Sandra Finley

Mar 222017

RELATED:    2017-03-22   16-minute interview of Almalki   All Canadians should listen.

Alex Neve and Béatrice Vaugrante of Amnesty International Canada.

Alex Neve and Béatrice Vaugrante of Amnesty International Canada

. . . .    The torture, illegal imprisonment and other human-rights violations these men went through took place between 2001 and 2004. A judicial inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci, examined the cases in 2007 and 2008. His report, documenting numerous examples of “deficient” conduct by Canadian officials that contributed to these many human rights violations, has been public record for more than eight years. UN human rights bodies highlighted concerns about these cases in 2005 and called for resolution in 2012. 

Against that timeline, it is truly a disgrace that rather than receive prompt redress, they were forced into contentious litigation; for many long years under the previous government and an additional year under the Trudeau government. 

That is the past now. But it must also be the beginning of a meaningful commitment to unequivocally standing against torture.

Here are six steps forward: 

First, there are others whose claims for redress for national-security-related human-rights violations, including torture, have been contested by government lawyers for far too long. That includes Omar Khadr, Abousfian Abdelrazik and the men who have been subjected to the Kafkaesque world of immigration security certificates and the threat of being deported to torture. They too deserve justice. 

Second, we must make sure it can’t happen again. Central to what happened to Mr. Almalki, Mr. El Maati and Mr. Nureddin, similarly in the case of Maher Arar, was sharing inflammatory and unverified intelligence, and receiving back intelligence from foreign partners, completely unconcerned about risks of torture. That has been codified now in ministerial directives that allow intelligence to be shared and received, in exceptional circumstances, even if it is tainted by or might lead to torture. That must change. 

Third, Canadian laws are still equivocal when it comes to torture. Most notoriously our immigration laws allow deportation to torture in exceptional circumstances. But there is no exceptional justification for torture in international law. The ban on deportations to torture must be absolute. 

Fourth, these three men went through their nightmare, in part, because there was ineffective review of the agencies involved. The government’s current initiative to establish a parliamentary national security review committee is important, but it is not enough. There is urgent need for comprehensive, expert, integrated and independent review over all of Canada’s national security agencies. 

Fifth, Canada’s voice is needed to lead efforts to end torture worldwide. Steps finally under way to accede to the 2002 torture prevention treaty, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which enables prison inspections to stamp out torture, are encouraging and should be expedited. That will set Canada up to be a more credible global champion for ending torture.

Finally, Canada has to grapple with the fact that concerns about torture seem likely to become a major problem in our relationship with the United States. President Donald Trump is convinced that torture works, though others in his Cabinet reportedly don’t share his enthusiasm. It is confused at best; ominous at worst. At all levels possible, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his ministers of Foreign Affairs and Public Safety, the Trump White House needs to hear that Canada will not countenance any nod to torture in our important intelligence relationship. 

It has taken far too long to remedy the torture these three men endured. There can be no further delay in reinforcing Canada’s stand against torture, at all times and against all people.


Mar 222017

It is important for Canadians to hear this –   Listen 16:18

I would like to drag us all, kicking and screaming, to hear those 16 minutes.

If “the authorities” are able to get away with the extinction of Charter Rights and The Rule of Law, we are indeed doomed to a form of fascism.

I wonder how many of us would fight for 12 years, in a country that is often racist,  to hold the authorities to account?   Is there any other way to shine a light on the rhetoric versus the reality of Charter Rights and the Rule of Law,  in the rhetoric versus reality of Canadian Democracy?   The fact that Mr. Almalki can emerge from his ordeal with his graciousness intact is remarkable.

Among other things,  Abdullah Almalki points out that the Americans control where Canadians fly to,  even if the flight does not land in, or fly over, American airspace.

He does not say (what I say):   Canadians have given over their sovereignty to the U.S. without any public debate.

When time permits, I will post other material on the control that the U.S.A. has over air traffic.

Through the years, I have posted news articles that alerted us to what’s happening.   A  sampling:

“Scroll through the information under the Category (right-hand sidebar) “Peace or violence“, sub-category “Lockheed Martin…”.   Quislings in Government are giving away Canadian sovereignty and have been for many years.

There is increasing militarization.  . . .

The military-industrial corporatocracy is being duplicated in Canada.  See the “Canada First Defence Strategy” and “offset agreements“.  It is financed by citizens (tax dollars), the same as in the U.S.”

2013-10-09 Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News

Etc. Etc.

For more than 15 years, this network has fought alongside other Canadians, Americans and non-North Americans,  against the destructive forces that have gained an upper hand.

You have enabled and supported me;  I hope I have enabled and supported you.

I am extra sensitive to the issues, if only because this network has been effective in creating awareness of the role of the military-industrial-surveillance complex in Canada through one of its vehicles – – Lockheed Martin Corporation.    I also read the news report about the Americans who were driving to Vancouver to attend a presentation by Chris Hedges;  turned back because one of the women had attended an event.  It happens that I attended the same event, but when it was offered at a Canadian location.

That’s why I say:      Listen 16:18 !!

It is important to hear, and to share, what Abdullah Almalki  and others are telling us.

RELATED:  2017-03-20   Six steps Canada must take after embarrassingly long redress for tortured citizens,  Globe & Mail Opinion Piece

I visited Mr. Almalki’s blog,,  and left a message.

I want him to know how much his contribution to Canadian democracy is appreciated.  My words seem vastly inadequate.

Abdullah Almalki (C), with Muayyed Nureddin (L) and Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, say they were tortured in Syria because of information provided by Canadian authorities and have demanded a secret investigation into their case be opened up to the public.

Abdullah Almalki (C), with Muayyed Nureddin (L) and Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, say they were tortured in Syria because of information provided by Canadian authorities and have demanded a secret investigation into their case be opened up to the public. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Listen 16:18

It was one of the darkest chapters in Canada’s so-called war on terror.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, four Canadian citizens were detained and tortured in Syria and Egypt based on faulty intelligence originating in Canada.

It was over a decade ago that one of those men, Maher Arar, received an apology and settlement from the Canadian government for his ordeal.

