http://rabble.ca/news/2015/02/three-disastrous-privacy-consequences-bill-c-51
[links in on-line article]
Three disastrous privacy consequences of Bill C-51
By Michael Geist | February 20, 2015
The House of Commons debate over Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism bill,
began with strong opposition from the NDP, disappointing support from
the Liberals and an effort to politicize seemingly any criticism or
analysis from the Conservative government.
With the government already serving notice that it will limit debate,
the hopes for a non-partisan, in-depth analysis of the anti-terrorism
legislation may have already been dashed. This is an incredibly
troubling development since the proposed legislation has all the
hallmarks of being pulled together quickly with limited analysis.
Yet both the Conservatives and Liberals seem content to stick to breezy
talking points rather than genuinely work toward a bill that provides
Canadians with better safeguards against security threats while also
preserving privacy and instituting effective oversight.
The only detailed review to date has come from Professors Kent Roach and
Craig Forcese. Their ongoing work -- three lengthy background papers so
far (Advocating or Promoting Terrorism, new CSIS powers, expanded
information sharing) -- provides by far the most exhaustive analysis of
the bill and is a must-read for anyone concerned with the issue.
Indeed, once you have read their work, it becomes readily apparent that
all should be concerned with this legislation. Much of the focus to date
has been on the lack of oversight and the expansive new powers granted
to CSIS.
However, the privacy implications of Bill C-51's information sharing
provisions also cry out for study and reform.
At first glance, expanding information sharing within government seems
like a good idea since the consequences of failing to head-off a
terrorist attack because one government institution was unaware of what
another knew could be devastating.
Given the lack of Liberal study (it is simply not possible that the
party fully assessed the legislation before pledging its support), it
perhaps unsurprising that leader Justin Trudeau identifies expanded
information sharing as one of the positive aspects of the bill.
However, Bill C-51's Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, a bill
within the bill, goes far further than sharing information related to
terrorist activity. As Roach and Forcese persuasively argue, the bill
effectively creates a "total information awareness" approach that
represents a radical shift away from our traditional understanding of
public sector privacy protection.
Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada appointed by this
government less than a year ago, was the first to focus on the privacy
implications of Bill C-51. Within hours of release of the bill, Therrien
warned:
At this early stage, I can say that I am concerned with the breadth
of the new authorities to be conferred by the proposed new Security of
Canada Information Sharing Act. This Act would seemingly allow
departments and agencies to share the personal information of all
individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of
terrorist activities, for the purpose of detecting and identifying new
security threats. It is not clear that this would be a proportional
measure that respects the privacy rights of Canadians. In the public
discussion on Bill C-51, it will be important to be clear about whose
information would be shared with national security agencies, for which
specific purpose and under what conditions, including any applicable
safeguards.
Roach and Forcese dig further into this issue, concluding that the
information sharing provisions are excessive and unbalanced. There is
much to digest, but the privacy concerns largely come down to three
linked issues:
First, the bill permits information sharing across government for
an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do
with terrorism ("It is, quite simply, the broadest concept of security
that we have ever seen codified into law in Canada.").
Second, the scope of sharing is remarkably broad: 17 government
institutions with the prospect of cabinet expansion as well as further
disclosure "to any person, for any purpose."
Third, the oversight over public sector privacy has long been
viewed as inadequate. In fact, calls for Privacy Act reform date back
over three decades. The notion that the law is equipped to deal with
this massive expansion in sharing personal information is simply not
credible.
A more detailed look at each issue follows below. The cumulative effect
is to grant government near-total power to share information for
purposes that extend far beyond terrorism with few safeguards or privacy
protections.
1. Information sharing purposes
The bill opens the door to information sharing due to "activity that
undermines the security of Canada." Rather than using the CSIS Act
definition, however, it creates a new expansive definition that covers:
any activity, including any of the following activities, if it
undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada
or the lives or the security of the people of Canada: (a) interference
with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to
intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the
administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the
economic or financial stability of Canada;
(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force
or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological
weapons;
(f) interference with critical infrastructure;
(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as
defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act; [that provision
reads: ""global information infrastructure" includes electromagnetic
emissions, communications systems, information technology systems and
networks, and any data or technical information carried on, contained in
or relating to those emissions, systems or networks."]
(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their
property because of that person's association with Canada; and
(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the
security of another state. For greater certainty, it does not include
lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.
Terrorism is included within the definition, but several of these
provisions would seemingly allow for information sharing for almost any
investigative purpose, particularly "public safety" and the "economic or
financial stability of Canada" (think of the government's recent
reaction to the proposed CP strike, which was said to have major
implications for the protection of the Canadian economy).
