Category Archives: Privacy

The RCMP Spent $1.6 Million to Run an Unconstitutional Spying Program

Justin Ling
Vice: January 20, 2015

Canada’s federal police continued to snoop on Canadians’ cellphones and computers for at least a month after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, new documents prove.

Financial records obtained by VICE through the Access to Information Act show the extent to which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) used federal legislation to obtain information on Canadians from all major phone companies without warrants. Instead, police paid small fees for each of these requests.

The Supreme Court ruled that practise illegal in its June 13, 2014, decision on R. v. Spencer, writing that police need judicial authorization before making those sorts of requests.

However, the records show Telus and Bell both continued to fork over Canadians’ information even after that decision was handed down.

The Newfoundland and Labrador detachment of the RCMP made 51 requests for a “phone search” to Telus between July 1 and August 1, 2014. They paid $76 for the searches. Over the course of July, the British Columbia detachment also made 129 phone search requests to Telus, and another 27 to Bell—two phone searches and 25 Service Profile Identifier (SPID) requests—running the west coast RCMP division $258.

SPID information is used to help police identify which phone lines they are able to put taps or traces on.

Many invoices cover the entire month of June, so it is unclear if the requests stopped exactly on June 13, or whether they continued later into the month.

VICE’s analysis of the records show that the RCMP paid over $1.6 million to Canada’s cellphone companies since 2010 in order to skirt the normal process of having these requests approved by a judge.

The documents only deal with the RCMP […] The documents do not include data from provincial police forces, who likely made the bulk of these Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) requests. Nor do they include the spy agencies Canadian Security Intelligence Service or Communications Security Establishment Canada, or the Canada Revenue Agency, which have also been known to use the process.

(read the full article at Vice)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

New police radars can ‘see’ inside homes

Brad Heath
USA Today : January 20, 2015

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.

The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.

[…]

“The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what’s inside is problematic,” said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union’s principal technologist. “Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have.”

Agents’ use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that “the government’s warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions.”

By then, however, the technology was hardly new. Federal contract records show the Marshals Service began buying the radars in 2012, and has so far spent at least $180,000 on them.

(read the full article at USA Today)

Obama Extends NSA Spying Powers Yet Again

Jason Ditz
Ben Swann: December 08, 2014

Back in March, Attorney General Eric Holder was promising that the Justice Department was on track to reform the NSA surveillance powers by the deadline of March 28, less than two weeks later. It didn’t happen.

A 90-day extension came and went, and then another 90-day extension was tacked on to that, pushing the deadline for the reform of the mass surveillance to December 5. This time, when the deadline rolled around there was so little expectation of actual reform that its approach was barely even covered. Even the administration seemingly gave it a miss over the weekend. Unsurprisingly, it was extended yet again with no real hint of reforms coming.

Other than a brief, failed attempt to pass a toothless version of a reform bill in the Senate, the notion that NSA mass surveillance is ever going to get altered in a meaningful way is looking more dubious all the time.

(read the full article at Ben Swann)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Canada: shooting used to justify tyranny after terrorism warning results in no extra security

Ottawa shooting: Federal security chiefs warned days before attack

Terry Milewski
CBC News: November 24, 2014

A top-level federal memo warning of a potential “violent act of terrorism in Canada” was distributed by the prime minister’s staff five days before last month’s attack on Parliament Hill, according to a copy obtained by CBC News.

The memo was circulated on the evening of Friday, Oct. 17 — three days before the Oct. 20 hit-and-run attack in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., by Martin Couture-Rouleau and five days before the Oct. 22 shooting in Ottawa by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.

The alert directed security staff to ensure extra vigilance and strict compliance with security protocols. That included the updating of communications lines and emergency numbers to “ensure readiness in the case of an incident.”

It is not clear what, if any, action was taken as a result of the federal alert. Security experts have cited a lack of vigilance on Parliament Hill when Zehaf-Bibeau was able to enter the Centre Block and fire his hunting rifle just steps away from the prime minister, who was meeting with his caucus nearby.

