Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Against Oversight: Why Fixing the Oversight of Canadian Surveillance Won't Solve the Problem

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Against Oversight: Why Fixing the Oversight of Canadian Surveillance Won't Solve the Problem

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Tuesday February 04, 2014
Last summer, I discussed the Snowden leaks and concerns about Canadian surveillance activities with a senior government official. The official remarked that in the wake of the Snowden revelations the political risk did not lie with surveillance itself, since most Canadians basically trusted their government and intelligence agencies to avoid misuse (the steady stream of Snowden leaks and Canada's increasingly apparent role may have changed this analysis). Rather, the real concern was with being caught lying about the surveillance activities. This person was of the view that Canadians would accept surveillance, but they would not accept lying about surveillance programs.

Those comments came to mind over the past week with the latest revelations about CSEC metadata surveillance. While the story has been characterized as an airport wifi surveillance issue, it is clear that the airport wifi angle misses the real concern. The leaked document and subsequent explanations reveal an attempt to identify travel patterns and geographic locations using user ID data over a two week period provided by a Canadian source (CSEC referred to this as metadata in the Senate committee hearing yesterday) along with a database of geo-locations of IP addresses supplied by Quova (I once served as an advisor to Quova). By identifying airport wifi IP addresses along with broader usage data and geo-identifying information, CSEC hopes to be able to identify locational movements of individual users. Bruce Schneier provides a helpful review of the likely intent of the program.

While some argued the program tracks Canadians and is therefore illegal (citing Charter violations and activities beyond the CSEC mandate), the Justice Minister maintains the program is legal and CSEC has defended the program in a release the day after the story broke and again at the Senate committee yesterday. Moreover, the CSEC Commissioner has posted a somewhat cryptic statement that emphasizes the independence of the review process. Ryan Gallagher has responded to those statements with a post arguing the denials are hollow.


Yesterday's Senate committee hearing did provide further insight into the program. CSEC painted the new revelations as a simple application of data it is already collecting. Noting that there have been ministerial approvals for metadata collection since 2005, CSEC suggests that this is effectively an exercise to determine whether the metadata can be used in conjunction with other data to determine location. It steadfastly defended its approach, seeking to distinguish between metadata (data about data) and content. Further, it noted that metadata is deleted according to retention limits contained in the ministerial approval (though no one raised the fact that those retention periods are secret).

I'm left with four takeaways from the past week. 

First, CSEC's surveillance activities of Internet communications in Canada are far more extensive than previously realized. Its trove of metadata - presumably obtained with the cooperation of Canada's major telecom companies - provides enormous insight into the communications habits and activities of millions of Canadians. The use of metadata has been the subject of some concern from the CSEC Commissioner, yet the full scope of activities remain largely secret. Moreover, the ministerial directive on metadata appears to be so broad that it enables widespread tracking and surveillance as CESC is able to mine the data for a myriad of purposes.

Given those capabilities, assurances that metadata surveillance is less invasive than tracking the content of telephone calls or Internet usage ring hollow. Metadata can include geo-location information, call duration, call participants, and Internet protocol addresses. While officials suggest that this information is not sensitive, there are many studies that have concluded otherwise. These studies have found that metadata alone can be used to identify specific persons, reveal locational data, or even disclose important medical and business information. I discuss the issues associated with metadata - including Supreme Court of Canada and Bill C-13 concerns - here. For CSEC to argue that it otherwise does not track Canadians because it only accesses metadata, is misleading at best.

Second, the geographical limits of CSEC - its framework requires that foreign intelligence activities "not be directed at Canadians or any person in Canada" - are being completely blurred. The commingling of data through integrated communications networks and "borderless" Internet services residing on servers around the world suggests that distinguishing between Canadian and foreign data seems like an outdated and increasingly impossible task. CSEC's repeated references to the "global Internet" as opposed to the Internet might well be an attempt to emphasize the foreign component of largely Canadian-based activities. Indeed, the fact that CSEC focuses on Canadian-based metadata (CSEC was asked yesterday why it doesn't collect data from other countries instead) ensures that most of its metadata will include a Canadian component, thereby increasing the likelihood of Canadian surveillance.