But it wasn’t until March 17, for the other three men, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, to finally receive apologies and settlements of their own.

“To see this apology after more than 12 years fighting for it, I was extremely happy — my family was extremely happy,” Almalki tells The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

“This is a huge win for Canada — a victory for human rights, a victory for every Canadian.”

Almalki, a Syrian-born Carleton University graduate, was jailed and tortured in Syria from 2002 and 2004. It’s been 13 years since he was cleared by a security court in Syria — and nine years since he was cleared by a judicial inquiry in Canada.

Terror Inquiry 20081021 TOPIX

Justice Frank Iacobucci’s federal inquiry concluded the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin indirectly contributed to the torture of the three Arab-Canadian men in Syria. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)


He feels closure to his ordeal should have happened right after the inquiry and does not know why the government took so long.

Almalki tells Tremonti that almost anything can trigger flashbacks to the torture he endured and says the haunting memories will never go away.

“I accept this and accepting this has made me able to move forward — it has made me able to handle it rather than trying to avoid it, ” he says.

Almalki was tortured by Syrian interrogators but says had it not been for Canadian officials, he would not have been tortured.

“The Syrians were the servants, were the people carrying out the act. Canadian officials from the beginning set up the detention by sending false information to the Syrians,” he explains.

Once Almalki was detained, he says the RCMP with the help of the Canadian ambassador of Syria met with the head of military intelligence to gain interrogation access.

“The Syrians were clear at the end that they were asking me questions that they got from Canada.”

Canadian officials involved in Almalki’s case have never been held personally responsible but he tells Tremonti, “accountability is a must when it comes to the atrocious crime of torture.”

“I do not have hate or feelings of revenge towards anyone, and I thank God that I got to this point. But in order to stop torture, every person who was complicit in my torture and the torture of others … all of them need to be held accountable.”

“That will be for the benefit of the society and the country.”


Listen to the full conversation at the top of this web post.

This segment was produced by The Current’s John Chipman.


Related Stories  – –  go to the CBC URL at the top of this posting.

Mar 212017

Click on the  Listen button below.   A truly  inspirational man,  Benjamin Ferencz.

Benjamin Ferencz (L), was the chief prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen trial — the ninth of 12 trials for war crimes in Nuremberg after the end of the Second World War.

Benjamin Ferencz (L), was the chief prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen trial — the ninth of 12 trials for war crimes in Nuremberg after the end of the Second World War. (Courtesy of Benjamin Ferencz)

Listen 23:14


At 97-years-old, the last-surviving Nuremberg prosecutor is still furious and fighting for peace.

“I’m boiling with anger all the time,” Benjamin Ferencz tells The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

“I have no rest. I have no vacations. I don’t know what holidays mean, because I’m so sure that what I’m doing is right that I just can’t stop doing it.”

In 1947, the American lawyer prosecuted his first case at Nuremberg, where he tried 22 members of the Einsatzgruppen Nazi death squads. He was only 27-years-old.

Ferencz says he leans on humour to cope.

“If you’re telling jokes, if you’re crying on the inside, you better be laughing on the outside. Or you’ll drown in tears,” he says.

After Ferencz fought in the Second World War, he was assigned to gather evidence from several concentration camps as they were being liberated. Seventy years later, what he saw is still fresh in his mind.

Ferencz 1940

Benjamin Ferencz, 1940. In 1945, Ferencz was honourably discharged from the army with the rank of Sergeant. (Courtesy of Benjamin Ferencz)

“The scenes are really indescribable to a rational human mind.”

“It’s something you don’t forget quickly, or ever. ” he says.

“And it has led to my determination that the real answer to the problem is to end war making. I know how difficult that is.”

Ferencz won his case in Nuremberg because of the overwhelming evidence, but he recalls it was “a grim day,” hearing the judge repeat sentences of death by hanging.

Related: The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg

Since then, Ferencz has been advocating for peace, and played an instrumental role in developing the concept of the International Criminal Court. He says the court has not yet reached its full potential.


Chief Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz at the podium in the Einsatzgruppen case— his first case. All of the 22 men on trial were convicted. (Courtesy of Benjamin Ferencz )

“I would hardly expect it to live up to the expectations in a relatively short period of time,” says Ferencz.

But, he tells Tremonti, he was pleased when asked by the court to deliver the closing remarks for the prosecution at the end of its first case.

“That was my second case,” he tells Tremonti.

“I was 92-years-old. So it takes a while for you to see progress. But it’s there. It’s slow, it’s heavy, it’s expensive, it’s difficult,” Ferencz remarks.


Benjamin Ferencz

Benjamin Ferencz says he’s concerned about the future but optimistic. (Courtesy of Benjamin Ferencz)

“But there has been, in my judgment, an awakening of the human conscience in the years that I have lived.”

Related: ‘It was as if I had peered into hell’

Ferencz says he’s worried about the waves of populism and nationalism growing around the world today.

“I am unhappy about the things that I think are going in the wrong direction,” he says.

Despite this, the former prosecutor remains optimistic.

“I’m confident that in the long run it will go in the right direction,” he proclaims.

“People can change when they realize the present path is a pathway to doom.”


This segment was produced by The Current’s Karin Marley.

Mar 202017

Read more about the Guardian’s response to its adverts being inadvertently placed next to extremist material


I wanted to let you know that last week the Guardian withdrew all of its advertising from Google and YouTube after it discovered that some of its ads, including for the membership scheme, were being inadvertently placed next to extremist material.

A media agency, acting on the Guardian’s behalf, used Google Display Network, which involves an automated system known as programmatic trading.

David Pemsel, the Guardian’s chief executive, wrote to Google to say it was “completely unacceptable” for its advertising to be misused in this way.

You can read more about the Guardian’s response here.

Google and YouTube promised to make significant changes to its policies to deal with the problem, but other companies, advertising firms and government departments have also since pulled their adverts, or are considering doing so.

It is another worrying example of the challenges we face as a progressive news organisation in a fast-changing digital age.