“They had enough warning that there should have been some security protocols put in place,” said Garry Clement, a former RCMP superintendent who is now a security consultant.

“One of the things I thought they would have done is upgrade the security on Parliament Hill.”

The alert was sent to security officers for all federal departments and agencies across Canada. Even so, counter-terrorism experts like Steve Day, a former commander of Canada’s special forces, see little evidence of tightened security.

Pointing to the surveillance video from Zehaf-Bibeau’s arrival on Parliament Hill, Day said last week, “If there would have been a police officer at those bollards when the shooter first departs his car, we’ve got a different scenario.”

As it was, Day said, RCMP officers on the scene seemed to be in the dark, even after Zehaf-Bibeau hijacked a car at gunpoint and headed for the Centre Block.

“When you look at the RCMP cruiser outside Parliament Hill,” Day said, “it doesn’t move until the other cruiser passes it. It tells me he’s not aware of an approaching threat.”

(Read the full article at CBC News)

RELATED
Government Rejects Supreme Court Privacy Decision: Claims Ruling Has No Effect on Privacy Reform
How federal bill C-13 could give CSIS agents — or even Rob Ford — access to your personal online data
Canada’s Telecoms Have Built Databases For Warrantless Police Spying

Justice Department Using Fake Cell Towers On Airplanes, Collecting Data From Countless Cell Phones

Annabelle Bamforth
BenSwann.com : November 14, 2014

According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department has been operating a surveillance program that uses fake cell phone towers placed on airplanes to collect identifying data from a vast number of cell phones.

In this program, Cessna aircraft operated by the US Marshals Service fly over most of the United States, embedded with small devices called “dirtboxes” by insider sources familiar with the program. The dirtboxes mimic cell phone towers which prompt cell phones to reveal their identifying information and location, including phones with encryption technology. The program has been utilized by the Justice Department and US Marshals Service since 2007.

In September, Benswann.com reported that fake cell phone towers, or “interceptors”, had been discovered near military bases throughout the United States.

The program insiders have said that this program is in place for the purpose of “locating cellphones linked to individuals under investigation by the government, including fugitives and drug dealers, but it collects information on cellphones belonging to people who aren’t criminal suspects.” The individuals providing information about the program said that data from tens of thousands of phones can be collected after one flight.

(read the full article at BenSwann.com)
(original report at WSJ)

Alternative Free Press -fair use-

The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

Glenn Greenwald
The Intercept : September 5, 2014

Throughout the last year, the U.S. government has repeatedly insisted that it does not engage in economic and industrial espionage, in an effort to distinguish its own spying from China’s infiltrations of Google, Nortel, and other corporate targets. So critical is this denial to the U.S. government that last August, an NSA spokesperson emailed The Washington Post to say (emphasis in original): “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.”

After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, responded to the Petrobras revelations by claiming: “It is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial matters…. What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of—or give intelligence we collect to—U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.”

But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapper’s own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review—provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden—is a fascinating window into the mindset of America’s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response. It anticipates a series of potential scenarios the U.S. may face in 2025, from a “China/Russia/India/Iran centered bloc [that] challenges U.S. supremacy” to a world in which “identity-based groups supplant nation-states,” and games out how the U.S. intelligence community should operate in those alternative futures—the idea being to assess “the most challenging issues [the U.S.] could face beyond the standard planning cycle.”

One of the principal threats raised in the report is a scenario “in which the United States’ technological and innovative edge slips”— in particular, “that the technological capacity of foreign multinational corporations could outstrip that of U.S. corporations.” Such a development, the report says “could put the United States at a growing—and potentially permanent—disadvantage in crucial areas such as energy, nanotechnology, medicine, and information technology.”