Third, the government (including Justice and CSEC) are confident that the programs are legal under the current CSEC mandate. The metadata program operates under ministerial approval, which CSEC would argue extends to uses such as the IP location (or airport wifi) tests. Given the fears of being caught lying, it seems unlikely officials would adopt this position without internal legal reviews and advice.

Fourth, fixing the oversight of CSEC won't solve the problem. Better oversight is currently being touted as the solution to the surveillance problem. The Liberals are proposing a new parliamentary committee review committee, the federal privacy commissioner has identified opportunities for better reporting and oversight, and Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian has called for improved transparency and accountability.

Reforms to the current oversight system are needed but the recent experience demonstrates why they are not sufficient. The current system would certainly benefit from external reviewers, who might be more aggressive in questioning the scope of CSEC programs and the stretching of its mandate. Yet the far bigger problem lies with the law itself: 
  • The use of metadata should be openly examined by acknowledging that data mining capabilities mean that metadata can have the same privacy implications of the content of messages. Allowing CSEC to conduct widespread surveillance under the guise that it's "only metadata" is an incredible violation of basic privacy expectations of most Canadians. The general ministerial authorization has led to a system of widespread surveillance. The scope of metadata must be better defined and judicial authorizations for specific collections instituted.
  • While the current surveillance statutes may have been developed in a world where geography mattered, the communications borders have been largely blurred leaving a North American communications network that has little regard for national boundaries. Canadian law is therefore increasingly unable to provide credible assurances about the limits of domestic collection. As long as CSEC provides the illusion that there is a "global Internet" and a "domestic Internet" that are somehow different, its activities will unquestionably feature a prominent domestic component.
  • Data sharing between agencies and between countries should be subject to strict limits, yet the Mosley federal court decision and the European Parliament's discomfort with Canadian practices highlight how these limits need to be re-examined. CSEC officials often claim there are limits, but the Snowden leaks have renewed doubts about what happens out of the public spotlight.
Improved oversight will help, but it won't solve these issues. The substantive law itself needs open debate and reform, with clear, public information on the limits of metadata and geography. Without it, better oversight will leave the foundational problems behind Canadian surveillance largely unchanged. only metadata
Comments (14)add comment

David Collier-Brown said:

More than just oversight is needed
A series of suggestions, including oversight but going beyond that, is the somewhat unusual* Slaw article, http://www.slaw.ca/2013/07/30/...r-balance/

They include
1) a presumption that citizens can inspect their information held by their government
2) secret courts must provide complete and reasons, but public copies can be redacted
3) parliamentarians can view the redacted material
4) anyone can disclose to parliamentarians
5) oaths of secrecy must explicitly allow all the above

--dave
[* A Canadian litigator, making suggestions using the US as an example, found it necessary to withhold their name to protect their employer. This does not reflect well on Canada.]
February 04, 2014

Loopl said:

Whistleblower protections
Systems of oversight can often be co-opted. When things get really rotten a direct appeal to the public may be the only recourse. I'm ignorant of the current state if whistleblowing in the cdn gov context. But it might be worth revisiting.
February 04, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