Kind regards,

Natalie Hanman

Executive editor for membership


What we’ve been reading: this week’s editors’ picks

1. Inside the Guardian: Hella Pick was one of the Guardian’s first female foreign correspondents in the 1960s and she’s still going strong

2. Protest and persist: Rebecca Solnit on why giving up hope is not an option

3. Guardian member Barbara Jennings tells us about a TV review she read 40 years ago that shaped her view on the death penalty

4. ‘London Bridge is down’: the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death

5. Hot air and intrigue: did Donald Trump leak his own tax return?

6. Afua Hirsch on why it’s right for Britain to reach out to Africa – wrong to send Boris Johnson




Mar 202017

Vodafone and trio of high street banks take action as industry and UK government ask how their ads became attached to extremist material

 The Google logo reflected in the pupil of a human eyePhotograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

The Google logo reflected in the pupil of a human eye

Sky, Lloyds, HSBC and RBS have joined McDonald’s and Audi in suspending advertising with Google


Google executives are bracing for a two-pronged inquisition from the advertising industry and the government over the company’s plans to stop ads being placed next to extremist material.

A slew of big-name companies, advertising firms and government departments have either pulled their adverts from Google and its YouTube video site or are considering whether to do so, with media giant Sky, telecoms group Vodafone and a trio of banks adding their names to a growing list over the weekend.

The internet firm’s European head, Matt Brittin, is one of two Google executives due to speak at the annual Advertising Week Europe event, attended by major companies in the advertising world.

Sources said Brittin was likely to face a flurry of questions about how adverts for major brands ended up attached to videos by extremists, including hate preachers and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

The ads help fund payments to the people who post the videos, with every 1,000 clicks worth about £6. Experts estimate this could have been worth £250,000 to extremists.

Brittin will be among the first people to address delegates on Monday when speakers will also include Unilever’s chief marketing officer, Keith Weed.

Unilever declined to comment on whether it had suspended advertising through Google.

Leading advertising agencies have been quick to react, with French marketing firm Havas, whose clients include O2 and Royal Mail, pulling its adverts late last week. Publicis, the world’s third-largest advertising firm, said it was reviewing its relationship with Google and YouTube.

The world’s largest advertising firm WPP, via its media-buying division GroupM, has stopped short of cancelling ads but has written to major clients asking them how they wish to proceed.

GroupM’s chief digital officer, Rob Norman, told Sky News that Google should apologise publicly to companies whose reputation has been “compromised”.

Mark Howe, head of Google’s agencies business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, will also speak at Advertising Week Europe. His responsibilities, according to a company biography, include ensuring that Google “builds lasting & trusted relationships with its customers”.

Brittin and Howe will be exposed to questions from advertising luminaries at the start of a week in which executives will have to explain themselves in a second meeting about the affair with government ministers.

In a letter to the company, Yvette Cooper, who chairs the home affairs select committee, accused the company of “profiting from hatred”.

And senior figures from Google were summoned to the Cabinet Office last week over concerns that taxpayer-funded adverts were appearing alongside “inappropriate” YouTube videos. Google executives apologised but were told to come back to the Cabinet Office this week with a plan and a timetable to remedy the problem.

The decision by Vodafone, Sky, HSBC, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland to suspend their ads, or review whether to do so, follows action last week by other brands. They include McDonald’s, L’Oréal, Audi, Sainsbury’s, Argos and the BBC. Government spending has also been suspended while Tesco is understood to have “paused” spending on YouTube.

BT said: “We take our responsibilities as an advertiser seriously and have a robust set of safeguards in place to make sure our adverts don’t appear on websites or content which may be dedicated to offensive themes”

While Google is yet to reveal what it plans to do, it is understood that advertisers will be told that they may not be making enough use of existing tools and it will offer to provide advice on how companies can better use these.

However, Google is also expected to take a wider look at how ads are placed, including whether it has put enough checks and balances in place to avoid unfortunate juxtapositions.

“We’ve heard from our from our advertisers and agencies loud and clear that we can provide simpler, more robust ways to stop their ads from showing against controversial content,” Ronan Harris, managing director of Google UK, said last week.

The Guardian is among the organisations to have withdrawn its advertising. Ads for the Guardian’s membership scheme are understood to have been placed alongside extremist material after an agency acting on the media group’s behalf used Google’s AdX ad exchange, which uses an automated system known as programmatic trading.

Mar 192017

In the wake of civilian shootings and harassment claims on the force, many are calling on law enforcement to change.

Out in the Open explores how police are changing, how some think they should, and how the job changes the human wearing the uniform. 

– – – – – – – – – – –

The top-of-page photo for the podcast, “How to Change Police” is from the G-20 Summit in Toronto in 2010. When the last bills were paid, Canadians paid roughly $1 billion dollars. Expenses included outrageous boondoggles.   But, the majority of the costs were for security, with the RCMP’s bill coming in at $330 million. . . . Peaceful Protestors, with very good reason to protest, were robbed of their civil rights. A chilling experience. The largest mass arrests in Canadian history happened at the G-20 in Toronto, 2010.

Other countries who hosted G-8 and G-20 Summits, in the same era, paid a fraction of what we paid: Pittsburgh hosted a G20 summit that resulted in no great breaches of public order but whose security-related costs totaled only about $12.2 million (U.S.) — less than 1.5 per cent of the projected costs of the summits in Toronto and Huntsville.

Italy – – similar experience. Costs NO WHERE NEAR what Canadians paid.

There are very good insights in the podcast, not only for Police, but for citizens who need to understand what’s going on.

Canadians need to pay attention, actively, to the state of policing in this country. Sort out what’s good, what’s bad, and find actual solutions. NOW.

Scroll down for descriptions of the stories from this episode.


Police on duty at G20 summit in Toronto, 2010

Police on duty at G20 summit in Toronto, 2010 (Chris Huggins/Flickr/CC)


stories from this episode

Mar 162017

With many thanks to Jake from way down there in the USA!

He draws this Canadian story to attention.  I hadn’t heard about it.

The decision of the Board that heard the case against high school biology teacher, Timothy Sullivan,  is not yet known.

 The story is spreading fast,  and well beyond Canadian borders.   For good reason.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I spoke with Timothy Sullivan:

I called Tim to let him know that there are lots of people standing behind and supporting him.  We had a good conversation – – he is well informed.

