> Private no more

Chris Cobb

Ottawa Citizen

December 16, 2004  

Terrorism and technology are exacting a high price from Canadians, undermining privacy and eroding civil liberties to a degree that most of us don00 realize.

Few Canadians understand the degree to which our most personal information is now readily available to the FBI, CIA and other U.S. authorities - not to mention our own law enforcement equivalents. 

Worse, say critics, federal security legislation and cross-border agreements rushed through with little debate or public discussion have undermined our democratic traditions but done little to make most Canadians safer. 

All Canadians have paid the price of lost liberties and the right to privacy and are deluding themselves if they think that the recent legislation affects and targets only visible minorities.

The losses are more virtual than physical and have much to do with computer data banks and increasingly sophisticated technology systems that have the ability to track and monitor an individual00 activities to a degree that would have been considered both undesirable and fantasy before 9/11.

The new norm will see travellers arriving in North America with biometric documents through which security personnel will have the means to access government and corporate data banks and within seconds find personal details, including health, travel and spending patterns, of any individual they choose.

00here is no difference between physical roadblocks and the screening of passengers in a virtual computer system,00 said Roch Tass茅, co-ordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, an organization funded by private donations and based in Ottawa.

00hen we check on every person, on every flight in the country,00he said, 00t00 a roadblock and it00 a major departure from how Canadians view freedom.

00anadians are not obliged to identify themselves to a police officer unless they are taking part in an activity that requires a permit, such as driving a car, fishing or hunting.  If you are walking down a street, and there is no warrant against you, and a police officer asks who you are, you have the legal right to remain anonymous. Air passenger screening breaches that right.00

Erosions of personal privacy such as name screening at airports and border crossings are among the most obvious changes since 9/11 but the tentacles of recent Canadian security legislation - primarily contained in Bills C-36 (Anti-Terrorism Act), Bill C-44 (allowing release of air travellers00personal information to foreign authorities), Bill C-7 (Public Safety Act), adopted shortly before the June federal election - infiltrate almost every aspect of Canadian life. 

And while visible minority Canadians complain, with some proven justification, that these security measures target them alone, reality suggests that the privacy of all adult Canadians, regardless of race, social or economic standing, has been compromised.

The only possible exceptions in this plastic-addicted country, are citizens or landed immigrants who possess none of the following: bank accounts, bank loans, student loans, bank credit cards, department store credit cards and anyone who has never been subject to a credit check. (More than 90 per cent of adult Canadians carry bank cards and the average Canadian carries three different credit cards. A greater percentage of Canadians use credit cards than in the United States - 89 per cent versus 76 per cent). Those with personal computers, cell phones and a habit of giving directly to foreign charities are also more vulnerable to intrusion by 00he authorities00now than they were before 9/11.

New security legislation, much of it introduced under pressure from the United States and interacting with the U.S. Patriot Act, or as part of a community of nations00effort to fight terrorism, changed or modified more than 40 existing Canadian laws.

00t00 a complex issue,00says Mr. Tass茅. 00t00 so complex that most politicians, including those who sat on parliamentary committees that dealt with legislation, don00 understand it.00

University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach, a leading expert on the anti-terrorism legislation, says there was a willingness among Canadians in the aftermath of 9/11 to give up certain freedoms for improved security but in the rush to implement new laws, make Canadians feel safer and show the United States it was doing something, the Canadian government ignored existing legislation. 

00verything that occurred on Sept 11 was illegal before Sept 11th and to think that by passing an anti-terrorism act we have made ourselves safer is a mistake,00 says Mr Roach. 

00he Minister of Justice at the time (Anne McClellan) was saying that the regular criminal law had no preventive power and I still think that00 wrong. 9/11 happened for a number of different reasons but inadequacies of criminal law was not one of them00

Canada was in a tough spot, concedes Mr. Roach, partly because of intense U.S. pressure and partly because the United Nations Security Council required member countries to enact laws against terrorism and laws against the financing of terrorism.

00anada did it quickly and now there is a debate that that resolution put too much emphasis on security and not enough on human rights.  A huge part of this world wide rush to legislate after Sept. 11, 2001 was a desire to reassure the public: if you pass a new law, and a new tough law, it becomes easier for the public to believe that attacks won00 happen again.  But it just isn00 that simple.00

Mr. Roach, part of a rapidly organized group that intervened before Bill C-36 was passed in December 2001, agrees some extra protection is necessary.

00anadians should worry about terrorism. But at the same time Canadians should worry that in taking action to fight terrorism, we will betray our own ideals as a democracy, which is committed to equality and freedom. Harsh is not always better and is not always the most effective. We have to be realistic: the passing a new law isn00 a magical moment that will save us from anything.00nbsp;

Unlike most credit-card holders, Windsor MP Brian Masse reads the various notices that come with his CIBC VISA bill and it was in his October statement that he spotted an announcement indicating a shift in corporate policy. The amendment to the cardholder agreement read:  I acknowledge that in the event that a Service Provider is located in the United States, my information may be processed and stored in the United States and that United States governments, courts or law enforcement agencies may be able to obtain disclosure of my information through the laws of the United States.00nbsp;

What CIBC was telling its customers was that along with many other Canadian financial institutions, its outsourcing arrangements with a U.S. company that processes personal credit information were vulnerable to the U.S. Patriot Act, sweeping security legislation passed in the wake of 9/11.  Critics say the act tramples civil rights and privacy protection. 