Oversite Is Affraid - Hands Are Tied

My wife and I have filed a privacy complaint with the Privacy Commissioners Office Of Canada. They finally responded back to us and told us unless we have proof that we are being or have been investigated they can't help us with an investigation. They told us to reapply with proof. We do have names and dates of the agents we had met and the agents my wife has slept with and the times and places so I guess we will reapply with more specific details and see what we can do.
My wife and I are the two people Justice Mosley was refering to when he ruled CSIS was end running the law. We have been following this decision very closely, we are being spied on right here in Canada. My wife and I and our 3 children have been abused by the RCMP CSIS CSEC and other police forces in Ontario and British Columbia for over 5 years now. I have a mental disability and the police started harassing my family and I when I started using Craigslist 5 years ago, what can I say, we're swingers. My wife slept with a few of them while I watched. We are not terrorist. It sounds strange but I have been poisoned and my wife has been poisoned for speaking out publicly about the abuse. We have also been assulted numerous times in the last 5 years. They are listening to us in our bedroom and living room because they let us know by telling us what we are talking about in the privacy of our home. We contacted the BC Human Rights and Civil Rights office last year because the police were trying to run me and my family over on the streets, but they never got back to us. We got a lawyer a couple years ago and the lawyer was able to get them to lay off for a bit. They sent a gunman to murder us last year, we managed to evade him. It also sounds strange but we have a spy monitoring us right now in the adjacent suite to us and they have been there for 10 months now. Since Judge Mosleys decision they quit harassing us but they are still messing around with our internet and phone communications. Thank God for Judge Mosley, I think he saved our lives. We think the reason they are still watching over us is because of what Judge Mosley refered to as "invasive survailence techniques" used against the people who had those warrents issued on them. They don't want us to tell anyone about the techniques used against us for the last 5 years. Pretty sophisticated alien technology if I do say so myself. Pretty cool actually but we don't plan on telling anyone. We are patriotic Canadians and we hate terrorist like everyone else but we don't want to see people abused. Caught up in the fish net so to speak. They have tried to set us up numerous times for arrest over the last 5 years to get their hands on us and make us look like the bad guy's but we have managed to evade those atempts also.
February 04, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

Oversite Is Affraid - Hands Are Tied
My wife and I are concerned because Canada Post is being scaled back and it has got us worried. We use open source software for our operating system. In the last 5 years our privacy has been majorly violated. We are most concerned about our communications being sanitized. We no longer have control over who we can make contact with through electronic means. We can only contact people in person for representation so most people not within our city are off limits to us. We realize we are being followed and are being listened to in the privacy of our own home and our home has been entered numerous times when we are not home by intelligence but our means of communications are being sanitized. 5 years ago we noticed rootkits being installed on our operating systems and I was able to set up honey pots and found they were being installed by the military. Since, we switched to virtual machines from static medium verified with sha512sums (DEBIAN KNOPPIX) to get a malware free system each boot. The only website we use is Craigslist and we have met RCMP agents through Craigslist who wanted us to work for them to help them entrap people from terrorist to gangsters. We believe they were just looking for patsies though. I used to work for the RCMP over 20 years ago to infiltrate criminals and make arrests but I quit working for them because they wanted me to set people up that weren't even breaking the law. For the last 5 years we have used Gmail and we have had numerous internet suppliers and numerous Gmail accounts and we have noticed people we have been emailing and people emailing us have not been getting the emails even though Gmail says they have been sent. We use an SSL connection so our communications are encrypted. The same thing applies to our text messages, we have used Rogers for internet, text and phone for the last 5 years. We have noticed our posting on certains forums are not showing up or they are being deleted as we are writing them right before our eyes or our browsers are being closed as we are writing stuff. Our computers are being shut down and our cell phones are being shut down as we are trying to correspond with people. We have realized that people have been contacting us through our email and our cell phones claiming to be people we know like family members for instance but we know they are imposters. We have tried contacting Human and Civil Rights advocates through electronic means but have had no replies. We have even tried to contact legal representation through electronic means but have never heard anything back over the years. It sounds strange but a gunman was sent to kill us early last year but we managed to evade him. Shortly after that someone tried hiring a hitman through the SILK ROAD website to kill us. At first when the website was taken down by the FBI the owner said the hit was for a father of 3 from Vancouver but later he admitted it was for the whole family of 5, a husband, wife and 3 children. We have been poisoned numerous times in the last 5 years and I have numerous painful swollen lumps throughout my body. Strangers have come up to us on the streets and have told us I have cancer. I went to the emergency room last year because my brain was swelling in my head and my eyes were bulging and I was having severe headaches and the doctor didn't want to treat me and sent me home. Thanks for reading.
February 04, 2014

pat donovan said:

3 or 4
dissent, exposing corruption, encouraging reform. All terrorist activities now, right?

so is requesting the news, your file, or making corrections.

lovely. THIS is your democracy, including civil seizure + forfeiture. (BC)

Along with kidnapping whole markets for ransom, which kiddies are next?