Tim has his own children; and his work is with kids – – in the classroom and as a coach of sports teams.

(NOTE:  Tim is not responsible for what I understood him to say.)

In our conversation, a source of information on vaccines that he came back to at least twice:

the folded-up, in-small-print paper that is enclosed with the vaccine itself.  (Drugs routinely come with an information sheet from the manufacturer on dosage, side effects, etc. .  So do vaccines.)

Tim applied known side effects stated by the manufacturers of the vaccines,  to what he sees among the kids.  Example:   4 of the 12 girls on the basketball team use “puffers”.   Known side effect:  inflammation of the bronchi.  He did not say that that was the only evidence he relied on, and it was not all that he cited.    A reasonable person has questions and looks for answers.  Nor did he say this which I am saying now:   I know that Tim is like thousands of others.  Once you open the file on vaccines, you see who it is that manufactures the “fake news”.  Thank-you big pharma.

(The increase in numbers of vaccinations given to kids from infancy on, is well recorded on this blog and elsewhere.  Not discussed with Tim.)

My ego self considers me to be more informed about vaccines than the “average” Canadian.    Tim Sullivan added to what I know;  but this posting is about what happened to Tim!

Tim has had calls from, e.g.,  Guyana – – a fellow there invited him down, said he had a place for Tim and his family;  someone from Australia contacted him,  …  etc.    Tim’s students and former students started a petition to support him.  The parents of his students support him.  Most of his fellow teachers have been great.

In Tim’s view,  lots of people are waking up to the problems with vaccines.   (But not his Union – – he went by himself to Toronto for his hearing.  He was appreciative that a knowledgeable lady showed up, to support and help him.   She was not allowed to speak at the hearing, because she is not a lawyer!)   He is currently waiting for the outcome of the hearing.

Tim has received some media from across Canada.  And local coverage.  But he said the experience has opened his eyes on media coverage.   (I noted to myself:  Yes, if not for our networks through social media,  I would not know of this very significant development.    People might KNOW about, and avoid vaccination.   It is an entirely different matter to remain standing when the well-intentioned and trained nurse comes with the needle pointed at your kids.   Who are the kids of other people.)

I discovered that the views of Tim and myself, on the corporatocracy that has usurped democracy, are in alignment.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

National Vaccine Information Centre (U.S.)

(I read “about them” and signed on to their email list.  Numbers count.)

Science Teacher May Be Disciplined for Urging Students Be Informed of Vaccination Risks

Story Highlights

  • An Ontario science teacher is facing disciplinary action for trying to ensure students were informed about the risks of vaccines they were receiving at school.
  • The complaint against the teacher is that it was inappropriate for him to express his concerns to the students over the risks of vaccination.
  • It is a fact that there are risks of serious adverse reactions to vaccinations.


In March 2015, science teacher Timothy Sullivan approached public health nurses administering vaccines to high school students at his school in Waterford, Ontario, Canada and asked whether they had appropriately informed the students about the potential risks of the shots they were giving. He noted that the teenagers were required to give informed consent and the nurses, therefore, had the obligation to make sure they were fully informed.1

Mr. Sullivan also made the point that, “some of the components in the vaccines were deemed ‘toxic’ in his science lab.” The nurse allegedly answered that they alerted parents and teens about common vaccine risks like fever or soreness at the injection site and she claimed that “a screening tool allows nurses to assess if there are any underlying conditions that would trigger a more serious reaction among students” and added that “the risk of death from receiving a vaccine is so very, very rare.”1

Who Decides What Facts Can or Cannot Be Taught?

The complaints against Mr. Sullivan appear to have focused on how disruptive his comments were to the planned vaccination event rather than the accuracy or inaccuracy of his views. The reality of vaccine risks for death and serious side effects has been acknowledged by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). All of these organizations have stated that vaccines may cause adverse reactions and death in a small percentage of patients. According to the CDC, “although immunization has successfully reduced the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination can cause both minor and, rarely, serious side effects.”2

The CDC acknowledges the “possible” though “rare” association between “hepatitis B vaccine and anaphylaxis; measles vaccine and a) thrombocytopenia and b) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis or disseminated disease in immunocompromised persons; diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine (DTP) and chronic encephalopathy; and tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccines and a) Guillain-Barre syndrome, b) brachial neuritis, and c) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis.”2

An article from the journal Vaccine, published on the NIH website, stresses that vaccines are safe for most people, but admits there are “cases where a known or plausible theoretical risk of death following vaccination exists [that may] include anaphylaxis, vaccine-strain systemic infection after administration of live vaccines to severely immunocompromised persons, intussusception after rotavirus vaccine, Guillain-Barré syndrome after inactivated influenza vaccine, fall-related injuries associated with syncope after vaccination, yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease or associated neurologic disease, serious complications from smallpox vaccine including eczema vaccinatum, progressive vaccinia, postvaccinal encephalitis, myocarditis, and dilated cardiomyopathy, and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from oral poliovirus vaccine.”3

In the case of Mr. Sullivan, he claims to be not so much against vaccines as for the concept of informed consent, although after acquiring the package inserts pertaining to the vaccinations being administered to the students, he said he found it “embarrassing really that I didn’t know about the effects as a parent, as a teacher, as a biology teacher. I was unaware of the severity of some of the side-effects.”

Mr. Sullivan has now been found guilty of professional misconduct by the disciplinary board of the Ontario College of Teachers.4 With the conviction of Mr. Sullivan, the college is asking for penalties including a formal reprimand, a month-long suspension, and completion of an anger management course.

In deciding on the penalty phase, the board could strip Mr. Sullivan of his teaching certificate and impose fines of up to $5,000. The complaint against Mr. Sullivan holds that he was out of line in addressing the students, and that it is a parent’s place, not a teacher’s to address vaccine concerns. Mr. Sullivan said, “I teach science. You don’t just teach one side of the story.”5


Mar 162017

D’Arcy writes:

This interesting article appears in the newest Canada’s History, a popular magazine definitely not known for being even the slightest bit leftist.  However, it shows the length to which Canada’s intelligence services were (and continue to be) monitoring “radical” groups on campus, including the anti-nuclear movement.

