Sandra Finley

Nov 162018
 
the light went on.   I remember what “under the Law” means in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

(NOTE:  List of RELATED postings at bottom)

 

There’s a BLIND SPOT that creates confusion.  And down the garden path we go.

the word PRIVACY  used in two different contexts has different meaning.
If you do not understand that, your expectations of where the path leads will likely be wrong.

Explain it this way:

You register a FOI  (Freedom of Information – – a request for access to documents in Government and public sector institutions) with, for example,  the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner.  

“Privacy” in that context is about our access to information about the self, that is held in government or public sector institutions.   

Whereas,

“Privacy” in the context of the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is about Constitutional Law that prohibits “the state” (the Government) from amassing detailed personal information on individuals in the society.

 

 

I could not figure out:  why aren’t people and the media raising the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information?   (StatsCan’s plan to get personal data through enforced “collaborations” with the private sector.  Which they feel they have to do because of non-compliance by Canadians with handing over personal information to StatsCan.)

Non-compliance rates have been exposed. 2013-10   Lockheed Martin Census: StatsCan math is wrong on non-compliance. It’s 11%, not 2%. Under oath at the trial of Audrey Tobias.)  In truth,  non-compliance is higher than that.  One year for example,  the “Religion” of 12,000 Canadians was “Jedi” (from Star Wars)!

 

But never mind,  “The Privacy Commissioner is investigating“, we can relax – – it’s a slam-dunk.  But it’s not.  And it’s potentially dangerous  if the Privacy Commissioner issues a report saying StatsCan operations are within the Law.

 

The Privacy Commissioner operates “under the Law“.  There’s the nub of it.  WHICH Laws?  It’s the “Privacy Act” and one other.  I skimmed the Privacy Act – – it’s more about Access to personal information held in Govt Depts.

The Privacy Commissioner more or less frames the debate in media interviews;

 – the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information does not fall within his terms of reference.

 

I think that’s part of why you don’t see it in the media coverage.

Citizens are the ones who have to insert the Charter Right into the debate.   Scroll down, at bottom:

A SMALL, IMPORTANT  ACTION    “REPORT A CONCERN”   ON-LINE, TO THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

 

Large numbers of people balk at StatsCan’s efforts to obtain personal information  (and have been, for years).

2018-11-13  Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

 

Another reason that the Charter Right is largely omitted from the public debate:  many Canadians do not know, or are not clear on whether such a Right exists.  I doubt that it’s taught in schools.

LINKS

You might think that an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner will surely put an end to StatsCan’s plan to demand personal banking information from the Banks, until you realize

 “under the Law” means “under the 2 Acts of Parliament that govern the operations of the Privacy Commissioner”.   

 https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/

About the OPC

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is an Agent of Parliament whose mission is to protect and promote privacy rights. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) oversees compliance with the Privacy Act, which covers the personal information-handling practices of federal government departments and agencies, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Canada’s federal private-sector privacy law.

The Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is NOT a Law administered by the Privacy Commissioner.

I only skimmed the Privacy Act.     This phrase is representative:

  • 8(1) A request for access to personal information

 

WHY are the media reports saying nothing about the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information in this debate?

There’s a blind spot created by using the same word to describe two different things.

– – – – – – –

Links from the website for the Privacy Commissioner:
  Privacy Commissioner launches investigation into Statistics Canada

Announcement – October 31, 2018

I can think this (an investigation) will solve the problem – – StatsCan will not be allowed to order the banks to hand over people’s banking data.

 

– – – – – – –

From    Commissioner shares his views on the collection of financial information by Statistics Canada

Announcement – November 8, 2018

EXCERPTS

Indeed, Statistics Canada regularly consults us on the privacy implications of many of their initiatives; it (StatsCan) is always open to a dialogue and often accepts our recommendations.

 

After having received complaints related to Statistics Canada and its collection of personal information from private sector organizations, I have opened an investigation. 

 

I am at liberty to tell you that I have received 52 complaints on this matter as of this morning.

 

A SMALL, IMPORTANT  ACTION

“REPORT A CONCERN”

ON-LINE, TO THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

 

don’t know if our network is large enough to insert the Charter Right into the debate.   But let’s give it a try.   In a small office,  large volumes are hard to handle.  Quality of input, not quantity, counts!

I talked with a woman at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner who recommended (as I understand, the Report of the Commissioner will incorporate the Concerns we submit):

Go to:

https://services.priv.gc.ca/q-s/allez-go/eng/fb408134-7bd4-48cb-87a2-4ac6210dee51

Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Report a Concern

Notice:     This form is intended for individuals who want to share their comments with us but do not require a response from our Office.

(Maximum 4096 characters)

Tell the Privacy Commissioner your thoughts.   Might be helpful – – some ideas you can copy and change to suit yourself.:

  • Canadians have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.   OR
  • The Charter Right should be in your Report on StatsCan and the Banks.   OR
  •   This is what our Charter Right says:  “In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”     OR
  • The Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information says that StatsCan can’t do what’s it’s trying to do.  Constitutional Law is higher than the Privacy Act and all other Acts of Parliament.  OR
  • Under the Law, if StatsCan wants to get the personal information of citizens from the Banks, it has to make a successful application to the Courts to grant them a Section 1 over-ride.  In Court StatsCan has to satisfy the criteria set out for the Govt to take away a Charter Right of all citizens.

 

(2010-12-23    Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state.  Oakes Test to override.)

Don’t forget the “COMMENTS” below.

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 162018
 

(NOTE:  list of RELATED postings at bottom)

by  Bill Curry

 

Canadians strongly oppose Statistics Canada’s plan to obtain personal banking records – and most would not consent to participating, according to a new Nanos Research survey.

 

The survey suggests the federal government is on the wrong side of public opinion in its defence of the plan, with 74 per cent of respondents either opposing, or somewhat opposing, Statscan accessing those records without permission. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet repeatedly defended it this month in the House of Commons in response to criticism from opposition MPs.

 

The statistics agency has warned in recent years that its traditional survey methods are becoming less reliable due to declining participation rates. As a result, it is exploring new ways of collecting data by working with private-sector companies.

 

The plan quickly moved from theory to practice in recent weeks when the agency sent letters to nine Canadian banks informing them it would compel them to hand over the personal banking records of 500,000 Canadian households in January.