pat
February 05, 2014

Craig Wilson said:

President, OS MicroTrends
The issue of oversight is critical - but to date the discussion has focused almost entirely on specific cases, rather than an accountable framework for addressing perceived needs for digital surveillance of national communications, and what a citizen expects its government to do, and not do, in persuing this important issue.
The original rationale for accountability was transparency, and the resistance of English noble (mainly northern, reflecting that regions long exposure to the Viking rules of equality and legal constraints on the rulers power) to King John fave us the Magna Carta and a clear framework for elimination of non-accountable institutions like the Star Chamber, and more importantly limits on the kings rights such as to land, etc, with clear obligations to present evidence, show cause, and be accountable to citizens.
Today's struggle with the new technology of security presents a similar challenge. The debate over security agencies desire to take and analyze personal data without clear rules and ongoing oversight raises major challenges to the trust of citizens in government and civic confidence that the rule of law is being followed. The strength of a society rests not in the power of law enforcement, but in the confidence of citizens that the political systems reflects their beliefs and priorities.
The current debate over CSEC meta data collection needs to go further in addressing: 1) the standards of transparency that any security agency actions must meet - e.g., while surveilled information obtained potentially has important security implications, there needs to be quick oversight on information gained and assessed against public risks and trust that standards of the rule of law, transparency and accountability are being followed;
2) the importance of assessing Canadian practices against a clear framework, and also global results, in particular accountability on systems, results, and government oversight;
3) a new commitment to accountability over time, as capabilities evolve, and lessons are learned, that places citizens trust In government and political systems at the centre of the institutional framework - reflecting that the war on terror risks becoming a Vietnam war of citizen mistrust in government, if security abuses are not assessed, held to account and corrected.

As a concrete example, the decision to collect airport meta data has not revealed whether possession of,that data has enabled CSEC to read specific communications. Current evidence would suggest that info is now in CSECs hands - perhaps the framework should ensure this actual context data is not provided to a security official until presentation of a judicial warrant; PLUS each and every such security invasion must be reported, with results to a recognized oversight point, so that over time, there is transparency and accountability on such security measures.

The lack of global oversight is leading to growing abuses of both security and budget, while the actions have not resulted in an improvement in security, as the Snowden info has revealed:
...over the past year an in-depth discussion of US security "wins" in light of the Snowden leaks has revealed that there has been only one "terrorist" incident caught or prevented - a money transfer of $8,500 by a dissatisfied businessman - despite the costs of billions in increased security and an enormously increased security apparatus;
...Canadians will recall the G8/G20 security bill for our 2010 meeting was some $ 960 million dollars, versus the G20 meeting in the London UK 7 months earlier for less than $ 40 million...
....more importantly, Canadian security costs are far higher than those in Europe, an area with a much more developed security threat - when security costs for airport travel and other transparent security systems are compared, Canada has put in place an incredibly inefficient and unwieldy process which adds significantly to our domestic transport costs.

In the end, there will always be challenges, problems and the occasional abuse. The need to learn from our mistakes and to steady adapt our system to evolving capabilities is best achieved by keeping the principles of transparency and accountability at the forefront in any new security framework and oversight.
February 05, 2014

HowardTheDuck said:

...
On "metadata":

At the heart of these abuses is the assumption that "metadata" is not part of a communication. It's hard to argue against since, by definition, "meta" data is data *about* some other data and therefor *is not* the data under consideration. Well I say that, on the Internet, this so-called "metadata" cannot be separated from an initial transmission and that the use of the word is a mistake at best, if not a ugly contortion of the truth.


If I send an empty email consider that information is still transmitted. What then is the content of my communication if not the so-called metadata? That communication should be private. I expect it to be private. I live in a democracy, dammit, or at least I thought I did, before secret courts with secret rulings became normal in it.

Now, consider that if I send an email and CSEC wants to read it, all they have to do under their current (secret) interpretations of "metadata" is call everything but the font and color it's written with the "meta" part and they would be "within the law" as they interpret it, to read it and add it to their pile of material to blackmail me with (I mean database of "metadata" assets). It's hard to argue with secrecy... (The worst part of censorship is _______.)