(Steve Hewitt did his M.A. and Ph.D. in History at the University of Saskatchewan.)

For the RCMP after the war, communists were the subversives. But when dissent flowered in the 1960s, the Mounties were flummoxed.

Written by Steve Hewitt

March 14, 2017

Students from Université Laval in Quebec City, members of the Combined Universities Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CUCND), en route to Ottawa in October 1961 for an antinuclear demonstration. This photograph was taken by a fellow member and police informant.  The numbers were added by the police for identification purposes.

National Archives of Canada / C146273

It was a Thanksgiving full of youthful enthusiasm. Hundreds of university students from across Ontario and Quebec spent the October 1961 holiday weekend campaigning instead of resting.

All were members of the Combined Universities Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, or CUCND for short, an organization that had its birth in the late 1950s; they had gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, literally under the shadows of the Canadian government whose policy they sought to change.

Among those lugging placards on the sunny fall day was a busload of students from Université Laval in Quebec City. One of the Laval group wore a Brownie camera around his neck, employing it frequently to capture images of several of the demonstrators, some of whom he knew and some of whom he didn’t.

Unlike with most shutterbugs, the final destination for his pictures was not an album of personal memories or a dresser drawer. He had not taken the photos for himself but for his secret employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who believed the peace movement to be a threat to Canadian security.

When the bus full of students returned home, the photographer made his way to the local RCMP detachment, where he turned over the film, the names of the Laval students who had travelled to Ottawa, and CUCND pamphlets to his police “handler.” Later the student informant helped the police identify many of those featured in the pictures.

In the post-September 11 era, it is important to remember that concern over threats to domestic security is nothing new. What happened on the 1961 Thanksgiving weekend represented what it was that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, specifically the counter-subversion branch of its Security Service, did during the Cold War.

The 1960s are particularly instructive, because in that decade social forces arose which challenged the basis for the security work: Communist subversion, a nebulously defined notion at the best of times, represented the chief threat to Canada. Higher education, the centre of many of these social forces, was of particular interest to the Mounted Police—and it was here that the Mountie concept of a threat would expand.

What had not changed, however, was the idea of a threat. Security agencies cannot survive without the existence of a threat—it does not matter if the threat is real, exaggerated, or imagined—its existence is essential.

The history of these Cold War security activities is especially relevant to the post-September 11 period we now live in—a world where intelligence services created in the Cold War era continue their work to ensure our security, and where real, exaggerated, and imagined threats still coexist.

Part of the inspiration for a photo-taking informant lay only a short distance and sixteen years and a few days away from Parliament Hill. In September 1945, Igor Gouzenko, a twenty-six-year-old cipher clerk in the Soviet Union’s Canadian embassy, left work with top-secret documents concealed in his clothing.

After some initial difficulty in finding someone to listen to his story while avoiding the Soviets searching for him, Gouzenko, with his family, were finally taken in by the Canadian government.

Among his purloined booty were papers revealing the existence of a spy ring that involved not only those the government and the RCMP (because of ethnic and class prejudice) would have expected—workers and ethnic minorities—but those of the upper echelons of Canadian society: academics, scientists, and civil servants.

Gouzenko’s fateful decision to defect did not create a domestic spy agency for Canada. In its modern form, the RCMP’s intelligence role dated from the First World War. It reinforced the long-held view of communism as the main threat to Canadian security, and it expanded both the categories of people prone to the siren call of Red radicalism and the ranks of those whose task it was to investigate the evangelists of such an ideology.

Nor did the Mounties operate in a vacuum. Instead, they acted with the encouragement of the federal government and ordinary citizens. Gouzenko’s revelations that the Soviet Union had been, with the assistance of Canadian Communists, conducting espionage against its wartime ally Canada, fuelled a general sense of betrayal and restored to prominence the animosity many had fell toward communism before the war.

Moreover, with the encouragement of the federal government and many Canadians, Mounties set out to do something about the radical threat. No other approach was possible, since the RCMP, in a burst of Cold War dogmatism, warned in a 1949 pamphlet, “A convinced Communist is a man possessed. He is not amenable to argument or persuasion, or even coercion. Society must always be on guard against him, and each citizen must be prepared to combat his ideas wherever they crop up.”

As the RCMP’s security branch grew after 1945, so did its collection of files. With the Cold War increasing in ferocity as the 1940s tensed to a close, the security game was as much about capturing and protecting minds (fighting subversion) as it was about catching spies (combating espionage).

Not surprisingly, with such an atmosphere and approach, higher education seemed particularly vulnerable to attack. Here the young minds of tomorrow’s elite were being moulded. What if the craftsperson was a Communist? What if he or she was using the classroom to convert the captive audience of students to the cause of revolution or some equally nefarious belief?

Socrates had been convicted of corrupting youth in ancient Greece, and corruption seemed to be occurring again in the Canada of the twentieth century. That some of the individuals arrested because of Gouzenko’s evidence were McGill graduates seemed further evidence of the danger. One Quebec newspaper declared: “You send your boy to McGill a Canadian democrat and he graduates an international Communist.”

In the House of Commons the member for Peace River worried that so many Communists held jobs at Canadian universities where they could “undermine the faith of our young people in Canada, in true democracy, and in Christianity.”

On the ground in the early years of the Cold War, Mounties investigated the claims of Communist-ridden campuses. They recruited informants, collected materials, and in plainclothes sat in to hear the occasional lecture or guest speaker. Often the end results were decidedly mixed.

A policeman accompanied by a student informant attended a special lecture at Ottawa’s Carleton College in 1957. The talk that followed under the title “In Defence of Rationalism” was so unintelligible that the police officer, even after a translation from his secret helper, remained in a state of bewilderment. He informed his superiors that his attendance at future lectures in the series was pointless since his informant/interpreter refused to attend any more.

In the 1950s the police also sought communism in the world of student politics. Mock parliamentary elections were a campus tradition. The RCMP followed and reported to Ottawa the results as closely as media pundits on federal election night. The governing rationale was that student election results would provide an accurate indication of Communist support on campus, since those with hidden Red proclivities might be more inclined to reveal their affiliation in the anonymity of a campus ballot box.

