Submitted on 2015/06/01 at 7:18 pm
Submitted on 2015/06/01 at 9:25 pm | In reply to EmBee.
@Embee – Thanks for bringing https://privacyplan.ca/ to our attention. I think as many of us as possible should write to this organization (and each of the organizations which have indicated that they support these views) and explain that we fully agree with their efforts (if that is how we feel) but that we will not be able to financially donate there until our issue is fully funded.
From: Conclusion – Listen to Canadians in OpenMedia: “Canada’s Privacy Plan – A Crowdsourced Agenda for Tackling Canada’s Privacy Deficit”:
Behind the backs of their citizens, governments have been building surveillance tools unparalleled in their invasiveness, scope, and power. Our oversight mechanisms, designed for a different era, need to make sense in the 21st century. It’s remarkable that much of what we now know, we owe not to our official oversight bodies, but instead to a single NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden.
This project came in response to these revelations, and to the perfect storm of legislation being advanced by a government seemingly determined to sacrifice Canadians’ most basic human and democratic rights on the altar of an increasingly powerful and unaccountable security bureaucracy.
As an organization, participatory values are at the heart of everything OpenMedia does. We don’t just want citizens to have a seat at the table, we work to place citizens at the heart of decision-making. That’s why we’ve tried to reach out to the broadest possible number of Canadians to help shape this report. This open, participatory approach is all the more important given the government’s efforts to conceal the dramatic expansion of its surveillance capabilities from Canadians.
Canadians are clearly deeply concerned about their country’s continuing evolution toward out-of-control government surveillance. This is borne out both by our own crowdsourcing work, and by opinion surveys conducted independently.
“Canada’s Privacy Plan” (96 pages)
“Key Recommondations, Canada’s Privacy Plan” (4 pages)
Related, also read Lynne Swanson’s post at Maple Sandbox: C51 Gives CRA Right to Share Tax Info
Money Sense reports Your tax info at heightened risk.
Money Sense is not exactly what one could call left wing civil liberties fanatics. Yet they report:
The CRA can now share not only your home address, but all of your financial information within the government, without any form of consent or a warrant.
All the CRA needs is to believe “there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to an investigation of whether the activity of any person may constitute threats to the security of Canada.”
What’s more, the CRA can distribute these private details “on its own initiative,” possibly spurring…a “wide-scale fishing expedition.”
A Ryerson University professor says the more people that have access to taxpayer information under Bill C-51, the higher the risk of leaks, hacks and other foul play. He also says:
The change in legislation is “unprecedented. It’s snooping and meddling of the worst kind.”
Of course, CRA will have far more information about U.S. persons than they will about other Canadians because of FATCA. So the snooping and risk to us is mammoth.
Are we suspects of a “threat to the security of Canada?” Who knows?
I think we are defenders of Canada. But, I think it’s safe to assume the government is following Sandbox and Brock and that they consider us threats.
This is one more huge reason why we must persevere in our fight for our rights. Please keep those donations to ADCS coming.
Hmmm. Do they consider ADCS a “threat to the security of Canada” for standing up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Something else I think is related:
I made this comment yesterday:
But now I am somewhat buoyed regarding *dual citizenship* and ALLEGIANCE as I’ve found on the US Embassy in Ottawa site: http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/dual-citizenship.html which says (emphasis mine)
The U.S. Government acknowledges that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
That shows me the disregard of this Canadian government for its citizens who are also US citizens or *duals* as we are now referred to as *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada*. That doesn’t sound like Canada cares a whit about my allegiance to Canada (as I chose to become a Canadian citizen) or that of my children (born in Calgary, AB, Canada).
I don’t like how many Canadian Bills shoved through Parliament work together in taking away our rights.
Please stand up for the rights of all Canadians: http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
from the same paper;
“…Another problem in the taxonomy, which is implicated by the NSA program, is the problem I refer to as exclusion.85 Exclusion is the problem caused when people are prevented from having knowledge about how their information is being used, as well as barred from being able to access and correct errors in that data. The NSA program involves a massive database of information that individuals cannot access. Indeed, the very existence of the program was kept secret for years.86 This kind of information processing, which forbids people’s knowledge or involvement, resembles in some ways a kind of due process problem. It is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions. Moreover, it creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive Branch and an agency such as the NSA, which is relatively insulated from the political process and public accountability, have a significant power over citizens? This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.
A related problem involves “secondary use.” Secondary use is the use of data obtained for one purpose for a different unrelated purpose without the person’s consent. The Administration has said little about how long the data will be stored, how it will be used, and what it could be used for in the future. The potential future uses of any piece of personal information are vast, and without limits or accountability on how that information is used, it is hard for people to assess the dangers of the data being in the government’s control…….”
Outstanding find! I’m always looking for more ammunition to shoot down that absolutely infuriating meme of nothing to hide, nothing to fear. I so love Solove for writing this paper.
@Embee, I found this too;
Daniel Solove/ Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?
on “The Agenda” – Steve Paikin
Even better! Video … watching it now. Thanks doubly.