Sure, they ask you, but entry is always gained via Annoying Spying Sphincter technology.
Canada asks citizens: How would you like us to spy on you?
The Canadian government is asking citizens to weigh in on its plans for digital surveillance programs. A government-hosted page called Investigative Capabilities in a Digital World seeks input from residents on matters such as intercepting communications, forcing data decryption, and requiring service providers in Canada to …
COMMENTS
-
Monday 5th December 2016 23:48 GMT JeffyPoooh
"...using covert tactics such as airport hotspots..."
In my experience, if they're free and open then they simply do not work. I'm referring to those in Canadian airports. Rubbish. Waste of time even trying.
Any airport in any third world country, there will be dozens. Every 'chicken on a stick' food outlet will have one. All wide open and working perfectly. Not even a disclaimer and agreement page.
So I'm not sure how far CSIS will get offering free hotspots in (Canadian) airports. If they were functional, it would be very suspicious.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 00:04 GMT Youngone
Straw Man
"We treasure our privacy, and rightly so, but we also expect law enforcement and national security investigators to be as effective in keeping us safe and secure in the digital world as they are in the physical world."
You might expect that but I don't.
In fact I don't expect law enforcement or national security investigators to even understand online security, and judging by their attitude to encryption I'm right.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 01:00 GMT tfewster
Re: Straw Man
Their straw man immediately self-combusts. If cops want to search my house, they must* demonstrate probable cause to get a judge to sign a warrant. They don't get to install cameras in every house and tape everything everyone do just in case someone breaks the law there at some future date.
So if cops want to read my email, they should demonstrate probable cause and get a damn warrant for the specific circumstances.
* May not apply in all countries
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 08:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Straw Man
@tfewster,
They don't get to install cameras in every house and tape everything everyone do just in case someone breaks the law there at some future date.
The local legal framework does have a bearing on the matter.
In the UK, if you arrest someone carrying a gun, they've almost certainly broken the law and it's then a simple matter of investigating their motive. Same as anything else capable of going 'bang' in a big way (explosives, too any gas cylinders, too much fertiliser, etc), or even large knives. This gives local law enforcement the option of intruding as much as they like after arresting someone before they've carried out an attack. [Though of course it seems they're also pretty keen digital surveillance anyway to find people to arrest in the first place]. And let's not forget the good old tip-off; there's plenty of family members who get worried sick about their relative's state of mind who would rather the police intervened at an early stage.
Contrast that to the US; possession of a gun is most likely to be legal. There's no real reason to arrest the guy or intrude on their electronic life if the police stop them with a boot/trunk full of guns and ammo. Lots of people have guns, it's nothing special. In fact, without some fairly intrusive powers the cops' only option is to release that guy and follow them around on the off chance they launch an attack somewhere. So that doesn't work at all well.
Instead they pretty much have to present evidence of motive prior to getting an arrest or search warrant, and that will inevitably lead to widespread digital surveillance. Tip-offs are less effective too.
I'm assuming Canadian gun law falls somewhere between the two. Interesting that they're asking the question. It all comes down to whether a population wants it's police force to be preventative (actually stop bad things happening) or reactive (ie nothing more than elaborate street cleaners). Most people previous the former.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 10:58 GMT Version 1.0
Re: Straw Man
"if cops want to read my email" then they are welcome, it's boring. I work on the theory that if I'm not prepared to write it on the bog wall then I'm not going to put it in an e-mail.
If I had a mind to be naughty in a bad way then I certainly would not write it on a bog wall. Naughty in a good way - that's different... scribble scribble.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 14:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Straw Man
I understand, but even if you don't care about your privacy from your government....
"Naughty in a good way - that's different... "
How long until that's not different for any reason to your government? I truely understand what you , mean, but as long as you keep giving, you'll always be asked for more. Governments aren't charities, they won't wait for your kind donations. Governments are stalking carnivores of self preservation by design, not by good will.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 15:58 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: Straw Man
"if cops want to read my email" then they are welcome, it's boring.
And what if the email is something like a link to reset a password to a site which has access to your bank for instance? Maybe not the best way to reset a password but it happens. Would you want this to be available to 48 different official and semi-official bodies as in the UK? Even if you think you've nothing to hide or that it's boring you probably have a great deal to hide and you're probably contractually obliged to hide it - just check the T&Cs of any online accounts.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 17:40 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: Youngone Re: Straw Man
".....I don't expect law enforcement or national security investigators to even understand online security...." Really, or is it just you think it would be untrendy to accept that they might actually have some very informed people that know a lot more than you?
