Vic Toews Apparently Not A Fan Of Others Seeing His Personal Data

from the is-he-for-child-porn? dept

You may recall that Canadian Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews announced Canada's "lawful access" (read: government monitoring of the internet) bill by saying that if you weren't in favor of the bill, you supported child porn. Over the weekend, he also seemed to admit that he didn't even understand the bill he was supporting.

That was pretty ridiculous, and a Twitter meme was developed in which lots of people shared info with Toews about things that were going on in their lives. Of course, it was only a matter of time until someone did the opposite... and started revealing info about Toews. Indeed, late last week, a Twitter account calling itself Vikileaks showed up on the scene... leaking info about things like Toews' divorce. After that created a lot of press attention and controversy, the anonymous person behind the account shut it down. However, Brendan noted that for a while it appeared to be blocked in Canada, but not elsewhere. He provided a screenshot from Canada where it says no such account exists, as well as one via a proxy which shows the account. If the user deleted the account, it's possible that it was a caching issue...

Either way, it appears that Toews is not at all happy that his own personal info is being shared. There were some claims that the account holder was accessing the account from within the Canadian House of Commons (something the user denied), leading Toews to demand an investigation into who was behind the account. Of course, as the report notes, it may be difficult to impossible to get any useful info, since all House of Commons traffic shows up as coming from one of just four IPs, so zeroing in on the particular user may not be possible.

But, no matter, Toews wants an investigation (at taxpayer expense). And who gets to investigate those who abuse Toews' lawful access proposal to access private info of citizens? Perhaps, rather than chasing down a ghost, Toews would be better served to think a little more seriously about the complaints people have raised about government over-surveillance.

Filed Under: canada, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews

Canadians Respond To Internet Spying Bill By 'Revealing All' To Politician Backing It

from the internet-memes-against-internet-regulation dept

We recently wrote about a new effort in Canada around "lawful access" (a nice way of saying internet spying by government). The really ridiculous part was that the Public Safety Minister pushing the bill, Vic Toews pulled out the ridiculous logical fallacy that anyone against the bill was "for child pornography." That, of course, is insane. But, because this is the internet, it responds as it does best, by creating a meme. Tons of people on Twitter are revealing all sorts of random information with Toews on Twitter using the hashtag #TellVicEverything. Apparently a bunch of people are leaving him voicemails as well. Watching the Twitter feed is fun, as you find out when people go to sleep, when they wake up and when they have trouble sleeping. Then there are some amusing confessional tweets, like the person who confesses using zucchini instead of meat in spaghetti sauce, or the person who admits to lying to a telemarketer when asked if he's "busy." Who knows if Toews will back down, but when you become a national joke, perhaps it's time to rethink your legislative strategy.

Filed Under: canada, legal access, monitoring, spying, vic toews

Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography

from the kicking-puppies dept

Up in Canada, they're pushing for a new "lawful access" bill, which is basically a "government can spy on your internet usage" bill. Michael Geist has a full and complete run down about the new effort and why it's crazy. But, the insane part came out of the introduction when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently told people: "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers," according to Dale Smith, a journalist who was present. In other words, like Lamar Smith here in the US, he's trying to push through a widespread internet surveillance bill by hiding behind claims that those against it are somehow "for" child porn.

This is beyond ridiculous, and an incredibly cynical political move that assumes that people are stupid. These kinds of arguments may have worked in the past, but I'm increasingly skeptical that they'll continue to work in the future. More and more people are learning about the details of these kinds of bills, and making ridiculous claims and false dilemmas won't cut it, and only call more attention to the ridiculousness of what's actually in the bill.

And, thankfully, some of that pushback comes in the form of people openly mocking such ridiculous claims. Smith points to an amusing response from Lukas Neville: "You can stand with false dilemmas, or you can stand with kicking puppies." Count me in for kicking puppies.

Filed Under: canada, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews

Senate Approves Intelligence Bill, But Extension Of Secret Law Allowing Spying On Americans Cut Back

from the well-that's-good dept

While there's been plenty of (quite important) focus on the National Defense Authorization Act and its ability to detain Americans indefinitely, the Senate also recently passed the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012, which (as the name implies) authorizes various intelligence activities. One important thing was missing from this bill: a multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act.