2. Scope of sharing
The government not only opens the door to sharing information for a
myriad of non-terrorism purposes, but it also permits access for a broad
array of government institutions and departments. The bill currently
identifies the following 17 institutions and departments:
Canadian Border Services Agency
Canada Revenue Agency
Canadian Armed Forces
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
CSIS
CSE
Citizen and Immigration
Finance
Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development
Health
National Defence
Public Safety
Transport
FINTRAC
Public Health Agency
RCMP
That list can grow, however, with cabinet empowered to add institutions
and departments by regulation. Moreover, the inclusion of CSE, which has
been the focal point of the Internet surveillance debate due to the
Snowden revelations, suggests that CSE information could be readily
shared across government departments despite repeated claims that its
work does not target Canadians.
In addition to this form of information sharing, the bill also permits
additional use and disclosure of information "in accordance with the
law…to any person, for any purpose." Section 6 states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents a head, or their
delegate, who receives information under subsection 5(1) from, in
accordance with the law, using that information, or further disclosing
it to any person, for any purpose.
Roach and Forcese note that "in accordance with the law" is unclear,
leaving the prospect of literally permitting disclosure to anyone for
any reason.
3. Woeful oversight
Since the enactment of the Privacy Act in 1983, every federal privacy
commissioner has urged the government of the day to strengthen it. Those
calls have grown louder over the past decade as PIPEDA places tougher
obligations on the private sector than the government places on itself.
The law as it currently stands has weak annual reporting requirements
from government agencies, does not provide much protection to Canadians
from abusive treatment by foreign states, does not give the Privacy
Commissioner order-making power, does not provide redress in cases
involving harm, does not prevent over-collection of personal
information, does not protect against surveillance where the data is not
recorded, and does not feature security breach disclosure requirements.
The expansion on information sharing without addressing the oversight
and safeguards of the Privacy Act should simply be a non-starter.
===========================================================
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/14/mackay-erred-in-saying-terrorism-must-be-culturally-motivated/
MacKay erred in saying terrorism needs to be ‘culturally motivated’
By Amanda Connolly | Feb 14, 2015 3:11 pm
[links in on-line article]
Terrorism experts are raising red flags after Canada’s Justice Minister
Peter MacKay suggested to a group of reporters in Halifax Saturday
morning that to be considered terrorism, an attack must be
culturally-motivated, despite a Criminal Code definition to the contrary.
“The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore
[is] not linked to terrorism,” MacKay said.
However, the Criminal Code states that terrorist activity is
“politically, religiously or ideologically-motivated,” and makes no
mention of culture being a motivating factor.
Recent testimonials before the House of Commons standing committee on
foreign affairs have seen witnesses stress that policy-makers should
avoid linking terrorism with specific cultures or groups of people given
the potential for such statements to be interpreted as blaming that
group of people.
By doing exactly that, experts say MacKay risks contaminating the
conversation around how to effectively counter radicalization and the
roots of violent extremism in Canada.
“I think he meant [to] say, ‘they weren’t Muslim so thus, [it’s] not
terrorism,” said Mubin Shaikh, one of Canada’s top terrorism experts and
a former CSIS agent. “It’s highly uninformed and if we [are to]
construct a meaningful CVE policy, this sort of stuff significantly
undermines it.”
Constitutional lawyer Craig Forcese specializes in national security
issues and says that while MacKay may have been trying to say the
Halifax plot was not religiously motivated, even that would suggest a
serious misunderstanding of Canada’s laws.
“The Minister’s reference to ‘cultural’ is puzzling and I have no real
explanation,” Forcese wrote in an email. “I can only assume that it is
an allusion to religion — something actually mentioned in the Criminal
Code definition. It may be that the Minister was trying to signal that
this recent event was not Al Qaeda or ISIS-inspired violence. If his
point was, instead, that cultural (aka religious) motivation is the sole
legal basis for terrorism charges, then that would be a mistaken
interpretation of the law.”
A spokesperson for Canada’s Ahmaddiya Muslim community told iPolitics
MacKay’s statement has them concerned, especially given his position.
“We are surprised by the comments on Minister Peter Mackay, which are
counter to how the Criminal Code defines [terrorism], especially given
that he is the Minister of Justice,” said Safwan Choudhry, spokesman for
the Ahmaddiya Muslim Jama’at. “It is a cause of concern when terms like
– but not limited to – ‘terrorism’ are reserved exclusively for people
who visibly prescribe to a religion or ‘culture.'”
Just last week Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew similar criticism
after he implied that radicalization is linked to mosques.
Muslim groups quickly condemned the statement, saying that Harper was
creating the dangerous impression that Canadian mosques are places where
terrorism is promoted.
