Archive for the ‘government surveillance’ Category
Strong encryption poses problems for law enforcement, is weakening it worth the risks it presents? It’s…complicated according to John Oliver.
Virtually every secure communication you make over the Internet uses strong encryption. For example, logging in to your bank account, buying stuff on Amazon and even sending randy pics to your spouse. Giving the government a master key in the digital age and expecting that key to remain safe is fucking absurd and down right scary!
Two words… Edward Snowden.
Banks, car makers, door lock makers, virtually any product that uses technology at it’s core is an unrestricted playground for what the uninformed (I’m looking at you Fox viewers) usually refer to as hackers.
The problem is that pretty much every single one of these products are unbelievably insecure, regardless of what the bank, hotel or website tells you.
Thanks to the US government allowing their surveillance apparatus to continue to use zero day exploits, and software bugs, especially encryption technology to spy on it’s own citizens rather than actually tracking and catching terrorists.
Hackers like this man are NOT the problem. Governments who continue to use gaping security holes in technology or worse planted trojans (Stuxnet) as offensive weapons instead of hardening our technology and increasing our defensive capabilities against such attacks.
In short, hackers like this gentleman are the kinds of people we need to save and protect or cities, countries and planet. No the spooks from the NSA or any other government based security apparatus.
Bruce Schneier, an American cryptographer, computer security and privacy specialist explains in the simplest terms why our privacy and security are NOT separate choices but are one choice. And more importantly why we should ALL care about it and want to collectively do more to ensure our rights and freedoms, including privacy.
CBC: CSIS oversight urged by ex-PMs as Conservatives rush Bill C-51 debate
“Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security,” the statement says.
“Given the secrecy around national security activities, abuses can go undetected and without remedy.
“This results not only in devastating personal consequences for the individuals, but a profoundly negative impact on Canada’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation.”
The letter is signed by Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Joe Clark, John Turner and 18 others involved in security matters between 1968 and 2014, including:
- five former Supreme Court justices.
- seven former Liberal solicitors general and ministers of justice.
- three past members of the intelligence review committee.
- two former privacy commissioners.
- a retired RCMP watchdog.
– – – –
Dr. Michael Geist (Professor of Law Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law Faculty of Law):
“Total Information Awareness”: The Disastrous Privacy Consequences of Bill C-51
Roach and Forcese dig further into this issue, concluding that the information sharing provisions are excessive and unbalanced. There is much to digest, but the privacy concerns largely come down to three linked issues:
- First, the bill permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism (“It is, quite simply, the broadest concept of security that we have ever seen codified into law in Canada.”).
- Second, the scope of sharing is remarkably broad: 17 government institutions with the prospect of cabinet expansion as well as further disclosure “to any person, for any purpose.”
- Third, the oversight over public sector privacy has long been viewed as inadequate. In fact, calls for Privacy Act reform date back over three decades. The notion that the law is equipped to deal with this massive expansion in sharing personal information is simply not credible.
(Globalnews.ca) Ten things an unpublished government-commissioned study found remain unknown about the effects of oil and oilsands products in rivers, lakes and oceans:
- Toxicology: Research on the biological effects of oilsands products is lacking. Report found no peer-reviewed articles at all.
- Bitumen in water: There is little information on how bitumen, diluted bitumen or products used to dilute bitumen behave in water, including whether bitumen sinks or floats.
- Metals: Although bitumen has different heavy-metal concentrations and components than conventional oil, their behaviour in a spill hasn’t been studied.
- Condensate: Not much is known on the toxicity of condensate — a lighter hydrocarbon used to dilute bitumen for pumping — once it enters a body of water.
- Pathways: The mechanics of how bitumen and other oilsands products interact with organisms is unknown.
- Air toxicity: More research is needed on the toxicity and deposition of oilsands hydrocarbons through the air.
- Specific water bodies: Little research has been done on the effects of hydrocarbon spills specific to Canadian waters such as the Great Lakes.
- Photo-toxicity: Studies should be conducted on whether chemicals in bitumen are made more toxic by sunlight, as happens with some hydrocarbons
- Dispersants: More needs to be known about the interaction of bitumen, the environment and dispersants, which are chemicals sometimes used to break up and speed the decomposition of oilspills.
- Ice: The behaviour of oil, bitumen and dispersant in the ice-choked, cold and dark waters of the Canadian Arctic is largely unknown.
It’s strange how a government that claims to protect you from every evolving terrorist threats by needing to know everything you do, say, read and write yet doesn’t apply the same logic to protecting our environment. I think the government needs use more resources to protect our environment and not billions defending our “values”.