That many students voted Communist as a joke did not escape the attention of the police. Thus headquarters dismissed as insignificant the forty-seven medical students who had voted Communist at the University of Alberta, but considered nine students in the conservative school of engineering casting their vote for the Reds worthy of further investigation.

These collective efforts had a more serious purpose: to ascertain the extent of the Communist threat, of subversion. Subversion was by definition a broad and ill-defined concept. To the Mounted Police the only proof necessary was that communism be involved, hence the search for Reds.

By 1959, the RCMP had compiled what it believed to he a comprehensive list of Communists, both open and hidden, working in the field of education. The figure for universities was ninety, which put it in second place behind the 166 Communists in the employ of Canada’s elementary and nursery schools, although a police officer admitted the latter group had little opportunity to inject Marxism into the classroom.

What the police lacked (and some admitted to this) was any evidence that Communists were using their positions to indoctrinate their students. With the Cold War in its full fury, most Canadian Communists would have tried to keep their beliefs to themselves, especially when stories abounded of U.S. teachers and academics being fired because of their political affiliation. Still, the Mounties could not ignore their security training, which, although limited, had repeatedly emphasized the danger communism posed to Canadian society.

One controversial area where higher education, the outside world, and communism seemed to intersect was within the peace movement. In the face of tensions between the two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, many ordinary citizens were drawn to the peace movement in an effort to curtail the “mutually assured destruction” logic that fuelled the arms race.

To the Mounted Police the efforts of the peace movement (which included Communists) to influence government opinion represented a chance for the Soviet Union to drive a wedge between Canada and its main friend and ally.

The peace movement was also significant because it served as a bridge between the 1950s and the growing campus activism of the 1960s. Many who began with the CUCND migrated to the Student Union for Peace Action or other more radical associations.

Clean-cut Mounties, who had numerous restrictions on their personal appearance, made disparaging (and perhaps slightly envious) remarks about the growing numbers of “dirty and unshaven” “hippie types” and “beatniks” appearing at rallies and other protests.

As the sixties progressed, the level of campus discontent grew. People protested the Vietnam War; they criticized Canada’s relationship with the United States and worried about the Americanization of their country. Issues related to class, race, and gender inspired marches and sit-ins.

Finally, students and others demonstrated against the university itself—its lack of democracy and unresponsiveness to the changing world around it.

In understanding what was happening on campuses, Mountics were as bewildered as university administrators, or students’ parents. Instead of attempting to understand the social context fuelling radicalism, the Mounties blamed it all on communism, a position reinforced by their training and the Cold War.

If Communist involvement in student unrest could not be discovered, it was not because it did not exist but because the police had not delved deep enough to discover it. In taking this position, the RCMP differed in one significant respect from the U.S. intelligence agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation more quickly grasped that something new was afoot.

Under way was protest and discontent inspired not by foreign agitators, as the police asserted, but by social causes: the Vietnam War, the civil rights’ movement, fear of nuclear war, popular culture, demographics in the form of the Baby Boom generation, and a host of other causes.

Eventually even the Mounted Police could not ignore the evidence emerging from higher education. The police emphasis on the Communist threat to higher education shifted toward the “New Left” and violence in 1968.*

In April of that year, in an event that shocked many, students working under the banner of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) occupied the office of the president of Columbia University, taking time to puff on his cigars and sample his private liquor supply before being beaten and arrested by the police. One of the leaders of the occupation, Mark Rudd, turned up to speak at the University of British Columbia in October of the same year.

Shortly after, another prominent American radical, Jerry Rubin, of the famous “Chicago Eight” who disrupted the 1968 Democratic convention, also spoke at UBC, and in the aftermath of his talk led an occupation of the university’s faculty club. Among the occupying students was a police informant.

By themselves, these two events would not have held the attention of the police. But when on November 21 students at Simon Fraser University (SFU), a location that one Mountie labelled as the most “far out” university in Canada, occupied the administration building for two days, suddenly the police suspicions that had once been applied to communism now had a new home.

An occupation of the computer centre at Sir George Williams University the following January and February, an event that ended with acts of vandalism, only reinforced the Mounties’ conviction of a grand conspiracy: Canadian campus protests, not to mention other radical activity, were being either directed from the United States or coordinated with American activity.

An informant at Sir George Williams University decried the events at his or her university as “preplanned” and part of a movement “that will be more fascist than even that of the Nazi regime in Germany during World War II.”

Appearing before a House of Commons committee three months after the SGWU occupation, the RCMP’s assistant commissioner warned of linkages between American and Canadian radicals. But when pressed by a committee member for evidence, William Kelly replied that his concern had been based more on a “feeling” than on “proof.”

Although the old fear of subversion remained, the campus events of 1968 and 1969, particularly the trashing of the computer centre at Sir George Williams, now supplied the Mounted Police with a new justification for their domestic operations: the threat of violence.

In response, under increasing pressure from the federal government to investigate campus radicalism and separatism in Quebec, the RCMP launched a new effort on campus. One component was a recruitment campaign for informants at universities, because the RCMP had had little success in “penetrating” the student protest movement and because many of its former faculty informants had retired.

Whereas in an earlier time people had only been too happy to assist the police, the sixties were different. Instead, university students were more committed to embarrassing the Mounties by publicly exposing recruitment attempts or simply ridiculing the police as an institution.

The Mounties had difficulty acknowledging that Canadian youth, like others of their generation, were questioning authority, institutions, and the establishment in all their forms, and the primary roots of their unrest came not from without, but within their own societies.

As part of the late 1960s reforms, the RCMP expanded its files on higher education. Headquarters in Ottawa made it clear that radicals now came in a variety of ideological hues beyond the ones traditionally coloured Red: “CP of C member, suspected Trotskyist, self-admitted Marxist, black nationalist, student agitator, anarchist, red power advocate, or an associate of communists.”

Whereas at the end of the 1950s, the Mounties held files on ninety nonstudents at universities, for 1969 headquarters in Ottawa held 357 files on individuals employed in education in Ontario alone.

