In March of this year another series of intelligence related issues reached the headlines of several Canadian newspapers. The intelligence agency in question was Canada’s Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), CSEC has been accused of monitoring and tracking metadata of cell phones and other electronics that connected through Toronto’s Pearson International Airport and Vancouver International Airport Wi-Fi internet system. Questions concerning this activity were raised because of the Edward Snowden documents released June 5th, 2013. The documents pertaining to this incident included a PowerPoint presentation that outlined the project and its objectives. The purpose of the project was, according to these documents, to “Build upon artefact of techniques to develop new needle-in-a-haystack analytic – contact chaining across air-gaps” The project attempted to track signals received over the Wi-Fi networks and follow the metadata associated with these devices in order to see whether tracking them would be possible outside of the airport at coffee shops, local hotels, Internet Cafés, etc. The end goal would be being able to find a person in a city quickly and effectively.
The issue and the argument that arose from each news source and expert was that CSEC’s mandate explicitly states that they are not to monitor any Canadian activity; they are a SIGINT organization focused on international communications. It is then arguable that by monitoring metadata from individuals inside two of Canada’s largest airports that CSEC was in fact monitoring Canadians as well. The other issue raised in the inquiry was the lawfulness of monitoring this type of communications data. CSEC responded to this issue stating that the information t...
... middle of paper ...
...ghts surrounding privacy exists. Communications specifically relating to modern cellphones and laptops is still a grey area legally in many respects, in this case metadata is allowed to be freely collected but detailed information like logs or content of messages cannot, however as Ronald Deibert the Director of the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies argues in the CBC article that “metadata is "way more powerful than the content of communications. You can tell a lot more about people, their habits, their relationships, their friendships, even their political preferences, based on that type of metadata.” Until stricter parameters are set on how communications data especially relating to cyberspace and modern technology are set, intelligence agencies will continue to face issues regarding privacy and fighting against the people who it is mandated to protect.
The pros of electronic surveillance are extensive. The ability for agents of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) to intercept and process communications and information from foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, international terrorist organizations, and others who seek to engage in activities with such groups, provides the ...
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
The convention, put into place in 2001, gives the 39 signatory countries guidelines to develop national legislation to combat cybercrimes and is also used as a framework for international co-operation between the countries who have signed (Government of Canada, “Cybercrime”). Furthermore, it demands that countries implementing the convention to give permission to law enforcement to order Internet service providers to monitor citizens’ online activities as well as outlaw discrimination based on religion or race, such as racism and xenophobia (Connolly). In 2015, the government of Canada ratified the convention, which strengthens Canada’s capacity to cooperate with international partners to fight cyber criminality by making it easier for the country to ask for help and assist other countries in their fight against cybercrimes (Connolly). Additionally, computer crimes generate new challenges for legislators and law enforcement agencies, such as the CSIS or local police station, that they have to face in order to keep Canada’s population secure (Valiquet).