There has to be a better standard, and that standard should be based on doing no harm and not on saving everyone from themselves (the freedom to make mistakes is necessary), or preventing the impossible and the hypothetical (only crimes commited can be judged and punished), because our fears, and believing the sales pitch that we could ever buy safety by sacrificing freedom, continue to enable the current abuses.


"Modernization," like "metadata," is another word that comes up in legislative proceeding when the topic touches on the Internet, as though the Internet changes things and the laws need to catch up. Well, it does and they do. But, modernization doesn't always mean that what worked in the past should be brought forward - it has to allow for the possibility that an aspect or idea in the prior law was a mistake. Obviously, a new law and new interpretations should make things better, not worse. It must be possible to throw away an idea too, when it's time has passed.

The idea that "metadata" could ever be treated separately from the "content" of a transmission, and specifically that so-called "metadata" could be used or even accessed without a warrant is one such a mistake that needs to be fixed in our laws.

The Internet is for communication, not metadata. I do not send metadata, and yet it constitutes communication. When I use the Internet, I am only communicating; it is all communication. As such, a warrant should be necessary for CSEC (or the RCMP) to access any information on the Internet unless they can prove it does not contain the communication of Canadians (I cannot see how this could possibly be achieved). Yes, this would make things "difficult." It would require CSEC, and others, to be up-front with their objectives. CSEC's mandate cannot be an all-you-can-eat buffet.


I truly hope these are our dark ages. I hope these abuses go no further.


Sadly "terrorism" is not the only reason people turn a blind eye. People who think imitation is a crime - that transcription is stealing - are also drolling to have access to the mountains of "metadata" and the surveillance infrastructure, they would build if only they could...

Access Copyright, for example, wants students and professors to pay for linking - the technical equivalent of pointing at a thing, or using it's proper name - and they want universities to be responsible for enforcement - necessarily implying more surveillance; perhaps that is what they mean when, in a recent email, they say they are looking at developing "content clearance and access tools integrated across digital platforms." [ http://excesscopyright.blogspo...nance.html ]

This is a race of inches, and there are many institutions with substantial momentum, and substantial lust, all spinning their day-to-day wheels, but collectively pushing us into and increasingly unpleasant reality.

We need to be smarter about what we spend our time on if we are going to steer this bus.

I don't value the offers of comfort and safety, or the promises of more and "better" creativity through copyright, at all if I have to pay for them with such basic rights as privacy and freedom from oppression.
February 05, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

Strange Happenings

My wife and I have filed a privacy complaint with the Privacy Commissioners Office Of Canada. They finally responded back to us and told us unless we have proof that we are being or have been investigated they can't help us with an investigation. They told us to reapply with proof. We do have names and dates of the agents we had met and the agents my wife has slept with and the times and places so I guess we will reapply with more specific details and see what we can do.

I just have to say I find it strange that the letter I received from The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office was over a week late from the date of the postal stamp and the same date as the letterhead. The application date in the letter were wrong and the case identification number was wrong. The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office wanted me to call them because they needed to ask me a few questions about my case, when I called The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office to speak to the one who sent me the letter they did not know what I was calling about after I gave them the case identification number they told me to use. They had no questions to ask me like they stated they wanted to ask in their letter. They just wanted to let me know whatever my case was about that they could not help me with my case. I also find it strange the day I contacted their office for the first time in my life about my case the next day The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada stepped down. Also I find it strange the same day I revealed on line my full complaint against the RCMP CSIS and CSEC the CSIS watchdog stepped down. Thanks for reading.
February 05, 2014

Craig Wilson said:

President, OS MicroTrends
The issue of oversight is critical - but to date the discussion has focused almost entirely on specific cases, rather than an accountable framework for addressing perceived needs for digital surveillance of national communications, and what a citizen expects its government to do, and not do, in persuing this important issue.
The original rationale for accountability was transparency, and the resistance of English noble (mainly northern, reflecting that regions long exposure to the Viking rules of equality and legal constraints on the rulers power) to King John fave us the Magna Carta and a clear framework for elimination of non-accountable institutions like the Star Chamber, and more importantly limits on the kings rights such as to land, etc, with clear obligations to present evidence, show cause, and be accountable to citizens.
Today's struggle with the new technology of security presents a similar challenge. The debate over security agencies desire to take and analyze personal data without clear rules and ongoing oversight raises major challenges to the trust of citizens in government and civic confidence that the rule of law is being followed. The strength of a society rests not in the power of law enforcement, but in the confidence of citizens that the political systems reflects their beliefs and priorities.
The current debate over CSEC meta data collection needs to go further in addressing: 1) the standards of transparency that any security agency actions must meet - e.g., while surveilled information obtained potentially has important security implications, there needs to be quick oversight on information gained and assessed against public risks and trust that standards of the rule of law, transparency and accountability are being followed;
2) the importance of assessing Canadian practices against a clear framework, and also global results, in particular accountability on systems, results, and government oversight;
3) a new commitment to accountability over time, as capabilities evolve, and lessons are learned, that places citizens trust In government and political systems at the centre of the institutional framework - reflecting that the war on terror risks becoming a Vietnam war of citizen mistrust in government, if security abuses are not assessed, held to account and corrected.

As a concrete example, the decision to collect airport meta data has not revealed whether possession of,that data has enabled CSEC to read specific communications. Current evidence would suggest that info is now in CSECs hands - perhaps the framework should ensure this actual context data is not provided to a security official until presentation of a judicial warrant; PLUS each and every such security invasion must be reported, with results to a recognized oversight point, so that over time, there is transparency and accountability on such security measures.

The lack of global oversight is leading to growing abuses of both security and budget, while the actions have not resulted in an improvement in security, as the Snowden info has revealed:
...over the past year an in-depth discussion of US security "wins" in light of the Snowden leaks has revealed that there has been only one "terrorist" incident caught or prevented - a money transfer of $8,500 by a dissatisfied businessman - despite the costs of billions in increased security and an enormously increased security apparatus;
...Canadians will recall the G8/G20 security bill for our 2010 meeting was some $ 960 million dollars, versus the G20 meeting in the London UK 7 months earlier for less than $ 40 million...
....more importantly, Canadian security costs are far higher than those in Europe, an area with a much more developed security threat - when security costs for airport travel and other transparent security systems are compared, Canada has put in place an incredibly inefficient and unwieldy process which adds significantly to our domestic transport costs.

In the end, there will always be challenges, problems and the occasional abuse. The need to learn from our mistakes and to steady adapt our system to evolving capabilities is best achieved by keeping the principles of transparency and accountability at the forefront in any new security framework and oversight.
February 06, 2014

MICHAEL HEROUX said:

WATCHDOG OF CSIS AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER STEPPING DOWN

I don't know why people are not talking more about why the watchdog of CSIS stepped down. Everyone is saying he stepped down because of a conflict or interest over the pipeline even though he was cleared of any ethics violations. As soon as we made our full case against the RCMP CSIS and CSEC public he stepped down that day. My wife and I have filed a privacy complaint with the Privacy Commissioners Office Of Canada to investigate the RCMP CSIS and CSEC. They finally responded back to us and told us unless we have proof that we are being or have been investigated they can't help us with an investigation. They told us to reapply with proof. We do have names and dates of the agents we had met and the agents my wife has slept with and the times and places so I guess we will reapply with more specific details and see what we can do.

I just have to say I find it strange that the letter I received from The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office was over a week late from the date of the postal stamp and the same date as the letterhead. The application dates in the letter were wrong and the case identification number was wrong. The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office wanted me to call them because they needed to ask me a few questions about my case, when I called The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada's Office to speak to the one who sent me the letter they did not know what I was calling about after I gave them the case identification number they told me to use. They had no questions to ask me like they stated they wanted to ask in their letter. They just wanted to let me know whatever my case was about that they could not help me with my case. I also find it strange the day I contacted their office for the first time in my life about my case the next day The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada stepped down. Also I find it strange the same day I revealed online my full complaint against the RCMP CSIS and CSEC the CSIS watchdog stepped down. Thanks for reading.
February 07, 2014