No scrap of information remained unexamined. The list of materials passed on to Ottawa in 1970 included an account of the appearance at the University of Alberta by American radical (and Chicago Eight member) Abbie Hoffman, an assessment of the Canadian University Press, a mention of a conference on Marxism at the University of Waterloo, a report about a SFU history-student organization, derisive comments from a student informant about an all-female student executive at Brandon University, and descriptions of the formation of a Jewish student group at SFU and a gay organization in Vancouver.

In September 1970, an undercover Mountie joining in a campus festival, “Day One of the New University of Toronto,” collected pamphlets from a wide variety of groups. Unclear as to the top threat to Canada, his collection included material from a gay-rights group, the Varsity Christian Fellowship, and the Campus Crusade for Christ.

The results of the investigations concerned the highest ranks of the RCMP. “The total of the activities of a subversive nature carried out in Canada by many different organizations is very worrying and clearly represents a serious threat to the unity of the country and to the preservation of law and order,” cautioned the director general of the RCMP Security Service, John Starnes, to the federal deputy minister of justice. “Moreover, all the indications are that the level of these kinds of activity across the land is likely to increase rather than to diminish in the next few years.”

The Mounted Police reiterated this message to Pierre Trudeau, his cabinet, and senior government bureaucrats, at a special security briefing in September 1971. Reacting as well to the 1970 October Crisis, the RCMP used a special slide show to paint a dire future for domestic stability in the 1970s. In short, argued Canadas intelligence service, the new decade would render the sixties calm in comparison.

Canada’s famous police force proved, in the end, more proficient at collecting information than using it as a basis for fortune-telling. The social factors of the 1960s that had fuelled campus protest dissipated in the 1970s, and the campuses quieted. Instead of universities experiencing turmoil, the RCMP Security Service did.

Pressured by the federal government to act against radicalism, it launched a campaign of illegal activities, later nick-named the “dirty tricks.” Out of this came a royal commission and the eventual decision to strip the Mounties of the primacy of their security role and create a new agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Within CSIS, however, there was an element of continuity with the past. At its start most of its personnel were ex-Mounties and one of the primary justifications for its work, next to espionage, the threat of violence in the form of terrorism, had already been a growing concern in the old Security Service.

Within the continuity there is also relevance for the post-September 11 world. As in the Cold War, a real threat to domestic security exists. But, also as in the Cold War, the potential exists (and indeed has occurred in some cases) for imagined and exaggerated threats to take over, for scapegoating and infringements on civil liberties to occur, and for those who dissent to be discredited by being branded as terrorists in the same way that the label Communist or Red was applied in the Cold War.

It may indeed be a new world after September 11, but when it comes to domestic security agencies whose roots lie in the Cold War, fundamental change may be slow in coming.

* The New Left was a broad label applied to a diverse movement that emerged at the end of the 1950s in the 1960s. In general, its adherents, who found inspiration in the writings of theorists like C. Wright Mills. Herbert Marcuse, and even Karl Marx, rejected orthodoxy and authoritarianism of all kinds including that of the so called Old Left. A rejection of what amounted to Stalinism was not necessarily, however, a repudiation of Communist principles.

et cetera

Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945-1957, by Reg Whitaker and Gary Marcuse. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1994.

Children of Privilege: Student Revolt in the Sixties, by Cyril Levitt. University of Toronto Press, 1984.

Occupation, a 1970 documentary film by Bill Reid about students occupying political science department offices at McGill University, is available through the National Film Board at

Steve Hewitt teaches history at the University of Indianapolis and is a visiting scholar at Purdue University. His book, Spying 101: The RCMP’s Secret Activities at Canadian Universities, 1917–1997, from which this article is adapted, was published in 2002 by University of Toronto Press.

This article originally appeared in the August-September 2002 issue of The Beaver.

Mar 092017

Subject:     The 9:04 pm message that kept me up all night


Hi Sandra!

It started like this…

“Dr. Gentempo; I have two adorable grandchildren 1 and 3 years old. Their parents feel guilty for already vaccinating them, and are wondering what they can do now… after the fact?”

My heart sank. And then I got angry.

How many more times are parents going to have to feel guilty for doing “what the doctor ordered”? The most devastating feeling in the world is to watch your children hurt – to see them in pain – to have to witness their suffering.

Look, we live in a world where there are far too many people who believe vaccines are perfectly safe. That injecting detergents, foreign DNA, live and mutated viruses, mercury and aluminum is totally harmless.

It’s these same people that seem to think that natural medicine (which has been around since the beginning of time) and the bodies ability to heal itself is bunk.

This is the reason I choose to do what I do – why we created Vaccines Revealed.

Look, vaccines are inflammatory – they are meant to be inflammatory and cause a response in the body. – That’s how they work.

Let me explain: One of the primary ingredients in vaccines is an “adjuvant”. An adjuvant is a substance whose role is to enhance the body’s immune response. This immune response is hard on the body and causes inflammation.

The next problem we face is that the thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum used as preservatives and adjuvants are toxic and accumulate in the body.

So – If you have a child who has been vaccinated, suffered an adverse reaction, has a chronic health condition, or if you want to prevent one that could occur in the future as a result of being vaccinated in the past …

The very best medicine is prevention – and next best is to decrease or stop the cumulative effects of the toxins on their bodies.

You may want to consider taking steps to detox. Accumulated toxins contribute to health conditions and that’s why we address the burden vaccines placed on your child and the toxins stored in their body as a result.

It’s really quite simple: In natural medicine, “dis-ease” has one of two underlying causes: toxicity and nutritional deficiency. Detoxing attempts to restore balance by supporting the body’s elimination channels and by binding to metals, chemicals, and toxins so they can be safely removed from the body. Vaccinations are certainly toxic.

First of all…

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! There’s a misconception that detoxing is harsh or can only be done via chelating and fasting.

With children, it is extremely important that detoxing be done in a slow, gentle manner, and in the safest way possible.

Mar 082017

The 8,761 documents published by WikiLeaks focus mainly on techniques for hacking and surveillance

(Below:  a copy of  the Guardian article )


US consulate in Frankfurt, Germany.

