interception

Website Resource Updates

/ Christopher Parsons
Photo by Markus Winkler on Pexels.com

Over the past several months I’ve updated a number of the resources on this website and it’s time to make it a little more apparent to other scholars, experts, and members of the public.

ATIP Repository

As part of my day job at the Citizen Lab I’ve regularly relied on access to information legislation to better understand how the federal government is taking up, and addressing, national security-related issues. It can be difficult for other parties, however, to get access to the same documents given the federal government’s policy of not proactively releasing ATIPs after a year or two.

The result is that scholars and journalists regularly sift through documents that have been released to them for what interests them but they may miss other interesting, or even essential, information that is outside of their interests or expertise. To try and at least somewhat ameliorate that issue I’ve spent the past several months uploading a large number of ATIP releases that I have collected over the past decades. Some were filed by me but the majority were either provided by other scholars or journalists, or retroactively obtained as a re-released package.

The bulk of the ATIPs are associated with CSIS, CSE, and Public Safety Canada. Other agencies and departments include: Department of Justice; Department of National Defence; Employment and Social Development Canada; Global Affairs Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizen Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Privy Counsel Office; Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Shared Services Canada; Transport Canada; and Treasury Board of Canada.

In many cases I have provided some brief description of things I found notable in the ATIP packages though I have not done so in all cases.

Access ATIP Repository

Order Paper Responses

Under the Canadian parliamentary systems, members of parliament can issue order paper questions to the government. Such questions must be specific and pertain to public affairs. They are typically addressed to government Ministers. The purpose of such questions is to obtain precise or detailed answers and, as such, overly broad questions may be split or broken down to elicit such a response from government agencies. The government is expect to reply within 45 days though this norm is not enforceable by parliament. In the event of parliament being prorogued the Order Paper is cleared and any requests or questions are cancelled.

I have collected a set of Order Paper questions that address issues such as Facial Recognition Technology, mobile device surveillance, data collection by CSIS, disclosures of subscriber information, monitoring of protests, and government interception techniques. None of these Order Paper documents are accompanied by commentary.

Access Order Paper Repository

Canadian Electronic Surveillance Reports

Over the past several years I have undertaken research exploring how, how often, and for what reasons governments in Canada have accessed telecommunications data. As one facet of this line of research I worked with Dr. Adam Molnar and Benjamin Ballard to understand the regularity at which policing agencies across Canada have sought, and obtained, warrants to lawfully engage in real-time electronic surveillance. Such data is particularly important given the regularity at which law enforcement agencies call for new powers; how effective are historical methods of capturing communications data? How useful are the statistics which are tabled by governments?

I have collated the reports which have been published by the provincial and federal governments and, also, noted where provincial governments have failed to provide these reports despite being required to published them under the Criminal Code of Canada. I have not provided any analysis of these reports on this website, aside from a paper I wrote with Dr. Adam Molnar about lawful interception entitled, “Government Surveillance Accountability: The Failures of Contemporary Canadian Interception Reports.”

Access Canadian Electronic Surveillance Reports Repository

Miscellaneous

Finally, I’ve published documents that the RCMP provided to the ETHI Committee concerning its use of On Device Investigative Tools (ODITs), or the malware used by RCMP to gain access to personal devices. These documents were removed from the Committee’s website and so I’ve made them available here, as the were once publicly available materials and remain important for advancing public policy about how and when the RCMP can use these kinds of techniques.

Access ODIT Repository

Government Surveillance Accountability: The Failures of Contemporary Interception Reports

/ Christopher Parsons

Photo by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash

Over the past several years I’ve undertaken research exploring how, how often, and for what reasons governments in Canada access telecommunications data. As one facet of this line of research I worked with Dr. Adam Molnar to understand the regularity at which policing agencies across Canada have sought, and obtained, warrants to lawfully engage in real-time electronic surveillance. Such data is particularly important given the regularity at which Canadian law enforcement agencies call for new powers; how effective are historical methods of capturing communications data? How useful are the statistics which are tabled by governments? We answer these questions in a paper published with the Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, entitled ‘Government Surveillance Accountability: The Failures of Contemporary Canadian Interception Reports.” The abstract, follows, as do links to the Canadian interception reports upon which we based our findings.

Abstract:

Real time electronic government surveillance is recognized as amongst the most intrusive types of government activity upon private citizens’ lives. There are usually stringent warranting practices that must be met prior to law enforcement or security agencies engaging in such domestic surveillance. In Canada, federal and provincial governments must report annually on these practices when they are conducted by law enforcement or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, disclosing how often such warrants are sought and granted, the types of crimes such surveillance is directed towards, and the efficacy of such surveillance in being used as evidence and securing convictions.

This article draws on an empirical examination of federal and provincial electronic surveillance reports in Canada to examine the usefulness of Canadian governments’ annual electronic surveillance reports for legislators and external stakeholders alike to hold the government to account. It explores whether there are primary gaps in accountability, such as where there are no legislative requirements to produce records to legislators or external stakeholders. It also examines the extent to which secondary gaps exist, such as where there is a failure of legislative compliance or ambiguity related to that compliance.

We find that extensive secondary gaps undermine legislators’ abilities to hold government to account and weaken capacities for external stakeholders to understand and demand justification for government surveillance activities. In particular, these gaps arise from the failure to annually table reports, in divergent formatting of reports between jurisdictions, and in the deficient narrative explanations accompanying the tabled electronic surveillance reports. The chronic nature of these gaps leads us to argue that there are policy failures emergent from the discretion granted to government Ministers and failures to deliberately establish conditions that would ensure governmental accountability. Unless these deficiencies are corrected, accountability reporting as a public policy instrument threatens to advance a veneer of political legitimacy at the expense of maintaining fulsome democratic safeguards to secure the freedoms associated with liberal democratic political systems. We ultimately propose a series of policy proposals which, if adopted, should ensure that government accountability reporting is both substantial and effective as a policy instrument to monitor and review the efficacy of real-time electronic surveillance in Canada.

Canadian Electronic Surveillance Reports

Alberta

British Columbia

Government of Canada

Manitoba

New Brunswick

Newfoundland

Nova Scotia

Ontario

Quebec

Saskatchewan

Public Submission on IMSI Catchers

/ Christopher Parsons

5047039173_36fbdc9523_oOn October 14, 2015 the Pivot Legal Society in British Columbia filed a complaint with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) of British Columbia concerning the Vancouver Police Department’s (VPD) refusal to disclose any documents concerning the department’s use of IMSI Catchers. IMSI Catchers, also known as Cell Site Simulators or Mobile Device Identifiers, are designed to impersonate cellular telecommunications towers. The devices are used to collect identifiers and potentially content transmitted from mobile phones in the device’s vicinity. In response to Pivot Legal Society’s complain Tamir Israel (from CIPPIC) l and I intervened on behalf of Open Media to argue that VPD ought to be compelled to disclose documents they possessed concerning their use of IMSI Catchers.

Our intervention begins by outlining how IMSI Catchers technically function. Next, we demonstrate how the test for investigative necessity advanced by VPD simply does not apply to responsive records in light of the significant general information regarding IMSI Catcher use. Finally, we argue that even if disclosure of responsive records will, to some degree, undermine the utility of IMSI Catchers as an investigative tool, disclosure must still occur. Confirmation of IMSI Catcher use is a necessary precursor to informed public debate and to the proper legal constraint of an invasive surveillance tool and is therefore in the public interest.

Download the Intervention (Alternate Link)

Authors

Tamir Israel

Tamir is staff lawyer with the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, where he conducts research and advocacy on various digital rights-related topics, with a focus on online privacy and anonymity, net neutrality, intellectual property, intermediary liability, spam, e-commerce, and consumer protection generally.

Christopher Parsons

Dr. Christopher Parsons received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Guelph, and his Ph.D from the University of Victoria. He is currently the Managing Director of the Telecom Transparency Project and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Citizen Lab, in the Munk School of Global Affairs.

Photo credit: Mobile Phone Tower by Michael Coghlan (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/8FZoUM

Canadian Police Requests for Telecommunications Data

/ Christopher Parsons

2498847226_9beb1f55db_o-300x200In our report, “The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians,” we discussed the regularity at which government agencies gain access to telecommunications data. Save for the Canadian Border Services Agency, federal government agencies that are principally responsible for conducting domestic telecommunications surveillance, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, could not account for how often they use their surveillance powers.

In the course of investigating government access to telecommunications data we also contacted regional policing departments. This post expands on findings we provided in our report to discuss, in depth, the data provided by responsive police departments. We conclude by asserting that new legislation must be introduced and passed so that Canadians become aware of the magnitude of contemporary telecommunications surveillance that policing organizations are involved in on a yearly basis.

Requests to Police Departments

We filed requests to Canadian police departments to determine how often individual departments were exercising telecommunications surveillance powers. Though our report principally focused on federal government agencies’ surveillance, we had hoped to effectively juxtapose provincial/municipal telecommunications surveillance against their federal brethren. We ultimately decided to not conduct a detailed juxtaposition in the report because an insufficient number of police departments responded to our legally-binding requests for access to government data in time for publication.

We filed requests for information to police departments operating in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. These requests identified the provincial statutes we were relying on to request information. We paid fees to the various police departments to initiate the processing of the requests. The only two police departments that were responsive to our requests were the Halifax and Vancouver police departments. The most notable non-responsive departments police the cities of Calgary and Toronto.

Continue reading →