 

The nine banks – BMO, CIBC, Canadian Western Bank, HSBC, Laurentian Bank, National Bank, RBC, Scotiabank and Toronto-Dominion Bank – were caught by surprise. The Canadian Bankers Association expressed concern with the plan and recently said it is considering legal options.

 

The letters triggered an investigation by the federal Privacy Commissioner, and Statscan said it will not proceed until that investigation is complete.

 

The agency wants the banking records in order to improve the speed and accuracy of its reporting in areas such as spending trends and inflation. It says individual names will be removed and no identifiable information will be released to the public.

 

Still, the Nanos survey found that 57 per cent of Canadians would not consent to having their personal banking data shared with Statscan. Only 30 per cent said they would consent, while 13 per cent said they were unsure. Older Canadians were more likely to oppose the plan.

 

In response to a related question, 64 per cent said protecting the privacy of financial data is more important than helping Statscan better understand consumer behaviour and trends.

 

Pollster Nik Nanos said Canadians clearly want to have control over their private information.

 

“Part of the issue here is the lack of consent – that there’s not even an option to give consent, at least as it’s currently being proposed,” he said. “If they want to listen to Canadians, the government should moderate its position. It’s pretty clear that there’s a significant proportion of Canadians that are uncomfortable with financial data being shared – along with their personal information – by the banks to Statistics Canada.”

 

Chief statistician Anil Arora has said the project would not produce high-quality data if it only collected the banking records of individuals who agree to participate.

 

“We know that when you have a consent-based or a voluntary model, you are making some very significant quality trade-offs,” he told The Globe and Mail in an interview this month.

 

Mr. Arora compared the issue to the debate over whether compliance with the long-form census should be mandatory or voluntary: “Because those that say, ‘Yes’ and fill out the form don’t look anything like those that say, ‘No, I won’t fill it out.'”

 

The survey of 1,000 Canadians was commissioned by Nanos Research and took place from Nov. 3-7. A survey of that size is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

 

It also found that when it comes to protecting their personal financial information, Canadians rank banks ahead of Statistics Canada: Sixty-nine per cent said they would trust or somewhat trust banks to protect their personal information, while 65 per cent said the same about the agency.

 

Canadians have even less faith in credit-card companies: Only 47 per cent of survey respondents said they would trust or somewhat trust them to protect their personal information

= = = = = = = = = =

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 152018
 

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = =

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 132018
 

(NOTE:  list of RELATED postings at bottom)

Further to:    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

I received this:

I circulated on facebook the petition against this sharing of personal data from financial institutions.  One response made it clear that people trust Stats Canada a way more than is warranted, based on their track record.

And this:

This is one question (StatsCan) I do know a lot about, and I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed; this is not the banks passing on your data to credit agencies, who then leaked you records, but statcan, with an unblemished record for assembling the facts we need to share while protecting your privacy better than any other firm or agency with which you share your data.

in hopes of triggering second thoughts, and with best wishes,

 

I conclude:   we diverge on whether or not to trust StatsCan.

 

My “Second thoughts” are really “More thoughts”.

Hi!  . . .

 

I appreciate your overture, and your experience with StatsCan.

My concern is not the work that StatsCan does.  My concern is the amount of detailed personal information they are amassing.

 

First, you may not be aware:

It is not the case that StatsCan has an unblemished record.  They have communications specialists.

The first 2 examples are CBC reports.

Some left on subway cars, some mailed to wrong addresses, etc.

More serious allegations about the hacking of Statistics Canada secure servers.  StatsCan says no harm done.

 

Beyond that:

I think we two are the blind men describing the elephant.  The one at the front describes a thick tail.  The one at the back describes a wispy thin tail, on the same animal.

You are feeling a different part of StatsCan than I have experienced, starting back in 2003 (which is to say that my experience is not insignificant, nor is yours).

An advantage for me:  People in the network forward information I would never see by myself.   I cross-examined the head of the Census operations, at my trial.  I have been in direct contact, over the years with other people who were prosecuted.

To me,  it is written in large letters, across the side of the elephant, not visible to the blind:  surveillance.  Edward Snowden wrote that.  That is what you get with the parties that StatsCan works with.  I won’t repeat the evidence – – like the travel expense claims from the StatsCan website.

 

I have a long interest in Nazi Europe.  It seems so preposterous:  how could people have been so obtuse, as to let it happen?  One example:

It is documented:  people in the field were telling their leaders long before it happened – – intelligence showed that the Nazis were going to go through Ardennes Woods to invade France, you may know the story.  But it was pooh-poohed:

Allied generals in World War II felt the region was impenetrable to massed vehicular traffic and especially armor, so the area was effectively “all but undefended” during the war, leading to the German Army twice using the region as an invasion route into Northern France and Southern Belgium via Luxembourg in the Battle of France and the later Battle of the Bulge.

Anyhow, there you go.   Sorry,  I am convinced that we need the charter right to privacy, more than StatsCan & Lockheed Martin need all our personal information.     If you have not read “IBM and Holocaust”,  you really should.   Mechanized census files, very detailed.  What they had then – – Hollerith machines and punch cards, is nothing compared with what they have today.

 

From my “tail” of the elephant,  StatsCan is not trustworthy.  And the last people on Earth I would trust:  the American imperialists, the military-industrial-congressional complex.  It’s an Ardennes Woods story.

 

ILLUSION IS THE FIRST OF ALL PLEASURES (VOLTAIRE).

THE WORLD WANTS TO BE DECEIVED (HITLER) 

(Quote from:  Illusion and Denial that the invader is on the way (Ardennes, Sarajevo). Canada?)

It’s not a conspiracy theory.  It’s just piecing together the intelligence collected, starting in 2003.  I have had the luxery of TIME to spend on the topic It’s a priority for me – – it would have been for you, too, if you had received a Summons to Court, as I did.  You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out, you just need time and a supporting network working with you.

Best wishes,

Sandra

– – – – – – – – –

RE:  StatsCan’s plan to obtain spending data from Banks

I am concerned by a lack of emphasis and informed dialogue on:

  • The Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information
  • WHY we have the Charter Right
  • The Rule of Law
  • What happens in a corporatized civil service

My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks” is posted at:

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=22835   

 It elaborates on the topics of concern.  I am hoping you will peruse,  and if it suits,  share with others.