I am reminded of an incident from a many years ago in rural Devon. A lesbian rights group wanted to hold a festival for women only on farmland near the village. The villagers, eager for the chance of some extra revenue, set up a meeting with the local Police and county services to discuss the group's requirements, which turned out to be one demand - "no men can be involved"! This was hilariously impossible as the local constabulary had no WPCs, the rubbish collection crews were (of course) all male, and all the local delivery drivers were chaps. The lesbians shrilly stuck to their impossible demand and the festival was eventually cancelled.
Similarly, asking the public "how do you want to be spied on" is simply populist political nonsense - no-one wants to be spied upon (unless they have some celebutard-like mental condition that requires constant and fawning attention), but everyone expects the authorities to be protecting them from crooks, terrorists and foreign powers. All this will do is generate another echo chamber for the loudest shriekers of "privacy rights" rather than a real and practical debate. Just wait for the queues of clueless celebrities and "experts" to turn it into another ego-massaging event.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 00:30 GMT Queeg
So let me get this straight...
Along with the Brits, the Yanks, the Aussies and the Kiwi's up until Snowden kicked over the trash can the Canucks were also lying, sneaky bastards who would do anything, say anything to get our info.
And now they want our opinion.
Damn! I think my Bullshit Meter just overloaded.
*Black Chopper for obvious reasons
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 02:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So let me get this straight...
I think Brits have a very simplistic idea of freedom.
If you had been invaded by heavily armed terrorists who had "ethnically cleansed" your country and generations later continue to rape and pillage your people you might have a rather stricter demand for a heavy security presence to monitor the government, police, and courts
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 05:16 GMT Schultz
very simplistic idea of freedom...
"I think Brits have a very simplistic idea of freedom.
If you had been invaded by heavily armed terrorists who had "ethnically cleansed" your country and generations later continue to rape and pillage your people you might have a rather stricter demand for a heavy security presence to monitor the government, police, and courts"
So you think the Normans will just go home if you give the police some extra powers?
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 17:41 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: AC Re: So let me get this straight...
"....Unlike the current British government who would rather ignore what you think and do absolutely everything in secret to hide their incompetence." Bullshit. You and the rest of the voters get your opportunity to vote for the MPs you want at least every four years. You forgot that many in Labour and the clueless Left/Greens/Anarchists at the last election waffled on about "mass surveillance" and "privacy rights", and lost the election. The problem for you lot is the majority of the electorate have a lot bigger worries than surveillance. You don't like it, then go do some campaigning elsewhere or just admit the majority do not share your views (regardless of the minority viewpoint that seems prevalent amongst the posters here, the majority of which seem neither British nor Canadian voters).
-
Wednesday 7th December 2016 00:23 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: AC So let me get this straight...
You forgot that many in Labour and the clueless Left/Greens/Anarchists at the last election waffled on about "mass surveillance" and "privacy rights", and lost the election.
We remember that Labour, when in govt, had similar ideas, including identity cards. We also remember that Labour have a long track record of appalling economic management. There are good reasons why they lost the election. Sadly, this seems to be a party-neutral issue. Home Secs. of any political persuasion seem to go native PDQ.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 07:40 GMT Oengus
Re: Done.
This form is written with a mind to get the answers they want.
Aren't all surveys written to get the answer that the survey writer wants (especially Government surveys).
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 17:41 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: Oengus Re: Done.
".....Aren't all surveys written to get the answer that the survey writer want...." It's called the Three Yes Close or the Yes-Set Close, has been used in professional sales for decades, and has been utilised by both ends of the political spectrum to influence voters in polls and surveys for almost as long.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 17:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Canadian spies - They always send a thank you card after the fact.
I forget which (US) humorist it was, but he said that the difference between the US and Canada was that the US was like an in-your-face male 18 year old and Canada was like an educated 35 year old woman. I'm not sure quite how I would feel about being spied on by an educated 35 year old woman, but if I started getting thank you letters I would really worry. Especially if they were in French.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2016 10:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Canadian spies - They always send a thank you card after the fact.
the difference between the US and Canada was that the US was like an in-your-face male 18 year old and Canada was like an educated 35 year old woman
With Trump I suspect that to drop to an armed in-your-face 14 year old soon.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 07:09 GMT wolfetone
Mockery
About 3 weeks ago we had Remembrance Day, with loads of people saying "Lest we forget" and how we should all be thankful for the freedom we have that these men fought and died for.
1 week ago the British Government decide to recind that freedom for the general population.
This week the Canadian Government start the process to do it.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 09:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Mockery
Hmmm, I think most people would like to go about their lives without being blown up, shot, stabbed, etc. The freedom to quietly enjoy life is what fallen of WWI and WWII were fighting for, and we'd be failing them if no one sought for preserve that.
Expecting people who value that and who also happily use Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber, Fitbit, etc. to get upset en masse with law enforcement trying to do their job in a comparatively unobtrusive way seems, well, unrealistic. I mean, be grateful that they're not trying to do it the way the STASI operated.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 09:34 GMT wolfetone
Re: Mockery
Most people like to live in a society where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If I'm being spied on that means I'm guilty until proven innocent. But most people are too wound up with X Factor to give a damn until it's too late. Well, it's already too late.