Hates Partisan Liberal PR Trolls said:

Stop politicizing issue with no real will to solve issue.
Why do you allow partisan Liberal PR Trolls like Michael Heroux to keep posting creative loopy nonsense/misinformation to undermine a serious issue and certain credible targets of Liberal corporate friends such as Bell Canada who abuse these spying capabilities with impunity along w/ their govt puppets of all political stripes including the Liberals and NDP. Yes, Michael Heroux--you and wifey are "swingers", I think everyone got you on your third posting. Now go crawl back under your govt rock. Your targets still are 200% credible and your stupid postings have done absolutely nothing to dissuade people otherwise.
February 12, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

Michael Heroux said michaelheroux1967@gmail.com

The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada finally got back to us after ignoring us for quite some time now. When we first contacted her office they wanted more specific information from us to prove to them that the 30-08 warrants Judge Richard Mosley issued were actually for us. We know they have the security clearance to find out and we know they know the warrants were for us but they keep saying prove it. We sent them the names of the first 2 agents they sent to investigate us in 2008 and they didn't even acknowledge the agents in any way. They didn't comment on the agents, they didn't ask questions about the agents or nothing. They are just ignoring anything we tell them even though they keep asking for more information. The first 2 agents they sent to investigate us in 2008 were our daughters. Our 2 daughters came back home to live with us in 2008 and told us they were working for Canadian Intelligence. They told us the agent that they were working for wanted them to set us up. It has got us worried. We don't know whether Canadian Intelligence is playing some sort of sick game with us but a stranger approached us out of the blue last year and told us our daughters have been murdered. We have not heard from our 2 daughters since they were sent back home to investigate us for Canadian Intelligence. All The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada is saying to us is prove it. They want us to name names of the Intelligence agents we met in 2008-2009 but they won't offer us any protection against further assasination attempts against my wife and kids and I even though they know about the previous attempts. We are still being monitored as I write this and we have reason to believe they are using foreign spies from their international coalition. The last thing The Privacy Commissioner Of Canada did was refer us to the recommendations that she made to Parliament on our behalf. The same thing is going on with The Justice Department Of Canada, all they want from us is more information from us to prove the 30-08 warrants were for us but even though they know about our daughters working as agents for Canadian Intelligence and they know about the poisonings and assasination attempts against us and they know the 30-08 warrants were for us all they are saying now is they don't have control over the 30-08 warrant information we are looking for against us and they are saying Canadian Intelligence has the information we are looking for. Both agencies have security clearance and they know everything but they are playing dumb but they still want us to name names about the agents we met between 2008-2009 and neither of them are willing to offer us protection against further assasination attemtps against us.
After our daughters left our home when they were done investigating us in 2008 many agents were contacting us in the beginning of 2009 offering us large sums of money if we left Canada for a while. We knew they were trying to get us to leave Canada but not until Judge Richard Mosley decision did we realize why. They were offering us luxury vacations in the sun and basically anything we wanted just to leave Canda for a while. Now we realize it was just a ploy to get their International Coalition involved, we probably would never have been heard from again. They also wanted us to bring our kids along. The good agents were warning us that our life was in danger and they were telling us to move back to British Columbia for our own safety. The local police force would escort us home late at night when we left the downtown area and we always wondered why we were so special. We decided to listen to the good agents and move back to British Columbia for our safety. Just as we were getting ready to move a few agents approached us and offered us $250,000 dollars if we stay in Ontario. We couldn't believe it. But we left anyways. Thanks for reading.
April 18, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