In a Feb. 2 press release issued in response to Harper’s statements, the
National Council of Canadian Muslims said government officials need to
be careful not to blame particular groups for terrorist actions.
“The words used by our elected leaders have a profound impact on public
perceptions,” the group wrote. “The Prime Minister’s remarks have
regrettably cast an unjust shadow of suspicion on Canadian Muslim
communities and have distorted the nature of security threats.”
A statement released by MacKay’s office Saturday night in response to
this story said MacKay was “simply relaying his understanding of what
law enforcement authorities had concluded at that point” and that he
will not be commenting further on the matter.
Nova Scotia RCMP Commanding Officer Brian Brennan told media on Saturday
morning that the alleged plot was not believed to be terrorism but his
statement differed significantly from MacKay’s.
“I wouldn’t characterize it as a terrorist event. I would classify it as
a group of individuals that had some beliefs and were willing to carry
out violent acts against citizens but there’s nothing in the
investigation to classify it as a terrorist attack or terrorist
incident,” Brennan said.
In a subsequent question, Brennan was asked whether the beliefs of the
alleged plotters were of a jihadi or evangelical nature, to which he
responded “I can tell you that it’s not culturally based.”
But unlike MacKay, Brennan did not use the lack of a cultural basis for
the attacks as the rationale for why he was not considering them to be
terrorist in nature.
Michael Zekulin, a terrorism expert at the University of Calgary, says
it’s possible MacKay was just trying to quell fears of an attack by
ISIS-style extremists.
“I think that this was inadvertent and a clumsy way for MacKay to let
people know this was not another one of these incidents,” he said.
But whether it was intentional or not, comments like MacKay’s may lead
some to view Canada as unjustly targeting particular forms of violence
over others, Forcese said.
“The risk is, therefore, that our anti-terror criminal law will be
perceived, not as criminalizing political violence regardless of the
cause, but aimed in practice at one particularly concerning and
notorious form of political violence — the religious AQ/ISIS inspired
brand.”
“It would be useful, therefore, for the political executive not to
facilitate this impression.”
==================================================================
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-skirts-debate-on-definition-of-terrorism-look-it-up-1.2961934
Peter MacKay skirts debate on definition of terrorism: 'Look it up'
Justice minister declines to explain his comments attributing a
'cultural' component to terrorism
By James Fitz-Morris, CBC News
Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:37 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 18, 2015 9:37 PM ET
Peter MacKay had a simple, gruff reply when asked by reporters what the
definition of terrorism will mean in the government's latest
anti-terrorism bill, C-51.
"Look it up," the justice minister said as he walked past waiting
journalists on Parliament Hill Wednesday.
On the weekend, MacKay was quick to dismiss a terrorist link to the
foiled alleged plot to attack a public place in Halifax on Valentine's
Day because it lacked a cultural component.
"What we know of these alleged plans for a mass attack against our
friends and our neighbours in (Nova Scotia)," he said on Saturday, "is
that the attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated —
therefore not linked to terrorism."
Halifax Threat Foiled 20150214
The term "terrorism" isn't actually defined in C-51; instead, one has to
look to the Criminal Code.
Sec 83.01 (1) (b) of the code speaks to motivation as what distinguishes
terrorism from other violent attacks.
It says terrorism is: "An act or omission, in or outside Canada, that is
committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or
ideological purpose, objective or cause, and (B) in whole or in part
with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the
public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or
compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international
organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public
or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada."
There has long been a debate over this definition.
Justice hawks worry it makes prosecutions too complicated, while civil
libertarians say the government has no business policing people's
thoughts and should worry only about actions.
Fears of broad interpretation
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is among those worried the definition could be
applied too broadly and used to target organizations that disagree
politically with the government of the day.
"Experts warn that broad measures in this bill could lump legal dissent
together with terrorism," Mulcair said Wednesday when announcing his
party would strongly oppose the bill.
When asked by reporters which part of the proposed law would allow this,
Mulcair echoed MacKay.
"Well, look at the definition section — look what's in there," he said.
Bill C-51 aims to target and disrupt "activity that undermines the
security of Canada," which it goes on to say includes (among other
things), "interference" with the "economic or financial stability of
Canada," "terrorism" and "interference with critical infrastructure."
Mulcair acknowledges the section goes on to say, "For greater clarity,
(undermining the security of Canada) does not include lawful advocacy,
protest, dissent and artistic expression."
But Mulcair says that's not good enough — he wants guarantees the
government wouldn't use the vagueness in the definitions to target its
political foes in the future.
"Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have intimidated the Liberals into
supporting this deeply-flawed legislation. We in the NDP are going to
fight it," Mulcair told reporters. "The truth is, we cannot protect our
freedoms by sacrificing them."
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