How could U.S. intelligence agencies solve that problem? The report recommends “a multi-pronged, systematic effort to gather open source and proprietary information through overt means, clandestine penetration (through physical and cyber means), and counterintelligence” (emphasis added). In particular, the DNI’s report envisions “cyber operations” to penetrate “covert centers of innovation” such as R&D facilities.

In a graphic describing an “illustrative example,” the report heralds “technology acquisition by all means.” Some of the planning relates to foreign superiority in surveillance technology, but other parts are explicitly concerned with using cyber-espionage to bolster the competitive advantage of U.S. corporations. The report thus envisions a scenario in which companies from India and Russia work together to develop technological innovation, and the U.S. intelligence community then “conducts cyber operations” against “research facilities” in those countries, acquires their proprietary data, and then “assesses whether and how its findings would be useful to U.S. industry”

(read the full article including source documents at The Intercept)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

The Surveillance Engine: How the NSA Built Its Own Secret Google

Ryan Gallagher
The Intercept: August 25, 2014

The National Security Agency is secretly providing data to nearly two dozen U.S. government agencies with a “Google-like” search engine built to share more than 850 billion records about phone calls, emails, cellphone locations, and internet chats, according to classified documents obtained by The Intercept.

The documents provide the first definitive evidence that the NSA has for years made massive amounts of surveillance data directly accessible to domestic law enforcement agencies. Planning documents for ICREACH, as the search engine is called, cite the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration as key participants.

ICREACH contains information on the private communications of foreigners and, it appears, millions of records on American citizens who have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Details about its existence are contained in the archive of materials provided to The Intercept by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Earlier revelations sourced to the Snowden documents have exposed a multitude of NSA programs for collecting large volumes of communications. The NSA has acknowledged that it shares some of its collected data with domestic agencies like the FBI, but details about the method and scope of its sharing have remained shrouded in secrecy.

ICREACH has been accessible to more than 1,000 analysts at 23 U.S. government agencies that perform intelligence work, according to a 2010 memo. A planning document from 2007 lists the DEA, FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency as core members. Information shared through ICREACH can be used to track people’s movements, map out their networks of associates, help predict future actions, and potentially reveal religious affiliations or political beliefs.

The creation of ICREACH represented a landmark moment in the history of classified U.S. government surveillance, according to the NSA documents.

“The ICREACH team delivered the first-ever wholesale sharing of communications metadata within the U.S. Intelligence Community,” noted a top-secret memo dated December 2007. “This team began over two years ago with a basic concept compelled by the IC’s increasing need for communications metadata and NSA’s ability to collect, process and store vast amounts of communications metadata related to worldwide intelligence targets.”

The search tool was designed to be the largest system for internally sharing secret surveillance records in the United States, capable of handling two to five billion new records every day, including more than 30 different kinds of metadata on emails, phone calls, faxes, internet chats, and text messages, as well as location information collected from cellphones. Metadata reveals information about a communication—such as the “to” and “from” parts of an email, and the time and date it was sent, or the phone numbers someone called and when they called—but not the content of the message or audio of the call.

ICREACH does not appear to have a direct relationship to the large NSA database, previously reported by The Guardian, that stores information on millions of ordinary Americans’ phone calls under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Unlike the 215 database, which is accessible to a small number of NSA employees and can be searched only in terrorism-related investigations, ICREACH grants access to a vast pool of data that can be mined by analysts from across the intelligence community for “foreign intelligence”—a vague term that is far broader than counterterrorism.

Data available through ICREACH appears to be primarily derived from surveillance of foreigners’ communications, and planning documents show that it draws on a variety of different sources of data maintained by the NSA. Though one 2010 internal paper clearly calls it “the ICREACH database,” a U.S. official familiar with the system disputed that, telling The Intercept that while “it enables the sharing of certain foreign intelligence metadata,” ICREACH is “not a repository [and] does not store events or records.” Instead, it appears to provide analysts with the ability to perform a one-stop search of information from a wide variety of separate databases.