The National Security Agency (NSA) is considered to be one of the largest components so the U.S intelligence community stands. It is primarily responsible for gathering intelligence report from detailed communications with the active involvement of the various intelligence tools. It was established in 1952 from the code breaking effort adopted by the handful of military officers and civilians and by and by and by the agency grew in stature and marked its position to gain the role of signal intelligence which is also known as SIGNIT. All of this has resulted from the initiatives taken by the congress and actually it is the congress that helped in providing it the required framework required NSA to carry out its various activities and the enacted laws skilfully guides the limits of NSA. From the perspective of electronic surveillance of US persons and also they are supporting and taking due notice of the public pertaining to the issues at NSA and the related reforms that are directed to make NSA more and more equipped in meeting up with the quotidian technical as well as geopolitical challenges. At present, NSA is constantly coming across multitude of challenges and as well as seeing through a difficult operational environment that brings in certain limitations to its work areas like spending levels for intelligence reports into queries for the future prospects of NSA. The European Parliament has also came forward highlighting the interest of the public who allege that the US along with few other countries are constantly involved in systematic electronic eavesdropping so as to be able to launce the commercial interest of US operations in full effect. (Linda B. 1999)
Richards, Neil M. The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review. N.p, 20 May 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
You might think that it is not possible for information from your telephony metadata to reveal enough about a single person to cause harm, but it can actually expose an extraordinarily large amount about our habits and our associations. For example, calling patterns can reveal when we are awake and asleep, our religion (for example, if a person regularly makes no calls on Eid day, or makes a large number of calls on Christmas Day), our work habits and our social aptitude, the number of friends we have, and even our civil and political affiliations. It cannot be denied that modern terrorists, online, are a real risk. This is how they contact each other, learn to make bombs and carry out attacks, they can even, without resorting to illegal means, gather at least 80% of all information needed about the enemy (with a risk now much higher, thanks to Edward Snowden). Also, it is through the internet that the NSA can recognize and prevent attacks before they even happen, which has happened over 50 times since 9/11. Of course, we can 't stop every attack, but it is unnecessary for citizens to have to live their lives knowing they 're being watched without consent.
The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, was created on the campus of Shaw University in Raleigh in April 1960. SNCC was created after a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina where they had been denied service. This sparked a wave of other sit-ins in college towns across the South. SNCC coordinated these sit-ins across the nation, supported their leaders, and publicized their activities. SNCC sought to affirm the philosophical or religious ideal of nonviolence as the foundation of their purpose. In the violently changing political climate of the 60’s, SNCC struggled to define its purpose as it fought white oppression. Out of SNCC came some of today's black leaders, such as former Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, Congressman John Lewis and NAACP chairman Julian Bond. Together with hundreds of other students, they left a lasting impact on American history.
(1) The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning, or CSEFEL, is a training model designed to provide teachers with curricula and skills to promote social-emotional learning in their preschool classrooms in order to prevent challenging behaviors (CSEFEL, n.d.). I interviewed Dr. Mary Louise Hemmeter, who is the principle investigator at CSEFEL at Vanderbilt University. This center works with child care programs, preschools, and Head Start programs to prepare children for the transition into kindergarten, where self-regulatory and social-emotional skills are necessary (Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006). This program promotes social-emotional skills for all children in the classroom to prevent challenging behaviors, and
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
In this technology driven era, I question what effect cell phones are having on our lives as American citizens? To investigate this, I read two articles. The first reading was “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized” by Nikki Swartz originally published in the Information Management Journal for March/April 2006, and the second reading was “Reach out and Track Someone” by Terry J. Allen, originally published by In These Times on May 15, 2006. In her article, Swartz questions the legality of using a cell phone’s GPS system as a tracking device in situations when crimes are involved. She argues the potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights and describes loopholes our government avoids when the data is as a surveillance device. In her article, “Reach Out and Track Someone”, Allen shows the conspiracy theorist’s view of cell phone data tracking use. She suggests the government uses of warrantless wiretapping, and argues the communications companies and government have been involved in questionable activities (p1). Swartz and Allen question the government’s practices using cell phone data; Swartz sees the issue as practical is some cases, where Allen sees an overt violation of privacy. Both of the articles brought up two important questions. How do we define our expectation of privacy, and when does the government’s need take precedence, and even violate an individual’s expectation of privacy?
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
The inevitable truth about our technological advances has become an ongoing controversial dilemma. It begs to question whether or not our technology is taking us closer to the world of Big Brother. It even subjects us to address all the pros and cons this said technology, as a whole, has to offer. These days when people talk to each other, some no longer share eye contact because they are too busy on social media, texting, checking emails, looking for the next big thing, and so forth. Many people are blinded by the fancy & entertaining applications, availability of gps, and most importantly, being able to surf the web at the palm of their hands, but little do they know that those
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation, weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the United States were not very sophisticated many years ago, so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today, the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people by the United States government is unethical because it is done so without consent and it infringes on a person’s rights to privacy and personal freedom.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...