And be grateful that they're not like the STASI now or be grateful I have a while to wait before they turn out like the STASI?
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 11:13 GMT Patrician
Re: Mockery
As far as I am concerned I would have no issues with surveillance of net traffic, email etc. so long as it's sanctioned by an independent judicial appointee who has been shown that the security services or the police have "just cause" to request it on a case by case basis.
Mass surveillance, as in the Snoopers Charter, in the UK, will not catch any organised terrorists or criminals as they will already have their own, secure, networks and systems setup to avoid any monitoring. All the Snoopers Charter will catch is the equivalent of the local shoplifter; those too stupid to not be caught.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2016 13:24 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: AC Re: Mockery
".....The freedom to quietly enjoy life is what fallen of WWI and WWII were fighting for....." Actually, as pointed out in another classic episode of Yes Minister, that was more to do with the FO's ongoing policy of fucking over Europe. Of course, our switch to "destabilise from the inside" is in response to the change in tactics of the Germans, who failed in two attempts at forcing Europe into submission so went with the EU instead.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 08:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Does it go like this.
Question 1
Do you:
a) Allow us to monitor everything you do to keep you safe and cosy and warm. Please choose this option if you want to stay safe.
or
b) Stop us doing our lawful job, therefore allowing terrorists and Pedo's to kill your menfolk and rape your children. Please choose this option if you support terrorists and pedos
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 11:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Technically
"Comment aimeriez-vous que nous vous espion?"
In français métropolitain (i.e., as spoken in continental France), the verb would be "espionner", not "espier", which is archaic and has the meaning of watching, without any suggestion of concealment or dissimulation, same as in present day Occitan ("Te soi espiat a la carrièra hier e que te soi dit adissiatz, mai m'as pas entenut").
However, I do not know whether or how Canadian French may use "espier". In any event, congratulations on introducing a convincing spelling mistake, of the sort native speakers make: It would be "espions", not "espion" (j'espie, tu espies, il/elle espie, nous espions, vous espiez, ils espient). It is pronounced the same though.
Whether we're going to be spying or watching each other, might as well do it in an orthographically correct manner.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 14:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Technically
"No French-speaking commentard suggested "espier", which doesn't exist."
If you read the OP (who wasn't me) again you will see that he or she correctly refers to "espier" as archaic. The subsequent reference to Occitan might give more of a clue.
é in modern French often supersedes stressed es in older French, where pronunciation has changed to be easier - in the same way ê has replaced unstressed es (guêpe for guespe).
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 13:53 GMT Flip
ROT13 for bad guys
Here's one of the questions from the survey:
"How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption by those not involved in illegal activities?"
The only correct answer to this question is that it is not possible to do this.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 21:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ROT13 for bad guys
> "How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption by those not involved in illegal activities?"
By infiltrating said organisations and gathering intelligence the old-fashioned way¹?
> The only correct answer to this question is that it is not possible to do this.
You are mistaken my dear fellow. See above.
¹ It was good enough for everyone all the way from Sun-Tzu to here, so what has changed? And by the way, encryption is as old as language itself. In fact, Chomsky has argued that one of language's functions is to obscure meaning, which may lead us to consider it a form of encryption (and yes, I know about Native American radio operators in WWII).
-
Wednesday 7th December 2016 12:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ROT13 for bad guys
"In fact, Chomsky has argued that one of language's functions is to obscure meaning, "
Having had to read him at university I would just like to say that he has been highly successful at this himself. Pity the secret service that has to spy on modern non-STEM academics.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 14:31 GMT C Montgomery Burns
Our Liberal Government here in Canada has taken to online polling as a means of providing some political cover for what they were planning to do anyway. It theoretically makes people feel all warm and fuzzy that they're being "consulted".
Of course it's worded like garbage, with leading questions. But it doesn't matter, since the results will in no way be public, or audited, or even likely read.
Hey, here's our new law, you told us it was what you wanted.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 15:48 GMT Bucky 2
The Locker Room Protocol
Also known as "bare it and share it."
If there's no expectation of privacy, then the fair thing to do is to make sure that I get to know everything about you that you get to know about me. A naked dude looking at my dick is just curious. A fully clothed one is creepy.
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 18:29 GMT Mike VandeVelde
the smell of consultation in the morning
"How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption by those not involved in illegal activities?"
My answer:
That's impossible. Anyone who would ask such a stupid question should not have anything to do with this.
8D
-
Tuesday 6th December 2016 21:30 GMT David 132
Re: the smell of consultation in the morning
Ahem. That problem's already been solved.
-