Thank-you for your consideration, and all that you do in service to a better Canada for everyone.

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = =

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

 

Nov 122018
 

(NOTE:  list of RELATED postings at bottom)

Tech companies’ reign over users’ personal data has run largely unchecked in the age of the internet. Europe is seeking to end that with a new law

by  Steve Kroft

This has not been a great year for big tech; on Wall Street or in Washington. For decades, companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have made vast sums monetizing the personal information of their users with almost no oversight or regulation. They are still making vast sums of money, but public attitudes about their size and power and their ability, or willingness, to police themselves are being called into question. A consensus is developing that something has to change and once again the impetus is coming from Europe which is becoming the world’s leader in internet privacy and data protection. With a 31-year-old lawyer as the catalyst, the European Parliament has enacted a tough new law that has Silicon Valley scrambling to comply, and pressuring lawmakers here to do something about protecting your data.

Seven times this year big tech has been called on the carpet to answer for data breaches, fake news, political meddling on the internet, and the endless amounts of personal information being gathered on Americans.

Sen. John Kennedy: I don’t want to vote to have to regulate Facebook, but by God I will.

Sen. Mark Warner: The era of the Wild West in social media is coming to an end.

Sen. John Thune: The question is no longer whether we need a federal law to protect consumers’ privacy, the question is what shape will that law take?

In Europe, they already have a law in place. After levying multi-billion dollar fines against Google for anti-competitive behavior, the European Union enacted the world’s most ambitious internet privacy law, even winning support from the CEO of the biggest tech company in America, Apple’s Tim Cook.

cook2wwdc.jpg

Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook has spoken in support of the GDPR   Reuters

 

Tim Cook: This is surveillance. And these stockpiles of personal data serve only to enrich the companies that collect them.

 

Speaking in Brussels, Cook did not say which companies he was talking about but Apple wasn’t one of them. Its business model is making and selling phones and computers, not marketing personal information for advertising like Google and Facebook.

 

Tim Cook: Our own information from the everyday to the deeply personal, is being weaponized against us with military efficiency. It is time for the rest of the world, including my home country, to follow your lead.

“Americans have no control today about the information that’s collected about them every second of their lives.”

Most people would agree that the point man in Europe has been a spikey-haired 31-year-old Viennese lawyer named Max Schrems who has been inflicting misery in Silicon Valley for the past seven years. He not only brought international attention to the issue of data privacy, he brought big tech lawyers into court. In the information age, he says data is the most important commodity. The question is who does it belong to.

 

Steve Kroft: Who owns your data?

 

Max Schrems: The legislation here says it’s you that your data belongs to.

 

Steve Kroft: You should have control over it.

 

Max Schrems: You should have control over that. However, in an environment where there is no such law, basically, whoever factually has the power over it, which is usually the big tech company, owns it, in that sense.

 

Max Schrems was a major force in drafting the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR. It became law in May, after a long battle with big tech, and every company that does business in Europe, including the most powerful ones in America, must comply. It was designed specifically to ensure that consumers, not tech companies, have control over the collection and use of their own personal information.

 

Steve Kroft: What kind of new rights does this law give European citizens that people in the United States might not have?

 

Max Schrems: The default under the European system is you’re not allowed to use someone else’s data unless you have a justification. And the result of that is that you have rights, like a right that– you walk up to a company and say, “Delete everything you have about me.” You have a right to access. So you can say, “I want to have a copy of everything you have about me.” And all of these little elements in the law, overall, are meant to give you that power over your data that in an information society we should probably have.

max-schrems-steve-kroft-walk-talk.jpg

Max Schrems speaks to correspondent Steve Kroft    CBS News

And right now in the United States you have none of those legal rights.

 

Jeffrey Chester: Americans have no control today about the information that’s collected about them every second of their lives.

 

Jeff Chester is the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. He has been a major voice on digital privacy for two decades, and says the only Americans guaranteed privacy on the internet are children under 13. He says there are some limitations on some specific medical and financial information, but the internet has rendered them obsolete.

 

Jeffrey Chester: There are no rules, there’s not a government agency really protecting them. Any– the companies can do whatever they want in terms of gathering our information and using it in any way they see fit.

 

Steve Kroft: How did the big tech companies come to collect all this information?

 

Jeffrey Chester: No one ever told them they couldn’t collect it all. There’ve been no limits at all ever established.

 

Steve Kroft: And that’s what’s going on with GDPR, somebody saying, “You can’t?”

 

Jeffrey Chester: That’s exactly right. GDPR says you can’t collect it without permission.

 

The big tech companies have always argued that consumers have given them permission to take their personal data in exchange for using the product. It’s buried in the fine print on those long impenetrable online privacy agreements that you have to click on. Max Schrems says it’s not free choice but constitutes coercion under the new European law.

 

On the day it was enacted Schrems’ nonprofit group “None of Your Business” took action against Facebook and Google for allegedly violating European privacy laws.

 

Max Schrems: It’s this take it or leave it approach. You know it whenever you open an app it says, “agree, or don’t use the app” and your choice is basically not existent because either you go offline – or you have to agree.

 

Schrems cited the example of Google’s Android operating system, the software which runs up to 80% of the world’s smartphones. But to use one, you must first activate it and give Google consent to collect your personal data on all of its products.

 

Max Schrems: You paid $1,000 right now and you’re not allowed to use your $1,000 phone unless you agree that all the data goes to someone else. And that is basically forced consent.

 

Steve Kroft: The tech companies say, “Look, you, the user, you gave us permission to take this information to use it the way we wanted to. You agreed to it.”

 

Max Schrems:  And that–

 

Steve Kroft:  “You signed on. You made the deal.”

 

Max Schrems: The individual doesn’t have the power, the time, the legal expertise to understand any of that. And then you’re sitting at home at your desk and have the option to only say yes. This is not what any reasonable person would consider a fair deal.

 

Schrems has been waging this battle since 2011 when he spent a semester in California at Santa Clara University School of Law. A lawyer from Facebook told his class that big tech didn’t pay any attention to European privacy laws because they were rarely enforced and that the fines were very small.

 

Max Schrems: it was obviously the case that ignoring European privacy laws was the much cheaper option. The maximum penalty, for example, in Austria was 20,000 euros. So just a lawyer telling you how to comply with the law was more expensive than breaking it.

 

At the time most people had no idea how much personal information was being collected on them, so when the 23-year-old Schrems returned to Austria he decided to ask Facebook if he could see what they had collected on him. By mistake or miracle, someone at Facebook sent him this stack of information, lifting the veil on the extent of the company’s interest in him.

 

Max Schrems: And after a while I got a PDF file with 1,200 pages after using Facebook for three years and I’m not a heavy user or anything like that.

max-schrems-on-bike.jpg

Max Schrems   CBS News

Facebook had created a dossier of max’s life. That included his location history, events he attended, all of his contact information and his private Facebook messages, even the ones he thought he had deleted.

 

Steve Kroft:  So these were personal conversations you had that you thought were between yourself and the other person?

 

Max Schrems: Yeah.

 

Steve Kroft: And they’re all here?

 

Max Schrems: They’re all here, and they’re basically undeletable.

 

It created a huge stir at the time, but it’s nothing compared to what’s being gathered now. Today, Facebook collects information on people who don’t even have an account. Google’s Android software knows whether the user is walking, running, or riding in a car. And Amazon has patented algorithms that could be used on its Echo smart speaker to listen in on continuous conversations, and even read the mood of people in the room.

 

Max Schrems: The reality is that this industry is so fast-moving right now, even if you have perfect enforcement mechanisms, usually they will get away with it. Unless there is a serious penalty.

 

Today, if one of the big tech companies chooses to ignore Europe’s new data protection law it could cost them 4 percent of their global revenues, which for the biggest companies would mean billions of dollars.

 

Those decisions will likely be made here in Dublin, the busiest of Europe’s 28 data protection centers, and the place where most American tech companies have their European headquarters. They flocked here years ago because of Ireland’s low corporate taxes and its reputation for relaxed regulation.

 

Ireland’s data protection commissioner Helen Dixon says it’s not going to be business as usual.

 

Helen Dixon: U.S. internet companies have no doubt that this law is serious, it has serious bite  And all of them are eager to avoid any engagement with that.

 

Steve Kroft: How would you describe your relationship with these companies right now? Is the relationship cooperative or contentious?

 

Helen Dixon: It’s all of those things in any one week.

helen-dixon-walking.jpg

Helen Dixon    CBS News

Dixon says tech companies are spending tens of millions of dollars hiring lawyers, compliance officers and engineers to make sure they are operating within the law. The data protection authorities have only a few thousand employees in Europe to police some of the most powerful companies in the world, but they have subpoena power, can conduct raids, and even shut down operations.

 

Steve Kroft:  You think the big tech companies, the people in Silicon Valley are taking this seriously?

 

Eoin O’Dell: I think they have to.

 

Eoin O’Dell is a law professor at Trinity College in Dublin and a leading expert on European privacy law. He says Europe has now established an international standard for internet privacy, and companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon are not about to retreat from a $17 trillion market.

 

Eoin O’Dell: We have safety standards in cars, but that hasn’t stopped us driving cars. We have emissions standards for – for the gas in the cars but that hasn’t stopped us using the gas in the cars .  The data companies are – going to comply in the same way as the – car companies have complied

 

Steve Kroft: To stay in business.

 

Eoin O’Dell: To stay in business.

 

Since the European privacy law was passed, at least ten other countries have adopted similar rules. So has the state of California.

 

Perhaps sensing the inevitable, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon are now saying they could support a U.S. privacy law if they were given considerable input. The Internet Association, which lobbies for big tech, and its president Michael Beckerman say they would support giving Americans reasonable access to their information and some privacy rights now enjoyed by the Europeans.

michael-beckerman-in-office.jpg

Michael Beckerman    CBS News

Steve Kroft: From your point of view, who owns the data that’s collected?

 

Michael Beckerman: I think individuals should have complete control over their information. You should have access to it, both how you’re giving it in the online world and offline world, and full transparency on who has the information and what you’re getting for it.

 

Steve Kroft: But who owns it?

 

Michael Beckerman: People should have control over it. I don’t view it as an ownership, you know, the way you’re– the way you’re asking. But I think the individual–

 

Steve Kroft: The Europeans do, the Europeans says it’s a right. You own your information. You have a right–

 

Michael Beckerman: We have–

 

Steve Kroft: –to go to the companies and say, “I want this information.”

 

Michael Beckerman: Under the law that we’re pushing, and the rules that we’re pushing, and what our companies already do, people can download the information– their personal information that they’ve shared with the sites, and delete it if they want, and cancel their accounts.

 

Privacy advocate Jeff Chester says the industry wants people to believe that it’s cooperating and open to change, but that it won’t do anything until it’s forced to by law.

 

Jeffrey Chester: This is simply a bait and switch in terms of protecting privacy in America today. The companies have no intention of supporting a privacy law that actually would stop them from collecting our information and give Americans the same rights the Europeans now have.

 

Produced by Maria Gavrilovic. Associate producer, Alex Ortiz.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  Steve Kroft

Few journalists have achieved the impact and recognition that Steve Kroft’s 60 Minutes work has generated for over two decades. Kroft delivered his first report for 60 Minutes in 1989.

= = = = = = = = = =

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 122018
 

UPDATES:     (note – list of “RELATED” postings at bottom)

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Poll Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households, Globe & Mail.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

MY REPLY

Dear  Senator,

RE:

– – – – – – – – – – –

I am grateful to the Senate for probing the plans of StatsCan.

I wish to submit the following, pertinent to your deliberations.

– – – – – – – – – –

  1. THE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT,  see   The role of mechanized census data in Nazi Europe.   (a characteristic of totalitarian police states:  detailed files of personal information on everyone.)

Mankind barely noticed when the concept of massively organized information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction.  …     IBM and the Holocaust, by Edwin Black

– – – – – – – – – –

2.  The effort by StatsCan to get personal data from banks (no matter how they rationalize it), contravenes our Charter Right to Privacy.

THE CHARTER RIGHT:

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.” 

Please see

2010-12-23    Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state.  Oakes Test to override.

– – – – – – –

3.  The RULE OF LAW  is important to me;  it is not important to StatsCan.

Please see   Democracy: Significance of the Rule of Law

StatsCan claims that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away citizens’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  Most people know that Rights provided under Constitutional Law cannot be taken away by a regular act of Parliament.  Under Constitutional Law, in order for the Government to take away a Charter Right it has to meet the criteria set out in the Oakes Test.  As far as I know,  StatsCan / the Justice Dept have not applied to the Courts to see if they can meet the criteria, so the Charter Right stands. StatsCan’s assertions to citizens that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away Charter Rights is bogus.

