that, most prominently, increased penalties for those convicted of trafficking human labor, made prostitution a sex crime, and with less public attention, created a new requirement for registered sex offenders.
Under this last provision, all 73,000 registered sex offenders are required to submit their Internet service providers and "Internet identifiers” to their local police department within 24 hours of creating each new one, or face up to three years in jail. “Identifiers” include every name or username a registrant uses for any online activities he engages in, from posting a comment in a news outlet to shopping.
The day after Prop 35 was voted into law, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California filed a class action complaint on behalf of two anonymous registrants and the advocacy group, California Reform Sex Offender Laws, against the provision under question, claiming that it was unconstitutionally broad and would create a chilling effect on registrants’ free speech and associative rights. In response, the District Court immediately issued a temporary restraining order on Nov. 8, 2012, and eventually, a preliminary injunction on Jan. 11, 2013.
Read on...
Lincoln’s Surveillance State
BY leaking details of the National Security Agency’s data-mining
program, Edward J. Snowden revealed that the government’s surveillance
efforts were far more extensive than previously understood. Many
commentators have deemed the government’s activities alarming and
unprecedented. The N.S.A.’s program is indeed alarming — but not, from a
historical perspective, unprecedented. And history suggests that we
should worry less about the surveillance itself and more about when the
war in whose name the surveillance is being conducted will end.
In 1862, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed him secretary of war,
Edwin M. Stanton penned a letter to the president requesting sweeping
powers, which would include total control of the telegraph lines. By
rerouting those lines through his office, Stanton would keep tabs on
vast amounts of communication, journalistic, governmental and personal.
On the back of Stanton’s letter Lincoln scribbled his approval: “The
Secretary of War has my authority to exercise his discretion in the
matter within mentioned.”
I came across this letter in the 1990s in the Library of Congress while
researching Stanton’s wartime efforts to control the press, which
included censorship, intimidation and extrajudicial arrests of
reporters. On the same day he received control of the telegraphs,
Stanton put an assistant secretary in charge of two areas: press
relations and the newly formed secret police. Stanton ultimately had
dozens of newspapermen arrested on questionable charges. Within
Stanton’s first month in office, a reporter for The New York Herald, who
had insisted that he be given news ahead of other reporters, was
arrested as a spy.
Glenn Greenwald: Top Officials Are Lying to Our Faces About Government Spying
The NSA revelations
continue to expose far more than just the ongoing operations of that
sprawling and unaccountable spying agency. Let's examine what we have
learned this week about the US political and media class and then
certain EU leaders.
The first NSA story to be reported was our June 6 article which exposed the bulk, indiscriminate collection by the US Government of the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. Ever since then, it has been undeniably clear that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, outright lied to the US Senate - specifically to the Intelligence Committee, the body charged with oversight over surveillance programs - when he said "no, sir" in response to this question from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
That Clapper fundamentally misled Congress is beyond dispute. The DNI himself has now been forced by our stories to admit that his statement was, in his words, "clearly erroneous" and to apologize. But he did this only once our front-page revelations forced him to do so: in other words, what he's sorry about is that he got caught lying to the Senate. And as Salon's David Sirota adeptly documented on Friday, Clapper is still spouting falsehoods as he apologizes and attempts to explain why he did it.
Read on...
The first NSA story to be reported was our June 6 article which exposed the bulk, indiscriminate collection by the US Government of the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. Ever since then, it has been undeniably clear that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, outright lied to the US Senate - specifically to the Intelligence Committee, the body charged with oversight over surveillance programs - when he said "no, sir" in response to this question from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
That Clapper fundamentally misled Congress is beyond dispute. The DNI himself has now been forced by our stories to admit that his statement was, in his words, "clearly erroneous" and to apologize. But he did this only once our front-page revelations forced him to do so: in other words, what he's sorry about is that he got caught lying to the Senate. And as Salon's David Sirota adeptly documented on Friday, Clapper is still spouting falsehoods as he apologizes and attempts to explain why he did it.
Read on...
An Increasingly Unchecked Surveillance State

Last week, however, the US Department of Justice was caught in a very public transgression against the freedom of an influential and empowered private organisation when it was revealed that it had engaged in a spying campaign against the Associated Press (AP) - one of the country's largest news agencies.
In what has been described as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion", AP revealed that Obama's Department of Justice had engaged in a surveillance campaign targeting its reporters and editors. This campaign included the covert acquisition of phone records from AP staff; including from their home and personal cell numbers.
In a public letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, AP President Gary Pruitt said the surveillance would:
Reveal communications with confidential sources and disclose information... that the government has no conceivable right to know.Read on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)