Under the Patriot Act, any U.S. company ordered to produce information about its customers to U.S. law enforcement agencies is obliged to do so.  The companies are also obliged to keep such requests secret, meaning that the person whose information is being sought by the FBI, CIA or any other agency, cannot be told.

Private information on millions of Canadians held by major banks and corporations, including Sears Canada and Canadian Tire, is outsourced to the United States - one company, Total Systems of Georgia, handles half of all Canadian Visa business.

Credit checks on millions of Canadians are performed by three U.S. companies, contracted by Canadian banks and businesses. All are subject to the Patriot Act, foreign legislation that trumps Canada00 privacy laws.

00very Canadian should be concerned about this,00says Mr. Masse, who is pushing for a new federal law that would prohibit the outsourcing of banking and other financial information.

00anadians don00 even have the right to know whether they are being investigated and what personal information is being taken and distributed under the regime of the Patriot Act.  We don00 know how the information is managed and who will see it. It is an egregious assault on Canadian privacy and sovereignty.00

Masse and others worry about cases of mistaken identity, already plentiful since 9/11, that could see Canadian citizens or landed immigrants wrongly targeted by law enforcement agencies. They are also concerned that outsourcing of such valuable information to the U.S. is a slippery slope that will see private information about Canadians sent wherever companies offer the best price and have ability to do the work and where Canada00 privacy legislation is meaningless.

The farther the information travels from Canada, the more vulnerable it becomes, not just to security agencies but to commercial concerns for whom personal and financial information of affluent consumers would be gold.

00hat other countries will be able to get access to Canadians00private information,00he says. 00he U.K? China? Germany? We have failed miserably at this. Our civil liberties and privacy have taken a back seat to security legislation.00

It is less clear whether the Patriot Act embraces subsidiaries of U.S. companies in Canada although many critics claim that the virtual nature of the information makes it vulnerable wherever a U.S. company might have a branch plant.

British Columbia Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis commissioned an in-depth study of U.S. subsidiaries and their obligations under the Patriot Act after learning that the B.C. government was planning to outsource health data to a U.S.-owned company. 

In an alarming report he released in October, Loukidelis warned of a 00easonable possibility00that British Columbians00health records could be accessed under the Patriot Act, and among 16 recommendations, urged that it become an offence for a public body or contractor to disclose personal information or send it outside Canada. He suggested imprisonment or fines up to $1 million for violators.

An outcry from pressure groups such as the Council for Canadians, forced Statistics Canada to renegotiate its $44-million census contract with the Canadian subsidiary of the U.S. weapons and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, which supplies StatsCan with computer hardware and software.

Critics says the original deal would have given the arms company access to personal details of every Canadian canvassed during the 2006 census - an arrangement the Council of Canadians called 00epulsive.00

Although StatsCan denied Lockheed Martin would ever have had access to such information, it renegotiated the contract anyway to rectify an 00ncorrect perception.00/font>

00he agency acknowledges and accepts that perceptions are important,00states StatsCan in a statement on its website. 00he new arrangement is quite clear. No private sector corporation will be involved in the processing of census returns.00

MP Masse says the new arrangement is an improvement.  00hat concerns me more is that there doesn00 seem to be any political will to stop outsourcing,00he says, 00espite the StatsCan case that made us vulnerable. They can spin this all they want but they are managing a bad decision instead of amending the process to ensure there will be protection of our census information.00

Mr. Masse is joining a chorus of critics who want the government to get more involved. 00e00e all additionally vulnerable when we deal with the private sector,00he says. 00he government has the mandate to protect privacy rights but the private sector are in this to make money not to protect privacy. There is nothing sinister about that, but it is reality.00

The federal government outsources a huge amount of information to foreign jurisdictions, including personal income-tax data to the U.S. about Canadians who have business dealings on both sides of the border and details of employment insurance recipients who travel to the U.S. for work. But the federal government has no clear picture of its outsourcing arrangements and calls to several government departments in preparation for this article revealed little except apparent confusion over how the Patriot Act affects the privacy of the data it does outsource. 

Treasury Board, which would typically collate such information from across government, is now attempting to collect the details. The last similar audit was almost 15 years ago when all data was on paper and Canada outsourced in various ways to more than 90 different countries. The federal Justice Department says its lawyers are on the case but have yet to come to any conclusions.

Federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddardt, whose office is investigating a complaint about the security of credit card data outsourced to the U.S., says Canada00 Privacy Act contains nothing to protect Canadians once their information leaves the country.