Further,  StatsCan continues to tell citizens “it is the Law”, under threat of prosecution,  you have to fill in (for example) surveys,  when the Statistics Act says that participation in surveys is NOT mandatory (the sanctions for census non-compliance do not apply).   StatsCan uses a serious lie to intimidate and coerce citizens into providing information protected by the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

– – – – – –

4.  The debacle at StatsCan since 2003 has spawned summaries, e.g.:   ARE STATSCAN “SURVEYS” MANDATORY?

Because of the continuous data collection on individuals being done through StatsCan Surveys,   this is the most-used page on my blog.  From blog statistics, number of  “hits” on this posting, as at Nov 11, 2018  shows  75,448.

NOTE:   I have no illusions, mine is a small blog – – these statistics, dependent on software programming, are inflated.  I do not know by how much and in what ways.

What the numbers do tell you:  the actions of Statistics Canada have sent large numbers of people scurrying to find information.

People do a web search – –  “Are StatsCan surveys mandatory”,  “Do I have to fill in a StatsCan survey?”,  “I am being harassed by StatsCan”,  and so on.   They end up on the above posting, which by now contains comprehensive information.

Lockheed Martin, War Economy, StatsCan, Charter Right Privacy, Trial   shows   68,460 hits, as of Nov 11, 2018.

Maybe the story will be:

Canadians noticed when massively organized information was emergingThey . . .

– – – – – –

5.   Integrity at StatsCan.    Anil Arora is currently the Chief Statistician for Canada, he testified at the recent Senate Hearing into StatsCan’s plan to get spending data directly from the banks.

Who is the driver behind the wheel?

From    2016-03-18    Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?    (Starting at least as early as 2003, Lockheed Martin Corp was at StatsCan.)

The above posting addresses collaboration by specified countries (including Canada) on:  data bases on citizens that are housed in their statistics departments (or census bureaux), under the Steerage of Lockheed Martin Corp.

EXCERPT FROM THE POSTING

StatsCan CREDIBILITY GAP

Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald did a good job of explaining that under the auspices of the NSA, backdoor entry to data bases is established if American “security” forces cannot obtain legal front door access.  Lockheed Martin is a contractor to the NSA. Both entities are surveillance specialists; both see themselves as being outside the rule of law.  The data base at StatsCan will contain the on-going collection of data through censuses AND surveys. Your name is on your file (established during the cross-examination of the StatsCan witness, Anil Arora, at my trial).  All in all, EVEN IF Lockheed Martin is “out” (it isn’t), a backdoor entry to the data base will be in place.

NOTE:

The interest of the Americans in obtaining access to information on ALL Canadians is known through mainstream media report:

2008-11-01   Ottawa Citizen, “American officials are pressuring the Federal Government to supply them with information on Canadians ..

The means?

It’s pretty well spelt out by Lockheed Martin:

2006-09-13   Maclean’s Magazine interview, President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin, Ron Covais

The interview with the Lockheed Martin CEO spells out how the corporations will, and do, circumvent democracy.  It is important for Canadians to understand, if we are to successfully reclaim our democracy.

Lockheed’s position at StatsCan was in place by the time of this interview, had been for about three years.  Covais:

We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes because we won’t get anywhere .. The guidance from the ministers was “Tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen”, recalls Covais who chairs the U.S. section of the Council.. the future of North America decided.. not in a sweeping trade agreement on which elections will turn, but by the accretion of hundreds of incremental changes implemented by executive agencies, bureaucrats, and regulators ..

StatsCan is an “agency” of the Government.

 

AMONG THE LIES TOLD BY STATSCAN:   (I would not use the word “lies” if I did not have a documented history to support the statement.)

According to the actual numbers provided by Yves Beland, StatsCan Director of Census Operations, at the Audrey Tobias trial, the non-compliance rate for the 2011 Census is 11%, not the 2% figure StatsCan claims, and quotes to the media.   (Under oath, StatsCan, the numbers are:   13 million out of 14.6 million.   StatsCan says that is 98% compliance. It is 89% compliance. Do the math.)

There are the blatant lies told to Canadians about what the Law is  (item #3).

 

Try this one on:

MAYBE Lockheed Martin (U.S. weapons, surveillance, war) is OUT of the Canadian Census?  (Tobias, Stegenga & other trials)

StatsCan said under oath at the trial of Audrey Tobias (over the 2011 Census, trial in 2013):  Lockheed Martin’s role in the Census would be ended within two years (the next Census in 2016).    The decision had been made by the time of the Tobias trial in October 2013.

And yet, they went ahead and prosecuted:

  • Audrey Tobias, 89 years old
  • Janet Churnin, 79 years  old  and
  • (Karen) Eve Stegenga,  a self-employed yoga instructor, 37 years old.

all of whom had refused to fill in a Census form because of the role of Lockheed Martin Corp at StatsCan. 

The three women are obviously a threat to other people in their communities, hence deserving of prosecution (under threat of fines and jail time).

What did the judges think?

  • (Karen) Eve Stegenga received a conditional discharge (July 17, 2014).  She was assigned 25 hours of community service.
  • Janet Churnin received a conditional discharge (December 2013).  50 hours of community service.
  • Audrey Tobias was found not guilty (October 2013).

Community service is routine in the lives of every one of these women.   The sentences were not a hardship, did not have deterrence effect.

Prosecution Services wanted a $250.00 fine, community service, and probation for Eve Stegenga.  The intent was deterrence for other Canadians.   Why they continued to prosecute the Lockheed cases is beyond me.   If it’s just to show who is Lord of the Manor, well, they may want to re-assess.   The Judges are not upholding their lordly status (two discharges and one not guilty – – speaking only of the 2011 Census, and only of these 3 prosecutions, known without a “Freedom of Information” request).

The cost of any one of these trials is very high – preparation, consultations, judges, prosecutors, travel, hotel & meals in the Stegenga case, court workers, facility costs, opportunity costs (the money could have been put to better use).

