edward snowden – The Concordian

How Canada is quickly becoming a surveillance nation

It is not uncommon for us Canadians to compare ourselves to our American neighbours. Often, we consider ourselves better off, especially when looking at an issue like national surveillance and privacy concerns for the general population.

In May 2013, American whistleblower Edward Snowden fled to Hong Kong and published an array of classified documents, detailing the American government’s abuse of surveillance power. We scoffed at the unlawfulness of our neighbours to the south, yet are we really any better?

In the past few months alone, two cases of very controversial police action regarding surveillance in Canada were made public. These cases, both occurring in Montreal, have forced many, myself included, to question the power of the police as well as the amount of freedom we think we have.

At the end of October 2016, it became apparent that the mobile phone of La Presse journalist Patrick Lagacé was being tracked for several months prior, by the SPVM – unbeknownst to him – in an attempt to identify some of his sources. The 24 separate warrants the police issued allowed for them to legally conduct this highly controversial operation.

“The new powers that the police have to surveil Canadians are absolutely horrifying. They’re basically limitless, there’s very little oversight and, when that happens, the system will be ripe for abuse, and this is just an example of how it’s abused,” said Tom Henheffer, the executive director of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) in an interview with CBC News.

The other case occurred in September of last year, when Michael Nguyen, a journalist with the Journal de Montréal journalist had his computer seized by the Quebec provincial police, after they believed he hacked their website to obtain information about a judge’s abusive behaviour. Nguyen and George Kalogerakis—the managing editor of Le Journal—are strongly condemning the actions taken by the Quebec police via multiple interviews with the media.

“I can tell you that our reporter did not break any laws to get his story,” said Kalogerakis in an interview with the Toronto Star. “We do not break laws at the Journal. We will contest the validity of the search warrant as far as we can.”

It is completely unacceptable, in my opinion, for the police to conduct themselves in this unethical, privacy-breaching manner—not because I am a journalism student, but because I am a human being with morals. The worst part is the police’s actions in the two abovementioned instances were completely legal because they obtained permits from the courts—and that worries me. How much privacy do we really have as Canadians?

While some may argue that journalists should realistically expect some interference from the police, these incidents of surveillance are deeply disturbing. Journalists are supposed to ask the difficult questions and investigate. How are we supposed to perform our duties when those in power are establishing a state of fear and intimidation?

In Edmonton, for example, the police recently admitted to using International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers, also known as “stingrays,” according to CBC News. These devices allow the police to essentially eavesdrop on any cell phone call within range of the device.

This sort of technology breaches privacy and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act passed, which was adopted in 1983 and serves to protect Canadian citizens from surveillance. It allows the police to easily gain access to the private conversations of any individual, and this is just not right. Where do we draw the line between security and privacy? I can only imagine what the police will be allowing themselves to do next in the name of surveillance, if we continue on this path.

So far, Canada’s two largest police forces—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)—are refusing to confirm whether they use these devices, which work by picking up on the cellphone signals of people nearby. Both forces declined to comment when questioned by the Toronto Star with regards to their possible use of “stingrays.” The fact they haven’t denied it leads me to believe they may be using this technology, and it is worrisome.

It is our duty as Canadians and citizens of a democracy to question those with power and always fight for our rights and freedoms.

As Edward Snowden said, “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

Graphic by Florence Yee

Former NSA employee talks surveillance, privacy and US elections

It was crowded at McGill University on Wednesday night, with thousands of people waiting outside the Leacock building to attend the Edward Snowden video conference.

Although the conference was scheduled to start at 7 p.m., it was delayed due to a protest by the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), whose 1,500 members are on strike for better working conditions, from wage increases to employment stability. They formed a picket line in front of the huge crowd of people waiting outside, which prevented people from entering the building of the university. Eventually, people found their way inside, pushing each other through the picket line while screaming “Let us in!”