As you may recall, earlier this year, the Senate tried to rush through a multi-year renewal of the FISA Amendments Act. The FAA, originally approved in 2008, retroactively made warrantless wiretapping efforts by the US government legal. The supposed intention of the bill was to make it easier to tap foreigners outside the US. However, it appears that the government has interpreted parts of it in ways that go beyond what people might expect, leading to significant surveillance of Americans inside the country. Senator Ron Wyden had sought information on just how many Americans had their communications intercepted under this law and was told it was "not reasonably possible" to answer that question. In response, he put a hold on the bill, and the Senate chose not to fight him on it, choosing not to put such a multi-year extension into the bill -- meaning that the issue will have to be voted on again in 2012. According to Wyden:

“I’m pleased that the final version of the 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act does not include the multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act that was included in the Senate version of the bill. I opposed the Senate version of the bill, and I announced a public hold on it, because I believe Congress has an obligation to get more information about the effects of this law before extending it for several more years. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was intended to give the government new authorities to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, but right now nobody in government knows how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected and reviewed as a result of this law. Congress will inevitably need to debate the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act at some point during 2012, and when this debate occurs I plan to continue to press for more information about the impact that this law has had on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens.”

Unfortunately, if the past few years have been any indication of how this all works, there will be no significant debate until the deadline is close, and then Senators will demand that everyone quickly reauthorize things or we're all going to die (or some equally horrible scenario). It's the "give us all sorts of extra powers immediately with no real oversight or we're all going to die" form of government that has been so in vogue lately.

Filed Under: fisa amendments act, ron wyden, secret laws, spying

Germany To Put Special Monitoring Software On School Computers To Search For Infringement

from the preserving-monopolies-at-any-cost dept

Just under a month ago, the "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), which styles itself as "the largest European hacker club", had some disturbing news for Germans:

The largest European hacker club, "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), has reverse engineered and analyzed a "lawful interception" malware program used by German police forces. It has been found in the wild and submitted to the CCC anonymously. The malware can not only siphon away intimate data but also offers a remote control or backdoor functionality for uploading and executing arbitrary other programs. Significant design and implementation flaws make all of the functionality available to anyone on the internet.

Since then, a debate has raged about the extent to which these technologies are permitted by German law when tackling crime. But now it seems that such electronic spying is being institutionalized further thanks to a deal between the Culture Ministers of the German States and publishers of educational materials that allows school computers to be searched annually for unauthorised copies (post in German on Netzpolitik.org):

There it has been contractually agreed that 1% of school computers [in Germany] shall be investigated with the help of a "school trojan" for "plagiarism", by which is meant copyright infringement.

Nor is this some mere statistical exercise: there will be real consequences for school authorities and teachers accused of having unauthorized copies:

"Upon notice of infractions against this contract's conditions for the reproduction of copyright-protected works, the German States undertake to institute disciplinary measures against the school management and teaching staff involved." Civil and criminal claims of rights-holders naturally remain intact. This then represents a further sanction if, with the help of this sniffer software, teachers are caught copying.

Although the spyware has not yet been introduced, the contract was signed last December and came into force in January this year. It is yet another example of politicians and their advisers agreeing to what look like easy technical fixes to issues, but not thinking through the consequences.

As the Netzpolitik.org article asks: who will be responsible for ensuring that the spy software does its job without breaking the German data protection laws? Has anyone thought about the security issues of introducing this software into schools? Will the software work on all platforms - and if it doesn't, what happens to schools using Macs or GNU/Linux?

Even leaving aside such issues, you have to wonder what on earth the German States' Culture Ministers were thinking when they agreed to allow this gross invasion of privacy of teachers and students. Perhaps they hoped that the fuss would all blow over after a while; in the wake of the other revelations about the German government spying on its citizens through software on their computers, that seems unlikely now.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: germany, monitoring, privacy, schools, spying

US Blocks Chinese Company From Contract Bid: Worried China Might Spy On US Just As US Spied On Others

from the what's-sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander dept

Preserving national security is obviously crucially important, but that concern is hardly the preserve of any one country. The US government seems to have forgotten this in banning Huawei from bidding for a major US telecommunications contract:

Worried about potential spying, the U.S. government has blocked a bid from China’s telecommunications giant Huawei to help build a new national wireless network for first responders such as police, firefighters, and ambulances.

Huawei “will not be taking part in the building of America’s interoperable wireless emergency network for first responders due to U.S. government national-security concerns,” Commerce Department spokesman Kevin Griffis told The Daily Beast.

What's the fear here?

Griffis declined to elaborate on those concerns. But current and retired U.S. intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast the longstanding concern about Huawei is that the company’s chips, routers, and other technical equipment will be bugged in a way that gives China’s government a cyber back door into sensitive information networks.

The technique of bugging equipment or writing software in such a way as to allow undetected access has also been used by U.S. intelligence agencies in the past to gain a window into the communications of other foreign governments.

So, in effect, the US government is worried that the Chinese might do to it what the US has done to other governments.