As mentioned, by the 2011 Census, non-compliance was 11%  (not the 2% reported by StatsCan).   Hopefully, after the Stegenga case, the Justice Dept “gets it”:  the collective conscience of Canadians is strong.   They are not going to obtain compliance by using the threat of prosecution, fines and jail time.  Not by operating outside the Law.  And not when people know that the Government should not be building detailed files of personal information on people.  Whether they know it intuitively, through remembrance of history, or through rational faculties,  it is the same.

So now,  it appears that StatsCan (or whoever is behind the steering wheel),  plans to get what they want, another way.  Be damned the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information,  and be damned the fact that detailed files on citizens are a hallmark of police states.

The role of mechanized census data in Nazi Europe.   (IBM)

– – – – – – – – –

Arora is good at word-smithing (misleading).

2010-01-17  StatsCan witness, Anil Arora, under oath says those who didn’t comply were referred for prosecution; 64 people in all of Canada were charged.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to fill in gaps in the decision process regarding StatsCan and its ill-conceived plans.   Thank-you.

/Sandra Finley

 

APPENDED   The following will be information overload for some, and “of interest” to others:

 

Do Canadians have a CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY of personal information?  . . . in theory, in political and legal rhetoric, the answer is “yes”.    But see the  LEGAL ARGUMENT.   In practice, the answer is “only if citizens stand up and fight to keep it”.

Do not rely on Governments and the Courts to defend the Charter Right.  The  LEGAL ARGUMENT discusses what the law says and how it has been applied by the Courts in this instance.

A short posting:  The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights.  How Prosecutors get around it.

  • From: Howard Solomon
    Sent: November 8, 2018 7:45 PM

Hi Sandra

StatsCan appears to be relying on Section 13 of the Statistics Act, which apparently gives it the right to any document held by a business. I don’t know if the Charter over-rides it. It may have to be tested in court. Privacy Commissioner Therrien has launched an investigation, which gives him the authority to look into whether what StatsCan wants complies with the law.

(INSERT:  update, important

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

 

  • (Sandra speaking)  Another thing that causes me great concern:  Lockheed Martin is in the business of international surveillance.  Expense travel claims found on the StatsCan website,  show that in 2009 and in 2010,  Peter Morrison, Assistant Chief Statistician traveled to meetings of the International Census Forum, for which Lockheed Martin provides the “steerage”.  The idea that Lockheed Martin no longer has a presence in the data collection at StatsCan is highly suspect.   The question is addressed in  2016-03-18  Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?

BTW:  Edwin Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” is to me an interesting and compelling story.  There’s a bit about it in  The role of mechanized census data in Nazi EuropeBetween it, and what is known about the Stasi files on citizens in East Germany, and in other police states,  Canadians would have to be ignorant and stupid not to stand up against what StatsCan is trying to accomplish.   We have an eloquently stated Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, FOR A REASON.

People need to understand that there’s a difference between a business having your personal information, and a Government.   A Government, through the laws it enacts, through what laws it chooses to enforce, through the Police and the Courts, may have enormous power over the individual.  That power is not always benignly and justly exercised.   Reassurances from politicians and bureaucrats don’t cut the mustard.  It’s like the sweet-talking guy taking the sweet young thing, newly-met, for a ride in his car.  She trusts him, stupidly, and gets raped.  I’d like to think I’m not that stupid, and collectively Canadians aren’t that gullible.   The why’s and wherefore’s of the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, the importance of it, are not well enough known by Canadians.

= = = = = = = = = = =

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 112018
 

(NOTE:  List of RELATED postings at bottom)

 

https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/banc-senate-committee-to-probe-statistics-canada-request-for-canadians-banking-data/

News Release

Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

November 6, 2018


Ottawa – Following confirmation that Statistics Canada intends to compel major financial institutions to provide detailed customer banking information, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce announced Monday that it will hold at least one hearing to hear views on whether such information should be required by Statistics Canada.

A recent Global News report revealed that Statistics Canada is seeking full details of every banking transaction made by 500,000 Canadians over a designated period, without their consent. Statistics Canada told Global that responses to its surveys are low; the agency said the data will be used to track household spending and consumer trends, and that the data collected will be made anonymous. Former Chief Statistician Wayne Smith told media he believes the agency may have overreached.

The committee intends to invite the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, Navdeep Bains, Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien, Statistics Canada Chief Statistician Anil Arora, and representatives from the Canadian Bankers Association, among others, to answer the committee’s questions.

The revelation of Statistics Canada’s request comes as the committee completed its cyber security study, cyber.assault: it should keep you up at night. The report delves into issues pertaining to the protection of personal information. It also made recommendations to give greater powers to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to ensure that businesses comply with relevant privacy legislation, and that federal departments and agencies be required to report data breaches to the Privacy Commissioner.

The committee’s first hearing on this matter is expected to take place on November 8, 2018.

Quick Facts

  • According to the Global News story, Statistics Canada is asking for banks to provide 500,000 Canadians’ financial transaction data, with a new sample of Canadians to be chosen every year.
  • In that story, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada revealed it had already been in contact with Statistics Canada after businesses expressed concerns over its request for customer data. In a statement released on October 31, Statistics Canada said it has invited the Privacy Commissioner to provide “additional suggestions” to protect Canadians’ personal information.
  • Section 13 of the Statistics Act says the person in charge of records “in any department … corporation, business or organization” must provide access to that information to a person authorized by the Chief Statistician.

Quotes

“It makes me uncomfortable to think that banks may be forced to turn over every single financial transaction a person makes. While I don’t question the good intentions of the dedicated professionals at Statistics Canada, I would like to have more than just assurances that the intimate, personal details of Canadians’ lives will be protected.”

– Senator Doug Black, QC, Chair of the committee.

“Our latest report on cyber security shows just how vulnerable we can be to data theft. I want to know more about the rationale for Statistics Canada’s request and what security measures will be put in place to protect Canadians’ data and privacy.”

– Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Deputy Chair of the committee.

Associated Links

 

For more information, please contact:

Sonia Noreau
Public Relations Officer
Communications Directorate
Senate of Canada
613-614-1180 | sonia.noreau@sen.parl.gc.ca

 

RELATED POSTINGS

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate

Nov 112018
 

Steve,

That is amazing footage- even though we were there-it’s still incredible that we SAW this!

Thanks so much.