US consulate in Frankfurt, Germany is home to a ‘sensitive compartmentalised information facility’, according to the leaked documents. Photograph: Boris Roessler/AP


The US intelligence agencies are facing fresh embarrassment after WikiLeaks published what it described as the biggest ever leak of confidential documents from the CIA detailing the tools it uses to break into phones, communication apps and other electronic devices.

The thousands of leaked documents focus mainly on techniques for hacking and reveal how the CIA cooperated with British intelligence to engineer a way to compromise smart televisions and turn them into improvised surveillance devices.

The leak, named “Vault 7” by WikiLeaks, will once again raise questions about the inability of US spy agencies to protect secret documents in the digital age. It follows disclosures about Afghanistan and Iraq by army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010 and about the National Security Agency and Britain’s GCHQ by Edward Snowden in 2013.

The new documents appear to be from the CIA’s 200-strong Center for Cyber Intelligence and show in detail how the agency’s digital specialists engage in hacking. Monday’s leak of about 9,000 secret files, which WikiLeaks said was only the first tranche of documents it had obtained, were all relatively recent, running from 2013 to 2016.

The revelations in the documents include:

CIA hackers targeted smartphones and computers.

The Center for Cyber Intelligence, based at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, has a second covert base in the US consulate in Frankfurt which covers Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

A programme called Weeping Angel describes how to attack a Samsung F8000 TV set so that it appears to be off but can still be used for monitoring.

The CIA declined to comment on the leak beyond the agency’s now-stock refusal to verify the content. “We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents,” wrote CIA spokesperson Heather Fritz Horniak. But it is understood the documents are genuine and a hunt is under way for the leakers or hackers responsible for the leak.

WikiLeaks, in a statement, was vague about its source. “The archive appears to have been circulated among former US government hackers and contractors in an unauthorised manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive,” the organisation said.

The leak feeds into the present feverish controversy in Washington over alleged links between Donald Trump’s team and Russia. US officials have claimed WikiLeaks acts as a conduit for Russian intelligence and Trump sided with the website during the White House election campaign, praising the organisation for publishing leaked Hillary Clinton emails.

Asked about the claims regarding vulnerabilities in consumer products, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said: “I’m not going to comment on that. Obviously that’s something that’s not been fully evaluated.”

Asked about Trump’s praise for WikiLeaks during last year’s election, when it published emails hacked from Clinton’s campaign chairman, Spicer told the Guardian: “The president said there’s a difference between Gmail accounts and classified information. The president made that distinction a couple of weeks ago.”

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, said the disclosures were “exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective”. WikiLeaks has been criticised in the past for dumping documents on the internet unredacted and this time the names of officials and other information have been blacked out.

WikiLeaks shared the information in advance with Der Spiegel in Germany and La Repubblica in Italy.

Edward Snowden, who is in exile in Russia, said in a series of tweets the documents seemed genuine and that only an insider could know this kind of detail. He tweeted:

 INSERT:   I can’t copy the tweets.  Go to

the Guardian article

to read a small number of them.   From there I accidentally arrived on Snowden’s answers to questions related to what in the leaked information he uses to determine that the info is legitimate.   He also interprets information.   USG is his shorthand for United States Government.

The document dealing with Samsung televisions carries the CIA logo and is described as secret. It adds “USA/UK”. It says: “Accomplishments during joint workshop with MI5/BTSS (British Security Service) (week of June 16, 2014).”

It details how to fake it so that the television appears to be off but in reality can be used to monitor targets. It describes the television as being in “Fake Off” mode. Referring to UK involvement, it says: “Received sanitized source code from UK with comms and encryption removed.”


WikiLeaks, in a press release heralding the leak, said: “The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom’s MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a ‘Fake Off’ mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In ‘Fake Off’ mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”


The role of MI5, the domestic intelligence service, is mainly to track terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies and monitoring along the lines revealed in the CIA documents would require a warrant.


The Snowden revelations created tension between the intelligence agencies and the major IT companies upset that the extent of their cooperation with the NSA had been exposed. But the companies were primarily angered over the revelation the agencies were privately working on ways to hack into their products. The CIA revelations risk renewing the friction with the private sector.


The initial reaction of members of the intelligence community was to question whether the latest revelations were in the public interest.

A source familiar with the CIA’s information security capabilities took issue with WikiLeaks’s comment that the leaker wanted “to initiate a public debate about cyberweapons”. But the source said this was akin to claiming to be worried about nuclear proliferation and then offering up the launch codes for just one country’s nuclear weapons at the moment when a war seemed most likely to begin.

Monday’s leaks also reveal that CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate are given diplomatic (“black”) passports and US State Department cover. The documents include instructions for incoming CIA hackers that make Germany’s counter-intelligence efforts appear inconsequential.


The document reads:

“Breeze through German customs because you have your cover-for-action story down pat, and all they did was stamp your passport.


Your cover story (for this trip):

Q: Why are you here?

A: Supporting technical consultations at the consulate.”


The leaks also reveal a number of the CIA’s electronic attack methods are designed for physical proximity. These attack methods are able to penetrate high-security networks that are disconnected from the internet, such as police record databases. In these cases, a CIA officer, agent or allied intelligence officer acting under instructions, physically infiltrates the targeted workplace. The attacker is provided with a USB stick containing malware developed for the CIA for this purpose, which is inserted into the targeted computer. The attacker then infects and extracts data.


A CIA attack system called Fine Dining provides 24 decoy applications for CIA spies to use. To witnesses, the spy appears to be running a programme showing videos, presenting slides, playing a computer game, or even running a fake virus scanner. But while the decoy application is on the screen, the system is automatically infected and ransacked.


The documents also provide travel advice for hackers heading to Frankfurt: “Flying Lufthansa: Booze is free so enjoy (within reason).”


The rights group Privacy International, in a statement, said it had long warned about government hacking powers. “Insufficient security protections in the growing amount of devices connected to the internet or so-called ‘smart’ devices, such as Samsung smart TVs, only compound the problem, giving governments easier access to our private lives,” the group said.