In a statement to The Intercept, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that the system shares data that is swept up by programs authorized under Executive Order 12333, a controversial Reagan-era presidential directive that underpins several NSA bulk surveillance operations that target foreign communications networks. The 12333 surveillance takes place with no court oversight and has received minimal Congressional scrutiny because it is targeted at foreign, not domestic, communication networks. The broad scale of 12333 surveillance means that some Americans’ communications get caught in the dragnet as they transit international cables or satellites—and documents contained in the Snowden archive indicate that ICREACH taps into some of that data.

Legal experts told The Intercept they were shocked to learn about the scale of the ICREACH system and are concerned that law enforcement authorities might use it for domestic investigations that are not related to terrorism.

“To me, this is extremely troublesome,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “The myth that metadata is just a bunch of numbers and is not as revealing as actual communications content was exploded long ago—this is a trove of incredibly sensitive information.”

Brian Owsley, a federal magistrate judge between 2005 and 2013, said he was alarmed that traditional law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the DEA were among those with access to the NSA’s surveillance troves.

“This is not something that I think the government should be doing,” said Owsley, an assistant professor of law at Indiana Tech Law School. “Perhaps if information is useful in a specific case, they can get judicial authority to provide it to another agency. But there shouldn’t be this buddy-buddy system back-and-forth.”

Jeffrey Anchukaitis, an ODNI spokesman, declined to comment on a series of questions from The Intercept about the size and scope of ICREACH, but said that sharing information had become “a pillar of the post-9/11 intelligence community” as part of an effort to prevent valuable intelligence from being “stove-piped in any single office or agency.”

Using ICREACH to query the surveillance data, “analysts can develop vital intelligence leads without requiring access to raw intelligence collected by other IC [Intelligence Community] agencies,” Anchukaitis said. “In the case of NSA, access to raw signals intelligence is strictly limited to those with the training and authority to handle it appropriately. The highest priority of the intelligence community is to work within the constraints of law to collect, analyze and understand information related to potential threats to our national security.”

One-Stop Shopping

The mastermind behind ICREACH was recently retired NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander, who outlined his vision for the system in a classified 2006 letter to the then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. The search tool, Alexander wrote, would “allow unprecedented volumes of communications metadata to be shared and analyzed,” opening up a “vast, rich source of information” for other agencies to exploit. By late 2007 the NSA reported to its employees that the system had gone live as a pilot program.

The NSA described ICREACH as a “one-stop shopping tool” for analyzing communications. The system would enable at least a 12-fold increase in the volume of metadata being shared between intelligence community agencies, the documents stated. Using ICREACH, the NSA planned to boost the amount of communications “events” it shared with other U.S. government agencies from 50 billion to more than 850 billion, bolstering an older top-secret data sharing system named CRISSCROSS/PROTON, which was launched in the 1990s and managed by the CIA.

To allow government agents to sift through the masses of records on ICREACH, engineers designed a simple “Google-like” search interface. This enabled analysts to run searches against particular “selectors” associated with a person of interest—such as an email address or phone number—and receive a page of results displaying, for instance, a list of phone calls made and received by a suspect over a month-long period. The documents suggest these results can be used reveal the “social network” of the person of interest—in other words, those that they communicate with, such as friends, family, and other associates.

(Read more at The Intercept, including source documents)

Canada Sacrifices Citizens For Corporations ; “Highly Problematic” Trade Deal Leaked

Canada-EU Trade Deal Text Leaked By German TV

Daniel Tencer
The Huffington Post: August 13, 2014

A German news show has published what it says is the text of the Canada-EU free trade deal.

More than 520 pages of the 1,500-page document were posted to the website of German TV network ARD’s news show Tagesschau on Wednesday.

According to some experts now poring through the document, it appears Canada caved on the issue of patent protection for drugs.

The EU had been pushing Canada to lengthen patent protections for drugs, a move that was estimated to cost Canadians $900 million to $1.65 billion annually. The Conservative government in Ottawa has promised to compensate provinces for added drug costs, but no word yet on whether individuals will be compensated as well.