INTELLIGENCE HARASSMENT ONTARIO AND BRITISH COLUMBIA

Michael Heroux said michaelheroux1967@gmail.com Part 1

My wife and I are the two people Justice Richard Mosley was refering to when he ruled CSIS was end running the law. We have been following this decision very closely, we are being spied on right here in Canada. My wife and I and our 3 children have been abused by the RCMP CSIS CSEC and other police forces in Ontario and British Columbia for over 5 years now. I have a mental disability and the police started harassing my family and I when I started using Craigslist 5 years ago, what can I say, we're swingers. My wife slept with a few of them while I watched. We are not terrorist. It sounds strange but I have been poisoned and my wife has been poisoned for speaking out publicly about the abuse. We have also been assaulted numerous times in the last 5 years. They are listening to us in our bedroom and living room because they let us know by telling us what we are talking about in the privacy of our home. We contacted the BC Human Rights and Civil Rights office last year because the police were trying to run me and my family over on the streets, but they never got back to us. We got a lawyer a couple years ago and the lawyer was able to get them to lay off for a bit. They sent a gunman to murder us last year, we managed to evade him. It also sounds strange but we have a spy monitoring us right now in the adjacent suite to us and they have been there for 13 months now. Since Judge Mosleys decision they quit harassing us but they are still messing around with our internet and phone communications. Thank God for Judge Mosley, I think he saved our lives. We think the reason they are still watching over us is because of what Judge Mosley refered to as "invasive survailence techniques" used against the people who had those warrents issued on them. They don't want us to tell anyone about the techniques used against us for the last 5 years. Pretty sophisticated alien technology if I do say so myself. Pretty cool actually but we don't plan on telling anyone. We are patriotic Canadians and we hate terrorist like everyone else but we don't want to see people abused. Caught up in the fish net so to speak. They have tried to set us up numerous times for arrest over the last 5 years to get their hands on us and make us look like the bad guy's but we have managed to evade those attempts also.
April 18, 2014

Michael Heroux said:

INTELLIGENCE HARASSMENT ONTARIO AND BRITISH COLUMBIA

Michael Heroux said michaelheroux1967@gmail.com Part 2

My wife and I are concerned because Canada Post is being scaled back and it has got us worried. We use open source software for our operating system. In the last 5 years our privacy has been majorly violated. We are most concerned about our communications being sanitized. We no longer have control over who we can make contact with through electronic means. We can only contact people in person for representation so most people not within our city are off limits to us. We realize we are being followed and are being listened to in the privacy of our own home and our home has been entered numerous times when we are not home by intelligence but our means of communications are being sanitized. 5 years ago we noticed rootkits being installed on our operating systems and I was able to set up honey pots and found they were being installed by the military. Since, we switched to virtual machines from static medium verified with sha512sums (DEBIAN KNOPPIX) to get a malware free system each boot. The only website we use is Craigslist and we have met RCMP agents through Craigslist who wanted us to work for them to help them entrap people from terrorist to gangsters. We believe they were just looking for patsies though. I used to work for the RCMP over 20 years ago to infiltrate criminals and make arrests but I quit working for them because they wanted me to set people up that weren't even breaking the law. For the last 5 years we have used Gmail and we have had numerous internet suppliers and numerous Gmail accounts and we have noticed people we have been emailing and people emailing us have not been getting the emails even though Gmail says they have been sent. We use an SSL connection so our communications are encrypted. The same thing applies to our text messages, we have used Rogers for internet, text and phone for the last 5 years. We have noticed our posting on certains forums are not showing up or they are being deleted as we are writing them right before our eyes or our browsers are being closed as we are writing stuff. Our computers are being shut down and our cell phones are being shut down as we are trying to correspond with people. We have realized that people have been contacting us through our email and our cell phones claiming to be people we know like family members for instance but we know they are imposters. We have tried contacting Human and Civil Rights advocates through electronic means but have had no replies. We have even tried to contact legal representation through electronic means but have never heard anything back over the years. It sounds strange but a gunman was sent to kill us early last year but we managed to evade him. Shortly after that someone tried hiring a hitman through the SILK ROAD website to kill us. At first when the website was taken down by the FBI the owner said the hit was for a father of 3 from Vancouver but later he admitted it was for the whole family of 5, a husband, wife and 3 children. We have been poisoned numerous times in the last 5 years and I have numerous painful swollen lumps throughout my body. Strangers have come up to us on the streets and have told us I have cancer. I went to the emergency room last year because my brain was swelling in my head and my eyes were bulging and I was having severe headaches and the doctor didn't want to treat me and sent me home. Thanks for reading.
April 18, 2014

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: