back to article Canada confiscates snoops' data nets after illegal trawling dragged up too much metadata

Canada's Federal Court has rapped the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's (CSIS) knuckles for retaining too much citizen metadata. Its judgement (in a secret case, with relevant names redacted) was handed down in October and published last Thursday. Justice Simon Noel was more than peeved that the CSIS gathered data …

  1. Ole Juul

    more trouble

    Now they'll be getting flack from other gang members. A Reuters article shilling for the gang says this: CSIS could now also have trouble working with its allies in the so-called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which also includes Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, said a leading security expert.

    1. Gray
      Holmes

      Re: more trouble

      Getting flack for getting caught, you mean. An apology followed by the assertion that "what we did was mostly legal" is not an apology; saying "we're sorry" rings hollow if there's no recognition of wrong-doing. As for "respect for law," that fails when there's no consequence for unlawful behaviour. It seems that the embarrassment of exposure is the only significant consequence, but that is fleeting. Doors are slammed shut, papers are shredded, a few politicians' asses get kissed, and then it's on to even more intrusive data gathering. What's lacking in the process is any shred of respect for citizens' privacy rights, or the least bit of agency submission to meaningful oversight.

  2. Oengus

    Jail time required

    CBC carries an apology by CSIS director Michel Coulombe, along with an assertion that the data collection was mostly legal.

    This statement amounts to a confession that some of the collection was illegal.

    At some point, if the courts are serious about upholding the law, someone has to go to jail for these illegal activities. When that happens maybe the others will stop and reassess their activities. While there is no ramifications they will continue the illegal activity.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jail time required

      Legal or not, getting jailtime for the actual collection is a difficult proposition. Now, contempt of court, that is an entirely different story - it is an open and shut case. The fact that the court did not go as far as to start it shows that it is just barking, not biting.

    2. DryBones

      Re: Jail time required

      Still waiting to read, "All data not relevant to active cases will be deleted. This will be overseen and enforced by the military." I am unfamiliar with which branch, but preferably the ones with analysts to tell if there is bullshit afoot or not, and guns to dissuade bullshit from being attempted.

  3. Kevin Johnston

    Mostly legal?

    Wow that is a wonderful phrase, so useful for so many situations.

    "Well your honour, what I did was mostly legal as I can talk to people who are allowed to give me all the money they want to. The only bit that wasn't legal was where I said I would give them cement boots if they didn't rather than saying it was to make me President/Premier/Prime Minister (Delete as appropriate)"

  4. David Shaw

    presumably this over-trawling case has nothing to do with the other recent Canadian Spook/Police 'error'

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/investigators-lagace-surveillance-1.3837270

    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, NEWS Last Updated: Nov 05, 2016 10:21 PM ET

    "Should Canadian journalists assume they're being secretly watched by police?

    'You cannot rely only on official truth,' Patrick Lagacé says "

    Journalists rely on whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, and whistleblowers trust journalists to keep their identities secret to protect their jobs, their families and sometimes even their personal safety. It's a relationship that's fundamental to holding those in power to account.

    That's why what happened this week was so remarkable.

    Not one but seven Quebec journalists, including some who work for CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada, learned they have been the subjects of secret surveillance by police in Quebec.

    The first revelation came Monday, when La Presse columnist Patrick Lagacé revealed that Montreal police confirmed they had been collecting metadata from his cellphone, effectively keeping tabs on every incoming and outgoing call. The data also included phone numbers for incoming texts. . .

    . . .DS: Tell me what have you learned about the level of detail that was obtained about your pattern of movement?

    PL: We have not been able to access what they gathered on me. But what I know is that they accessed my metadata. Hence, the phone numbers that were calling me, that I was calling. Same thing with the text messages. So not the content, if you [will]. That's what we call metadata. But the thing is, with metadata you can track and you can quite see who I'm talking to, who I'm not talking to. And this is very invasive. And for a journalist, it's almost as bad as listening in on my conversations. And they were also able, if they'd wanted — because they got a warrant for that — they were able to basically locate me in real time through the GPS in my phone. Which they say they did not do.

    DS: We've focused on journalists, and that's what we've heard about this week. But should Canadians at large be concerned about this? People who are not journalists?

    PL: Yes, and for a very good reason. If you want to have a healthy debate, healthy debates, in this society, you cannot rely only on official truths. You cannot rely only on what spokespersons tell you. You cannot rely only on what you find in press releases. This is what a free press does. We try to get all the facts, even the facts that institutions, like the police, doesn't want you — Canadians — to hear about. So if we cannot do that freely, we cannot have healthy debate in this country.

    Should 5-eyes nation citizens at large be concerned about this? People who are not journalists, (or Supreme Court Judges)?

    Luckily I'm no longer worried about questions like this. . . moving on!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    in his closing statement

    Justice Simon Noel said to the CSIS:

    "You're not my buddy guy!"

  6. drone2903 in Kanuckistant

    come again ?

    Its status in court meant “the CSIS had an elevated obligation to inform the Court of the use it was making of non-threat-related information collected through the operation of warrants”, but “it failed to do so.”

    “I conclude that the retention of associated data falls outside the CSIS’s legislatively defined jurisdiction and does not respect the CSIS’s limited primary mandate and functions,” the judgement states.

    Read again carefully.

    Illegally collecting information not related to a case is not what was the judge's beef. It was the undisclosed "retaining" ( with no time limit ) of it, WITHOUT informing the court.

    So basically : sure, go ahead, fish as much as you can, just let the court know about it, after the fact.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like