Due to the amount of people who turned up to hear Snowden speak, organizers had to set up a second room where people could watch a livestream version of the event. The conference began around 8 p.m.

Gabriella Coleman, an academic and author whose work focuses on hacker culture and online activism, gave the introduction to Snowden’s talk. Snowden, a former NSA contractor, is best known for leaking documents in 2013 about NSA surveillance activities.

Snowden, who’s currently in Moscow, Russia, appeared on a large screen at the front of the auditorium. He received a round of applause from the public as soon as he appeared.

He started the conference by saying he did not want the audience to hold a grudge against the AMUSE protesters, since they were practicing democracy.

Snowden’s main topics of the night were surveillance and privacy.

“We are all being watched, and it doesn’t matter if we do something wrong or right,” he said. With the rise of the Internet, computers and shared networks, he added, security and privacy is at risk. He explained prior to the digital age, surveillance was an expensive tool and it would take a large group of people to catch one individual. Nowadays, however, it is “financially and technologically possible for one person to watch over a full group of people without them knowing,” he said.

Snowden questioned the legitimacy of democracy when a government, which is elected by the public and is accountable to the public, does not need permission from the public to invade their privacy.

Snowden also weighed in on the recent revelation that Montreal police have been spying on journalists, including La Presse’s Patrick Lagacé. La Presse reported Monday, Oct. 31, that at least 24 surveillance warrants were issued for Lagacé’s iPhone this year at the request of the police special investigations unit. These warrants were used to track the journalist’s whereabouts using the GPS chip in his iPhone. The goal was to track his sources.

He described the controversy as a “non-radical attack on freedom.”

“The government has built in so many loops in the law, so if the police don’t like a journalist, it’s great for them because he can go to a justice of the peace and this judge will let them into this guy’s phone.”

Snowden said there is a lack of public understanding about how government organizations operate, which is why, in 2013, he felt it would be of the public’s interest for him to reveal the realities of the NSA’s operations.

After his 15-minute talk, there was a question period. An attendee of the conference asked how we can ensure that security agencies go back to following the law in a reasonable way. Snowden’s answer: we can’t. He said the only way we possibly could get those agencies back on track with the law would be to appoint a judicial body that is mandated to perform a case by case review of these intelligence agencies’ use of powers to ensure that no illegalities occurred.

Snowden was asked to discuss the upcoming elections in the United States. He said if someone has to ask someone else who they’re voting for, they are not appreciating the value of their own opinion. “Don’t look to others to tell you who to vote for, look to you—read, listen to the conversation.” He also expressed his disappointment in the campaign’s focus on the candidates’ personalities rather than on the constitution. “We all need to recognize [and] be extremely cautious about putting all of our hopes in the candidates,” he said. “Well, you may appreciate one candidate above the other… we cannot rely on others to do the things that we must do for ourselves. Ultimately, if you want to build a better country, you’re going to have to build it yourself.”

When asked if mass surveillance is acceptable, Snowden explained that there is a lot of evidence suggesting that it is not very effective when it comes to terrorism. For example, in the wake of Snowden’s release of NSA’s surveillance practices, there was an independent review which concluded that the NSA’s phone data program was illegal and should end.

“We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” the report concluded.

“But what if it had made a difference?” Snowden asked. “It still wouldn’t have made it right,” he said. “We have human rights for a reason, and we protect them. Do we want to live in a world without them?”

Snowden was then asked about students and our generation’s role in this complex fight for privacy and freedom of speech. “Your generation is doing what people aren’t doing,” he said, giving the example of the very protest that had delayed the conference. He said he believes the new generation has to fight for privacy. “Privacy is not having something to hide—it’s about something to protect,” he said. “Saying you don’t care because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

He said our generation has the ability to make a change when it comes to maintaining privacy. “You have the obligation and the rights to change the game, it is the decision of your generation,” he said. “It is not my decision, not the government’s decision but your generation’s decision.”

“Hope to see you all next year in person,” Snowden concluded.