Payphones by Christopher Parsons (All Rights Reserved)
I have a paper on telecommunications transparency reports which has been accepted for publication in Business and Society for later this year.
Centrally, the paper finds that companies will not necessarily produce easily comparable reports in relatively calm political waters and that, even should reports become comparable, they may conceal as much as they reveal. Using a model for evaluating transparency reporting used by Fung, Graham, and Weil in their 2007 book, Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promises of Transparency, I find that the reports issued by telecommunications companies are somewhat effective because they have led to changes in corporate behaviour and stakeholder interest, but have have been largely ineffective in prodding governments to behave more accountably. Moreover, reports issued by Canadian companies routinely omit how companies themselves are involved in facilitating government surveillance efforts when not legally required to do so. In effect, transparency reporting — even if comparable across industry partners — risks treating the symptom — the secrecy of surveillance — without getting to the cause — how surveillance is facilitated by firms themselves.
A pre-copyedited version of the paper, titled, “The (In)effectiveness of Voluntarily Produced Transparency Reports,” is available at the Social Sciences Research Network.
‘Communication’ by urbanfeel (CC BY-ND 2.0) at https://flic.kr/p/4HzMbw
Last year a report that I wrote for the Centre for Law and Democracy was published online. The report, “Transparency in Surveillance: Role of various intermediaries in facilitating state surveillance transparency,” discusses how governments have expanded their surveillance capabilities in an effort to enhance law enforcement, foreign intelligence, and cybersecurity powers and the implications of such expansions. After some of these powers are outlined and the impact on communicating parties clarified, I explore how the voluntary activities undertaken by communications intermediaries can also facilitate government surveillance activities. However, while private companies can facilitate government surveillance they can also facilitate transparency surrounding the surveillance by proactively working to inform their users about government activities. The report concluded by discussing the broader implications of contemporary state surveillance practices, with a focus on the chilling effects that these practices have on social discourse writ large.
Cite as: Parsons, Christopher. (2016). “Transparency in Surveillance: Role of various intermediaries in facilitating state surveillance transparency,” Centre for Law and Democracy. Available at: http://responsible-tech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Parsons.pdf
Read “Transparency in Surveillance: Role of various intermediaries in facilitating state surveillance transparency“
PR? by Ged Carrol (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6jshtz
In this brief post I debunk the language used by CSIS Director Michel Coulombe in his justification of CSIS’s indefinite data retention program. That program involved CSIS obtaining warrants to collect communications and then, unlawfully, retaining the metadata of non-targeted persons indefinitely. This program was operated out of the Operational Data Analysis Centre (ODAC). A Federal Court judge found that CSIS’ and the Department of Justice’s theories for why the program was legal were incorrect: CSIS had been retaining the metadata, unlawfully, since the program’s inception in 2006. More generally, the judge found that CSIS had failed to meet its duty of candour to the court by failing to explain the program, and detail its existence, to the Court.
The public reactions to the Federal Court’s decision has been powerful, with the Minister of Public Safety being challenged on CSIS’s activities and numerous mainstream newspapers publishing stories that criticize CSIS’ activities. CSIS issued a public statement from its Director on the weekend following the Court’s decision, which is available at CSIS’ website. The Federal Court’s decision concerning this program is being hosted on this website, and is also available from the Federal Court’s website. In what follows I comprehensively quote from the Director’s statement and then provide context that, in many cases, reveals the extent to which the Director’s statement is designed to mislead the public.
Industry Canada has published guidelines for telecommunications companies to provide transparency reports. The guidelines are ostensibly meant to help companies that want to disclose the regularity, rationale, and extent of Canadian governmental requests for private telecommunications data. The guidelines may actually, however, establish government-sanctioned flaws in transparency reporting and prevent companies from meaningfully informing their customers about government telecommunications surveillance.
We begin this post by briefly summarizing the importance and value of transparency reporting and why Canadian companies should adopt and publish transparency reports. Second, we outline how Industry Canada’s guidelines may enhance transparency reporting. Third, we summarize the significant deficits linked to the guidelines and conclude by discussing how the guidelines could be improved to bring about meaningful and holistic corporate telecommunications transparency reporting.
Background to Transparency Reporting
We discussed the importance of transparency reporting in our recent report, “The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians.” Transparency reporting involves companies publicly disclosing data that holds a public interest; telecommunications transparency reports are generally meant to provide complex information in an accessible and factual manner so that subscribers can subsequently make reasonable judgements based on the disclosures. Canadian telecommunications transparency reports have largely focused on policing and security issues to date, and have been released by Rogers, TELUS, Sasktel, TekSavvy, MTS Allstream, and Wind Mobile.
The Citizen Lab and the Telecom Transparency Project have actively encouraged telecommunications companies to release transparency reports. Together, these organizations have written public letters to telecommunications service providers, developed and launched a tool so that Canadians can learn about providers’ data retention and disclosure policies, conducted interviews concerning transparency and surveillance issues in Canada, and filed access to information and privacy requests to understand government surveillance practices. The result of our efforts to date are captured in a report that we released in June 2015, as are a series of recommendations for how members of the telecommunications industry could improve their transparency reports. In the following sections we examine the extent to which Industry Canada’s recently issued guidance aligns with our policy recommendations.