That's a perfectly reasonable fear: by now, the Chinese intelligence agencies doubtless have the technological capability to do so. But China actually has rather more grounds for concern when buying US communications technology or software: after all, the US has already carried out spying in this way.

This latest move just gives China the perfect excuse for blocking US companies bidding for "sensitive" Chinese projects in the future. When the US complains – as it surely will – the Chinese will simply point back to this episode, noting the symmetry of the situation, and their own worries about national security.

Wouldn't it have been wiser to come up with better tools for detecting attempts to introduce back doors into hardware and software? That would have raised the US's general readiness in this area against all such threats, not just those from China, and would not have given China or any other country a pretext for shutting the US out from their markets.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: china, spying, telco infrastructure, us

Appeals Court Reiterates: ACLU And Others Are Allowed To Sue The Gov't Over Secret Spying

from the moving-on... dept

Back in March, an appeals court said that the ACLU and others could challenge the controversial FISA Amendments Act, the highly controversial change to the law that Senator Wyden has been clearly suggesting is being interpreted ridiculously broadly, such that the US government is collecting private data on potentially millions of Americans without oversight or review. The concern was whether or not the ACLU had "standing" to bring the case. That's because no one knows if their private data has been scooped up and used under FISA, because the government isn't revealing it. But if you can't prove you've been harmed by the law, can you sue? The government claimed that since the ACLU had no proof it could not sue. The court disagreed.

Not surprisingly, the US asked the full appeals court (rather than just the three judge panel) to review that ruling, but the court has now rejected that request. Often when a court refuses to rehear a case en banc, there isn't much of a discussion about it -- they just refuse. Yet here, there's an 83 page filing of opinions (pdf) by judges on the court arguing over whether or not the case should have been heard. Incredibly, despite the clear implications of what Senator Wyden has been saying, a bunch of judges say that the FISA Amendments Act doesn't represent a significant change in the law. Thankfully, those judges were outvoted here, and the lawsuit can move forward.

Filed Under: government, spying, standing
Companies: aclue

Court Refuses To Issue Injunction Stopping Secret Web Spycams From Running On Rental Laptops

from the really? dept

A couple months ago, we wrote about the class action lawsuit from a family who discovered that the company from whom they had rented a laptop, Aaron's, had secretly installed spying software that would surreptitiously turn on the laptop's webcam, take pictures, and send them back to the company. That seems like a pretty big privacy issue, and a no brainer for the judge in the case to issue an injunction, getting the company to stop using such software until the case is sorted out.

But, no such luck. The judge refused to order an injunction, pointing out, first of all, that the people suing no longer had that laptop, so there was no additional harm to them. As for everyone else in the class, there's this stunner of a line from the judge:

Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information.

That doesn't make sense to me at all. If they're not subject to remote access, then such an injunction wouldn't matter anyway. Yet, if they are subject to the remote access, then the injunction can help. In other words, the judge's logic is backwards: it might not happen, so let's not try to prevent it? The court could still issue the injunction -- and if people aren't subject to that kind of remote access to their personal information, then nothing would happen.

Separately, the judge suggested that the family has a weak case, because the CFAA computer hacking law they're relying on requires interception of electronic communications... and the court isn't sure that snapping a photo of you captures electronic communications. That certainly does raise an interesting legal question. I'm not a fan of the CFAA, but if you're just spying on someone via a webcam, is that the same thing as spying what's on their desktop? I think the common sense solution is that of course both should be seen as violating the law... but it is a unique situation.

I'm not the only one surprised and confused by this. Internet lawyer Venkat Balasubramani was surprised as well:

Yikes! Privacy class actions seem out of control to me, but I'll admit even I was surprised by this result. I'm equally surprised that the Aaron's-affiliated defendants did not all just stipulate to suspending use of the software until things were sorted out. (Aarons, Inc. did, but its franchisee Aspen Way did not. In fact, Aspen Way did not participate in the hearing, which makes the denial of injunctive relief all the more perplexing.) Setting aside whether the court was correct in its view of the merits of the case, the court takes an unduly restrictive view of the facts when it states that no "interception" of an electronic communication occurred because there was no evidence that Mr. Byrd was online or communicating with someone else when the image in question was captured. Surely, given the ex-employee's testimony as to what type of information was viewed through use of the software, it's fair to presume that the Aspen Way employees are not sitting around making sure that the capture only occurred while the computer user was offline or not communicating with another person.

But seriously, think about what this ruling could mean. It could certainly open up the opportunity for more software products to secretly turn your camera on, claiming it's fine because there's no "communication" going on.

Filed Under: laptops, spying