Council for Canadians political director Brent Patterson called the document “highly problematic,” adding the language specifically in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter is “undemocratic.”

“It’s the same provision that we’ve seen in NAFTA that has been so disastrous,” Patterson told HuffPost Canada.

“In terms of procurement, there is nothing that we can see about cities being excepted as so many had asked to have done.”

Patterson said several municipal governments including Toronto, Victoria, Hamilton and Red Deer asked to be exempted from CETA rules that banned “buy local” policies and other tools to support local jobs and development through public spending.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities declined to discuss the text.

“Municipal interests in CETA and in all future trade agreements must be protected. FCM will not comment at this time on the leaked document,” said FCM President Brad Woodside.

Though Patterson thinks the documents should have been released earlier, he said the leak would allow groups like his own to start talking to Canadians and build opposition momentum – with possible support from the Liberals party and NDP.

“If the Germans are not satisfied with this, we can see a rocky road ahead,” Patterson said.

Several industry groups contacted by HuffPost Canada said they were not commenting on the leaked text. The Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec all declined to discuss the document.

Scott Sinclair with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called the procurement provisions in the document “the most extensive set of commitments that Canada has ever made” – reaching down to the municipal level.

“It will interfere with, and potentially end, the use of procurement as an economic development policy tool and interfere with municipal governments, universities or hospitals who, for example, want to implement buy-local food purchasing policies,” he told HuffPost Canada.

It’s “overkill,” he added.

According to University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, the leaked text addresses concerns many activists have about ISDS.

Critics argued that the trade deal would create an international body through which corporations would be able to sue governments if those companies felt a country’s laws violated its rights under the trade deal. They say these sorts of dispute mechanisms essentially usurp a country’s sovereignty.

The leaked deal includes a clause that allows Canada to review the dispute mechanism after three years. Geist described the clause as “weak.”

A spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents, but insisted that negotiators have already gone to great lengths to reassure the public that the deal is good for both sides.

(read the full article at The Huffington Post)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Snowden Reveals MonsterMind : the ultimate threat to privacy

James Bamford’s profile of Edward Snowden in Wired magazine reveals MonsterMind

MonsterMind requires analyzing all traffic flows, that means we have to be intercepting all traffic flows. That means violating the Fourth Amendment, seizing private communications without a warrant, without probable cause or even a suspicion of wrongdoing. For everyone, all the time.

The massive surveillance effort was bad enough, but Snowden was even more disturbed to discover a new, Strangelovian cyberwarfare program in the works, codenamed MonsterMind. The program, disclosed here for the first time, would automate the process of hunting for the beginnings of a foreign cyberattack. Software would constantly be on the lookout for traffic patterns indicating known or suspected attacks. When it detected an attack, MonsterMind would automatically block it from entering the country—a “kill” in cyber terminology.

Programs like this had existed for decades, but MonsterMind software would add a unique new capability: Instead of simply detecting and killing the malware at the point of entry, MonsterMind would automatically fire back, with no human involvement. That’s a problem, Snowden says, because the initial attacks are often routed through computers in innocent third countries. “These attacks can be spoofed,” he says. “You could have someone sitting in China, for example, making it appear that one of these attacks is originating in Russia. And then we end up shooting back at a Russian hospital. What happens next?”

In addition to the possibility of accidentally starting a war, Snowden views MonsterMind as the ultimate threat to privacy because, in order for the system to work, the NSA first would have to secretly get access to virtually all private communications coming in from overseas to people in the US. “The argument is that the only way we can identify these malicious traffic flows and respond to them is if we’re analyzing all traffic flows,” he says. “And if we’re analyzing all traffic flows, that means we have to be intercepting all traffic flows. That means violating the Fourth Amendment, seizing private communications without a warrant, without probable cause or even a suspicion of wrongdoing. For everyone, all the time.”

(Read the full profile at Wired)

Alternative Free Press -fair use-