—–Original Message—–
From: Hishey Tshering
To: Steve Euller
Cc: George Archibald; Ed Sherin; Wendy Gramm; ssgristina; halpost; aliamcmahon; sabest1; jangraybiel; dhardie229; jebba; Rajendra Suwal; Nancy Roehr

Hi Steve,

Thanks for sharing this awesome memory and with this also giving me this opportunity to say to all our wonderful group members. I hope everyone is well.  . . .

– –  – – – – – – – –

Steve Euller wrote:

A year later, thought you may be interested in this memory from our trip:

 

= = = = = = = =

(Sandra speaking)

We were out in the wilds, mountains, wooded.   Someone spotted this Rufous-necked Hornbill – – quite rare/endangered.  The bus stopped right away.  There was a flying squirrel going between trees which the Hornbill proceeded to catch, beat to death, crush the bones and then eat.  The video stops before getting to the eating part.

-= = = = = = =

Aceros, Hornbills, Species

Rufous-Necked Hornbill

The Rufous-Necked Hornbill is a Hornbill from the Aceros family.

Appearance

The head, neck, and lower body of the male are colored rufous, with deeper coloration on the flanks and abdomen. The middle primaries and the lower half of the tail are tipped white. The rest of the hornbill’s plumage is a glossy dark-green and black. The lower tail-covert feathers are colored chestnut mixed with black.The female on the other hand, is black except for the tip of their tail.

Range

The Rufous-Necked Hornbill is found in Northeast India, Bhutan, Burma, Tibet, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam.

 

 

Nov 112018
 

 NOTE:  The words “Monsanto”, and “Bayer” do not appear in the title of the article.  I added them.

NOTE:   Health Canada (the Pest Management Regulatory Agency – PMRA) should NOT be doing the assessments of the studies.  They are, and have long been, nothing more than pimps without conscience for the chemical industry.  There’s lots of documentation to support the statement.)

Maker of Roundup denies any hidden influence on studies used in approval process

 

Health Canada says in light of “troubling allegations,” its scientists are reviewing hundreds of studies used during the approval process for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Canada’s most popular herbicide, Roundup.

The decision comes after a coalition of environmental groups claimed Health Canada relied on studies that were secretly influenced by agrochemical giant Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, when it re-approved use of glyphosate in 2015 and confirmed that decision in 2017.

The coalition, which includes Equiterre, Ecojustice, Canadian Physicians for the Environment and others, says academic papers looking at whether the herbicide causes cancer were presented to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency as independent, when in fact Monsanto had a hand in writing them.

At the time, Health Canada decided the risks of glyphosate to human health were acceptable, if used as directed in updated product labels. Now it’s taking another look.

“Health Canada scientists are currently reviewing hundreds of studies to assess whether the information justifies a change to the original decision, or the use of a panel of experts not affiliated with Health Canada,” the health agency told CBC-Radio Canada in an email response to the coalition’s claims.

But Sidney Ribaux, the head of Equiterre, isn’t satisfied.

He says Health Canada should launch an independent review immediately and suspend use of the herbicide, which is commonly applied to corn, soy, wheat and oats, as well as chickpeas and other pulses.

“This does not in any way meet our demands. Health Canada approved a dangerous product based … on these studies.”

Monsanto Papers

The coalition’s contention that Monsanto had an uncredited role in producing some of the studies comes from court documents made public in the case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson.

In August, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay Johnson $289 million US in damages after the former groundskeeper alleged Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.

He was diagnosed in 2014 at age 42.

A judge upheld the verdict last month, although Johnson’s payout was slashed to $78 million US.

The documents filed in the case, including emails between Monsanto and scientific experts, have become known as the Monsanto Papers. The revelations they contain have received worldwide attention.

Plaintiff Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson, seen here during his trial on July 9, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2014 at age 42. A former pest control manager at a San Francisco-area school district, he blames exposure to glyphosate for his illness. (Josh Edelson/Reuters)

The coalition of Canadian groups says those documents prove that important scientific studies were either co-written or reviewed and edited by Monsanto without properly disclosing the company’s role.

“Monsanto has been playing around with scientific studies,” said Equiterre’s Ribaux. “[It’s] making these studies look like they are independent, when in fact they were written or heavily influenced by Monsanto.

“What we found is that some of these studies were key in the Government of Canada’s decision to give a permit to Monsanto to continue selling glyphosate in Canada.

“Obviously this is very problematic.”

In a statement to CBC, German-based Bayer AG which now owns Monsanto says it has an “unwavering commitment to sound science transparency” and did not try to influence scientific outcomes in any way.

The company says in each case where it sponsored a scientific article, that information was disclosed.

U.S. plaintiff calls for more testing

Lee Johnson, the plaintiff in the landmark American case, wants to see glyphosate research re-evaluated and expanded.

“Hopefully the conversation is big enough to where they have to do more testing, more research,” Johnson told CBC-Radio-Canada in an exclusive interview during a recent visit to Toronto.

Johnson said he was thrilled to win his suit, but he knows his fight is far from over. He expects years of appeals.

 I’m not scared to die. You know, but if I have to die, at least I’ll die for something.

– Dewayne “Lee” Johnson

Bayer has already announced its intention to appeal the ruling. Bayer now faces more than 8,000 lawsuits in the U.S. over its glyphosate-based products.

In a post on its website last month, Bayer said it continues “to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law.”

The company told CBC-Radio Canada “its product is safe and has been used successfully for more than 40 years.”

It also says there is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 studies required by regulators in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere, that confirms these products are safe when used as directed.

Many government regulators, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2017, have determined there is no conclusive link between glyphosate and cancer.

But the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

Johnson, who sprayed Roundup and a similar Monsanto product, Ranger Pro, as part of his job as a groundskeeper at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, says he has found a certain consolation in his struggle against Monsanto.

“I was there to defend the truth,” he said. “I’m not scared to die. You know, but if I have to die, at least I’ll die for something.”

About the Author

Gil Shochat

Investigative producer

Gil Shochat is an award-winning investigative producer-director with CBC/Radio-Canada. He’s worked in Canada and internationally on subjects including the coal industry, the Russian mafia, TD Bank, the global war on terror, as well as Canada’s role in the international asbestos trade.

Nov 092018
 

Washington Post

By Fred Barbash, Allyson Chiu and  Juliet Eilperin

 

A federal judge temporarily blocked construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, ruling late Thursday that the Trump administration had failed to justify its decision granting a permit for the 1,200-mile long project designed to connect Canada’s oil sands fields with Texas’s Gulf Coast refineries.

 

The judge, Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court in Montana, said the State Department ignored crucial issues of climate change to further the president’s goal of letting the pipeline be built. In doing so, the administration ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires “reasoned” explanations for government decisions, particularly when they represent reversals of well-studied actions.

It was a major defeat for President Trump, who attacked the Obama administration for stopping the project in the face of protests and an environmental impact study. Trump  signed an executive order  two days into his presidency setting in motion a course reversal on the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as another major pipeline, Dakota Access.

 

The ruling highlights a broader legal vulnerability in the Trump administration’s push to roll back Obama-era environmental protections. Since Trump took office, federal courts have found repeatedly that his agencies have short-circuited the regulatory process in areas ranging from water protections to chemical plant safety operations. Robust environmental and administrative procedure laws, many dating back to the 1970s, have given the administration’s opponents plenty of legal ammunition.

 

Thursday’s decision does not permanently block a federal permit for Keystone XL, a project of the Calgary-based firm TransCanada. It requires the administration to conduct a more complete review of potential adverse impacts related to climate change, cultural resources and endangered species. The court basically ordered a do-over.

 

In a 54-page opinion, Morris hit the administration with a familiar charge that it disregarded facts, facts established by experts during the Obama administration about “climate-related impacts” from Keystone XL. The Trump administration claimed, with no supporting information, that those impacts “would prove inconsequential,” Morris wrote. The State Department “simply discarded prior factual findings related to climate change to support its course reversal.”

 

It also used “outdated information” about the impact of potential oil spills on endangered species, he said, rather than “’the best scientific and commercial data available.’”

“Today’s ruling makes it clear once and for all that it’s time for TransCanada to give up on their Keystone XL pipe dream,” said Sierra Club Senior Attorney Doug Hayes in a statement. The lawsuit prompting Thursday’s order was brought by a collection of opponents, including the indigenous Environmental Network and the Northern Plains Resource Council, a conservation coalition based in Montana.

“The Trump administration tried to force this dirty pipeline project on the American people, but they can’t ignore the threats it would pose to our clean water, our climate, and our communities,” Hayes said.

 

Hayes told The Washington Post that the company had already been moving equipment into place in Montana and South Dakota with the intent of beginning construction in early 2019.

“It’s clear that this decision tonight will delay the pipeline significantly,” said Hayes, who noted that a proper environmental impact statement of this scope usually takes about a year to complete. “TransCanada does not have an approved pipeline at this point.”

 

 

Morris, a former clerk to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama.

 

His decision was one of scores of court rebukes to the Trump administration for decisions on the environment, immigration and transgender service in the military,  among other issues, all made hastily and, in the opinions of dozens of judges, without the “reasoned consideration” required by federal law. Also on Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump cannot immediately end  the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children from deportation.

 

The administration is appealing many of these rulings, and may challenge Thursday’s decision as well. The administration did not issue an immediate comment after the pipeline order.

In a statement Friday, TransCanada said it was not abandoning its plans to construct the pipeline. “We have received the judge’s ruling and continue to review it,” said company spokesman Terry Cunha. “We remain committed to building this important energy infrastructure project.”

 

The State Department has primary jurisdiction over the Keystone XL pipeline permit decision,  by virtue of its authority  to issue “presidential permits” for cross-border infrastructure projects.

The massive project remains one of the most controversial infrastructure proposals in modern American history, with its proponents and critics dueling in court and on the streets for a decade.

It aims to extend TransCanada’s existing Keystone pipeline, which was completed in 2013. Keystone XL (the initials stand for “export limited”) would transport up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada, and Montana to Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast. In the United States, the pipeline would stretch 875 miles through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, with the rest continuing into Canada.

 

 

It has met sustained opposition from environmental advocacy groups, as well as from Obama, who rejected it three years ago on the grounds that it would accelerate climate change.

Activists argue the pipeline would be especially damaging to the climate because it would mean extracting thick, low-quality oil from Canada’s oil sands, with lots of tree-cutting and energy consumption in the process, which would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Native American groups in Montana and elsewhere fought the Keystone project as well, saying its route failed to adhere to historical treaty boundaries and would impinge on their water systems and sacred lands.

 

In 2015, on the eve of the international climate talks in Paris, the Obama administration appeared to bring an end to the seven-year-long saga when it announced it was halting construction of the pipeline, arguing that approval would compromise the country’s effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, Obama said, was now a “global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change.”

 

“And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership,” he said, adding that the “biggest risk” the United States faced was “not acting.”

The decision to deny the pipeline permit came after the completion of a  long-awaited final environmental impact statement  — 11 volumes of analysis released in 2014.

It was this 2014 assessment that the State Department, under the direction of Trump’s January 2017 presidential memorandum, used to make its decision to approve the pipeline, The Post reported. According to the department, “there are no substantial changes or significant new information which would affect the continued reliability” of the report.

Morris said, however, that there were indeed changes since the 2014 assessment and that the Trump administration failed to consider them. He included among them pipeline leaks, the expansion of another pipeline called the Alberta Clipper and shifts in oil markets. Those could alter the overall impact of Keystone XL and should have been considered by the government.

Among the judge’s findings:

  • The State Department, in issuing the permit, failed to “analyze the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions” of the Keystone project and the expanded Alberta Clipper pipeline. It “ignored its duty to take a ‘hard look’ at these two connected actions.”
  • The department “acted on incomplete information regarding” the potential damage to cultural resources in Indian territory along the route. “The Department appears to have jumped the gun.”
  • The department failed to make a fact-based explanation for its course reversal, “let alone a reasoned explanation. …’An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts’ ” in the present, he wrote, quoting judicial precedents.
  • The department’s analysis that “climate-related impacts” from Keystone “would prove inconsequential” needed a “reasoned explanation.” It did not provide one.

 

Jackie Prange, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the ruling a “huge win” not just for the environmental activists and tribal groups who have been fighting the pipeline, but for “anyone who cares about the rule of law and holding this administration to the facts.”

“It’s emblematic of what we’re seeing with the Trump administration, which is a very fast and sloppy reversal of prior decisions … in a way that doesn’t adhere to the rule of law,” Prange told The Post. “That’s why we keep winning in the court.”