00 think the Privacy Act should contain specific wording defining the responsibilities of those who transfer personal information outside Canadian jurisdiction,00she says.

Ms. Stoddardt said in an interview she is also concerned with the 00nformality00in information-sharing relationships Canadian border authorities have with U.S. counterparts.

00e don00 seem to have a picture of where personal information is going,00she says. 00ross border sharing has been going on for a long time and is part of Canadian history but it is essential that the Canadian government give itself some abiding principles in dealing with the personal information of Canadians. It is a great lacking in the Privacy Act.00

According to the Canadian Bankers00 Association, banks must seek approval from Canadian regulators for all outsourcing agreements and individual banks are pioneers in privacy protection, implementing voluntary codes of conduct that predated, and were models for, federal privacy legislation.

CIBC concedes that along with all other financial institutions it would have to comply if asked to secretly provide information on customers under the Patriot Act but says a similar obligation exists under Canada00 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). If asked for personal information by Canadian security services they would likely have to comply.

Secrecy surrounding national security makes it impossible to know exactly what civil liberties Canadians are losing, says the University of Toronto00 Kent Roach.

00e are always going to have difficulties knowing what is being done in the name of national security,00he says. 00e have a Privacy Act and enhanced protections from corporations but what we don00 know is what exceptions are being carved out and used in the name of national security. We are not going to know what the state is doing with respect to national security.00

The invasion of civil liberties, should concern all Canadians, says Mr. Roach because it may do little to deter terrorists. 00anadians want the government to do the smartest and most effective things to protect us against real harm including better security at airports and ports, better security of toxic substances or nuclear material. These are the things most Canadians would want the government to make a priority but they don00 involve the same degree of infringement on individuals.00

Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Alan Borovoy says Canadians should be concerned but need to maintain a sense of perspective.

00anada is a terrific country but the problem is, there are too many things that stand to undermine the kinds of institutions we have created. Comparing Canada to dictatorial regimes would be obscene but that doesn00 mean we should be complacent.00

International civil rights activist Roch Tass茅, says the federal government has done everything the U.S. government has asked of it since 9/11 but has attempted to make new security measures palatable to Canadians, by 00olicy laundering00- seeking agreement for policies at international forums and presenting them to Canadians as multilateral requirements. 

00lectronic passports and biometric cards were proposed by the U.S.,00he says. 00t would have been really hard for Canada to admit we had to introduce them because the United States wanted us to.00

It00 important, added Mr. Tass茅, to consider the galloping progress being made by technology, which will make intrusion into the lives of ordinary Canadians potentially even more pervasive.  Embedded computer chips, loaded with personal information and readable from a distance, will eventually become reality, predicted Mr. Tass茅.

00f you carry a passport or credit card there will be the potential of tracking you. If you are in a demonstration, for instance, the police could read the chip from a the sidewalk and, in theory, know everyone who is taking part.00

The implications of post 9/11 security measures have been missed by most Canadians, says Mr. Tass茅. 

00t00 been a discussion held at the policy elite level with policy makers and lobbyists for businesses putting pressure on the government to keep the border open and to do whatever the Americans ask for. There has not been any serious demonstration of threat against Canada. I00 not saying Canada could not be a target but usually when you pass laws that infringe on civil liberties and human rights you are supposed to respect what they call the principle of proportionality. What you give up has to be proportional to the real risk. The demonstration of risk to Canada has not been made to justify such drastic measures.00

The ultimate result of the numerous incremental measures, added Mr. Tass茅, will be the North American security perimeter pushed by the Bush administration and the Canadian business establishment since 9/11.

00anada is putting into place parallel systems (to the U.S.) so the government can claim they are doing things the Canadian way,00he says.

Mr. Roach says the parliamentary review of Bill C-36 launched last week is vital. 00f there are no changes made,00he says, 00t will be evidence that we have become complacent and this will be the new normal.00

Alan Borovoy, of the CCLU, says Canada has made huge leaps in human rights and civil liberties during the past 60 years, usually because of public pressure. 00ifty or sixty years ago,00he says, 00 boatload of Jews fleeing Hitler00 Germany were unceremoniously turned back at the Canadian border and it didn00 even provoke an incident in this country.00

But, added Mr. Borovoy, Canadians will have no influence on government policy unless 00emocrats raise non-violent hell.00

The stakes for ordinary Canadians are high, agreed Mr. Tass茅. 00ith these new powers,00he says, 00e are moving toward a potential police state, with tools never seen in the most totalitarian of regimes. If we want to maintain our democratic standards and our same aspirations to freedom these methods contravene that. And if this is a good thing, we need a debate as a society because we are redefining our democracy. That debate has not taken place.00nbsp;  

漏 Ottawa Citizen 2004 

Copyright 漏 2004 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global

Communications Corp <http://www.canwestglobal.com/>. All rights reserved.

Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

0 comments

tag: no contract cell phones
filetype:doc
file time: 2008-02-22
file size:44544
Click Here To Download...

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your Talk: