Sunday, 23 October 2011
Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada’s proposed cyber investigation bills
Kathryn Blaze Carlson Oct 22, 2011 – 10:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 23, 2011 11:01 AM ET
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Damn Straight Skippy !!
In an interview published Monday, taken in Times Square during Saturday’s global day of protests, Pulitzer-winning writer Chris Hedges explained his view of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and why he’s supporting it.
“I spent 20 years overseas, I’m a war correspondent,” he said. “I came back and realized that corporations have carried out a coup d’état in my country.”
Hedges wrote for The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News and The Christian Science Monitor, and was part of the team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting, for a series of articles examining the terrorist attacks on the United States and profiling the al Qaeda network.
He went on: “What happens, and it’s true in all of these movements as well, is the foot soldiers of the elite, the blue uniform police, the mechanisms of control, finally don’t want to impede the movement. At that point, the power elite is left defenseless. So, where’s it going? No one knows. Even the people most intimately involved in the organization don’t know. All of these movements take on a kind of life and color that in some ways is finally mysterious. The only thing I can say, having been in the middle of similar movements, is that this one is real … And this one could take ‘em all down.”
Hedges went on to say that large segments of the blue uniform police largely agree with the 99 Percent movement, and that many other police are frustrated because protesters aren’t breaking windows, which they “know how to handle.” He added that the protesters’ “non-hierarchical structure” for decision making is “brilliant,” and suggested that he had nothing he could possibly teach them.
Finally, addressing an individual standing off-camera, Hedges concluded: “For me, I got kids. It’s not about me anymore. It’s about my childrens’ generation. I think my passion for what you are doing — I would even use the word love — comes from the fact that I look as you as fighting on behalf of my little three-year-old, and when I … On Friday morning, of course I was up to find out what happened … And I did what I do now, which is to start crying. God bless you all.”
This video was published to YouTube on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
The Everest of Amateur Sailing ?!?
A friend of mine has lost his freakin' mind and is now trying to drag me into it.
Seriously though, what he's setting out to do IS for a good cause and looks like one hell of an adventure so I'm gong to chip in.
Have a look for yourself and see if it's something you can get behind, if only for a few bucks. I mean just the thought of him freezing cold in some open boat is worth the cost of admission!
Seriously though, what he's setting out to do IS for a good cause and looks like one hell of an adventure so I'm gong to chip in.
Have a look for yourself and see if it's something you can get behind, if only for a few bucks. I mean just the thought of him freezing cold in some open boat is worth the cost of admission!
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Economist blasts GOP’s ‘seven biggest economic lies’
A really good primer on the economy by Mr. Riech. Former Labor Secretary Under President Clinton, now a Harvard Economist & Professor.
What I'm saying is this guy probably knows a LOT more about the economy and it's triggers than some politician who just got elected based on how many times he/she says "God Bless America" or how photogenic he/she is.
What I'm saying is this guy probably knows a LOT more about the economy and it's triggers than some politician who just got elected based on how many times he/she says "God Bless America" or how photogenic he/she is.
___________________________________________________________
By Robert Reich
The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.
Below is a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:
1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else.
Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and has dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.
2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth.
False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)
3. Shrinking government generates more jobs.
Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.
4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy.
Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.
5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits.
Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.
6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.
7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax.
Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.
Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.
Monday, 10 October 2011
Top Gear - For those that didn't know......
For all you Petrol-Heads.....This one's for you...Enjoy !!
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Occupy WallStreet - Their new champion ?
Alan Grayson, former representative from Florida just dished out a can of whoop-ass on the Bill Maher show. He got a standing ovation for explaining, in plain language just why the Occupy Wall Street movement is out there and just what they're about.
Kudos to Mr. Grayson !
Kudos to Mr. Grayson !
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Occupy Wall Street - A Primer for you
Some of you may be a bit hazy on just what all this Occupy Wall Street stuff is all about, so below are a few points to think over. There's plenty more but these should get you going.
It's ok for you & I to worry about our job prospects or job security, our dwindling bank accounts, our non-existent or destroyed retirement savings, the future prospects for our kids, losing our homes, etc..etc..etc...
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%. Only 15% of the wealth goes for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
________________________________________________________________
BUT
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%. Only 15% of the wealth goes for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
The top one percent of households has 38.3% of all privately held
stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity.
According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. corporations held a record
$1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not
investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good
middle-class jobs. Corporate CEOs are literally hoarding their company's
cash-except when it comes to their own paychecks. AFL-CIO
In 2010, Standard & Poor's 500 Index company CEOs received, on
average, $11.4 million in total compensation- a 23 percent increase in one year.
Based on 299 companies' most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO
pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers' jobs. AFL-CIO
________________________________________________________________
So now that you've been armed with some arguing points, why not print off a few of the posters below, hand them out to your friends and go protest in YOUR city / country.
Occupy Wall Street - And anywhere else you can
The New York City General Assembly — the decision-making body for the
“Occupy Wall Street” protest in lower Manhattan — approved a statement
of purpose on Friday amid concerns that the movement lacked a clear
message.
As corporations enjoy near record profits and Americans face staggering unemployment, protesters have pledged to occupy Wall Street in lower Manhattan until something is done about corporate greed and the influence of the wealthy on American politics. The protesters have been camped out in New York’s old Liberty Plaza, now called Zuccotti Park, since September 17.
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
As corporations enjoy near record profits and Americans face staggering unemployment, protesters have pledged to occupy Wall Street in lower Manhattan until something is done about corporate greed and the influence of the wealthy on American politics. The protesters have been camped out in New York’s old Liberty Plaza, now called Zuccotti Park, since September 17.
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
- They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
- They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
- They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
- They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
- They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
- They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
- They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
- They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
- They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
- They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
- They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
- They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
- They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
- They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
- They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
- They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
- They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
- They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
- They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
- They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
- They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Who's buying your elections ? (The Canadian Edition)
Election time in Ontario. That's in Canada in case you're not up on your geography. You know, the province where Toronto is....No ?
OK....the place where the CN Tower is ?
Anyways, in case you were interested, the following should give you some idea of just who is buying the vote in Ontario. Who the "special interests" are, which political party is "for sale" and at what price not to mention who's hoping that a few well placed donations will grow into political access, favoritism and beneficial legislation.
Lastly, consider the amounts below and then compare them with what's been raised historically in US State elections. We may have politicians as inept and corruptable as any other country but at least ours come cheap !!
Unlike the federal government and some provincial governments, Ontario has not banned corporations or unions from donating to political parties. The province allows donors to give up to $9,300 to a party each year, well above the federal limit of $1,100 for individual donations. Companies can exceed the provincial contribution limits by donating through subsidiaries that are legally separate from their parent company, while unions can rack up significant spending by donating through their local bargaining units. Of the more than $14-million that Ontario’s three main parties have collected in pre-campaign donations of at least $100 this year alone, nearly $9-million came from corporations and unions. Here, the National Post’s Tamsin McMahon analyzes some of the biggest spenders:
Parties by the numbers
Despite two back-to-back majority governments, the Liberals trail the Conservatives in pre-campaign donations for 2011, collecting about $6-million to the Tories’ $7-million. The NDP had raised about $1.4-million before the start of the election on Sept. 7. Construction firms were the most generous donors, donating $1.5-million, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals and just $29,000 to the NDP. Real Estate developers handed out more than $700,000, with most of it going to the Conservatives and just $215,000 to the Liberals. Banks, insurance companies and financial firms were also more generous when it came to the Tories, donating $500,000 compared with $285,000 to the Liberals. Health-care companies, including pharmacies and long-term care facilities and energy producers handed out their money equally to the two main parties. Green-energy firms favoured the Liberals, although nearly $100,000 of their $250,000 in donations went to the Conservatives.
Top donors:
Research in Motion and its executives
The Waterloo company might be taking a hit in the competitive smartphone and tablet market, but that didn’t stop the BlackBerry makers from being among the most generous donors when it comes to politics. The company and its two top executives donated a combined $55,000 to political parties, much of it to the Liberals. Research In Motion itself is listed as having donated $9,300 to the Conservatives and $9,500 to the Liberals, while founder Mike Lazaridis and his wife, Ophelia Tong, donated a combined $18,600; just $500 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie and wife Heidi together gave $18,600 to the Liberals.
Triple M Metal and its directors
The Brampton-based metal recycler, which also has business interests in real estate and construction, has given $48,000 to political parties this year, with most of it going to the Liberals. Directors Michele and Antonio Giampaolo have donated a combined $12,800 to the Liberals in 2011, while Triple M’s related businesses, which include an aluminum remelt company and a steel processor, have donated another $35,000. Of that, $9,300 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. The government slapped the company with $250,000 in fines over the past two years for workplace safety and environmental violations.
Northland Power and its founder
The Toronto-based renewable energy company with nearly two dozen solar, hydro and thermal-energy projects under development around the province, has donated more than $40,000 to political parties, although half of that has come from company founder James Temerety. Northland itself donated $19,200 this year, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals. Mr. Temerety and his wife, Louise, have personally donated another $13,000 to the Conservatives, a company controlled by Mr. Temerety donated another $9,000 to the Conservatives. Donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives “is the proper way to behave as an Ontario-based company to continue to help the political process along,” Northland president John Brace said.
Aecon
The Toronto-based public infrastructure construction giant has donated nearly $37,000 to political parties, almost all of it going to the Liberals. Its parent company handed the Liberals $9,300, while three of its subsidiaries donated another $23,000. The company, whose public-sector projects include roads, bridges, airport facilities and government facilities, donated another $5,000 to the Conservatives.
Unions
Public-sector unions were some of the biggest donors to political parties, with teachers’ unions among the most generous. Like corporations, unions are allowed to exceed the $9,300 limit by giving individual donations through their local bargaining units. That has allowed the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association to donate more than $64,000 — most of it going to the Liberals. Of that, the union’s Ottawa bargaining unit has been the most generous, donating $9,300 to each the Liberals and the NDP. Public elementary teachers have donated another $36,000 this year, mostly to the Liberals, while secondary teachers have given more than $50,000. District 12, the union’s Toronto bargaining unit, has donated the most, giving near the maximum to both the Liberals and the NDP. The district runs a separate political action committee working to “Keep Toronto Tory Free.”
Police officers have donated a total of $31,000 to political parties, with the OPP union donating slightly more to the Liberals than the Conservatives, while the Toronto Police union has given mostly to the Conservatives. The Police Association of Ontario has given evenly to both parties.
Private-sector unions also flexed their financial muscles, with workers in the construction trade donating more than $100,000 to political parties. Almost all of that came from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and virtually all of it went to the Liberals.
OK....the place where the CN Tower is ?
Anyways, in case you were interested, the following should give you some idea of just who is buying the vote in Ontario. Who the "special interests" are, which political party is "for sale" and at what price not to mention who's hoping that a few well placed donations will grow into political access, favoritism and beneficial legislation.
Lastly, consider the amounts below and then compare them with what's been raised historically in US State elections. We may have politicians as inept and corruptable as any other country but at least ours come cheap !!
__________________________________________________________________________
Graphic: The flow of political donations in Ontario
Unlike the federal government and some provincial governments, Ontario has not banned corporations or unions from donating to political parties. The province allows donors to give up to $9,300 to a party each year, well above the federal limit of $1,100 for individual donations. Companies can exceed the provincial contribution limits by donating through subsidiaries that are legally separate from their parent company, while unions can rack up significant spending by donating through their local bargaining units. Of the more than $14-million that Ontario’s three main parties have collected in pre-campaign donations of at least $100 this year alone, nearly $9-million came from corporations and unions. Here, the National Post’s Tamsin McMahon analyzes some of the biggest spenders:
Parties by the numbers
Despite two back-to-back majority governments, the Liberals trail the Conservatives in pre-campaign donations for 2011, collecting about $6-million to the Tories’ $7-million. The NDP had raised about $1.4-million before the start of the election on Sept. 7. Construction firms were the most generous donors, donating $1.5-million, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals and just $29,000 to the NDP. Real Estate developers handed out more than $700,000, with most of it going to the Conservatives and just $215,000 to the Liberals. Banks, insurance companies and financial firms were also more generous when it came to the Tories, donating $500,000 compared with $285,000 to the Liberals. Health-care companies, including pharmacies and long-term care facilities and energy producers handed out their money equally to the two main parties. Green-energy firms favoured the Liberals, although nearly $100,000 of their $250,000 in donations went to the Conservatives.
Top donors:
Research in Motion and its executives
The Waterloo company might be taking a hit in the competitive smartphone and tablet market, but that didn’t stop the BlackBerry makers from being among the most generous donors when it comes to politics. The company and its two top executives donated a combined $55,000 to political parties, much of it to the Liberals. Research In Motion itself is listed as having donated $9,300 to the Conservatives and $9,500 to the Liberals, while founder Mike Lazaridis and his wife, Ophelia Tong, donated a combined $18,600; just $500 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie and wife Heidi together gave $18,600 to the Liberals.
Triple M Metal and its directors
The Brampton-based metal recycler, which also has business interests in real estate and construction, has given $48,000 to political parties this year, with most of it going to the Liberals. Directors Michele and Antonio Giampaolo have donated a combined $12,800 to the Liberals in 2011, while Triple M’s related businesses, which include an aluminum remelt company and a steel processor, have donated another $35,000. Of that, $9,300 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. The government slapped the company with $250,000 in fines over the past two years for workplace safety and environmental violations.
Northland Power and its founder
The Toronto-based renewable energy company with nearly two dozen solar, hydro and thermal-energy projects under development around the province, has donated more than $40,000 to political parties, although half of that has come from company founder James Temerety. Northland itself donated $19,200 this year, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals. Mr. Temerety and his wife, Louise, have personally donated another $13,000 to the Conservatives, a company controlled by Mr. Temerety donated another $9,000 to the Conservatives. Donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives “is the proper way to behave as an Ontario-based company to continue to help the political process along,” Northland president John Brace said.
Aecon
The Toronto-based public infrastructure construction giant has donated nearly $37,000 to political parties, almost all of it going to the Liberals. Its parent company handed the Liberals $9,300, while three of its subsidiaries donated another $23,000. The company, whose public-sector projects include roads, bridges, airport facilities and government facilities, donated another $5,000 to the Conservatives.
Unions
Public-sector unions were some of the biggest donors to political parties, with teachers’ unions among the most generous. Like corporations, unions are allowed to exceed the $9,300 limit by giving individual donations through their local bargaining units. That has allowed the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association to donate more than $64,000 — most of it going to the Liberals. Of that, the union’s Ottawa bargaining unit has been the most generous, donating $9,300 to each the Liberals and the NDP. Public elementary teachers have donated another $36,000 this year, mostly to the Liberals, while secondary teachers have given more than $50,000. District 12, the union’s Toronto bargaining unit, has donated the most, giving near the maximum to both the Liberals and the NDP. The district runs a separate political action committee working to “Keep Toronto Tory Free.”
Police officers have donated a total of $31,000 to political parties, with the OPP union donating slightly more to the Liberals than the Conservatives, while the Toronto Police union has given mostly to the Conservatives. The Police Association of Ontario has given evenly to both parties.
Private-sector unions also flexed their financial muscles, with workers in the construction trade donating more than $100,000 to political parties. Almost all of that came from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and virtually all of it went to the Liberals.
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Who here thinks YOU aren't being spied on ?
Taken from WIRED
Which Telecoms Store Your Data the Longest? Secret Memo Tells All By David Kravets Email Author September 28, 2011 | 6:30 am |
The single-page Department of Justice document, “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” is a guide for law enforcement agencies looking to get information — like customer IP addresses, call logs, text messages and web surfing habits – out of U.S. telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
The document, marked “Law Enforcement Use Only” and dated August 2010, illustrates there are some significant differences in how long carriers retain your data.
Verizon, for example, keeps a list of everyone you’ve exchanged text messages with for the past year, according to the document. But T-Mobile stores the same data up to five years. It’s 18 months for Sprint, and seven years for AT&T.
That makes Verizon appear to have the most privacy-friendly policy. Except that Verizon is alone in retaining the actual contents of text messages. It allegedly stores the messages for five days, while T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint don’t store them at all.
The document was unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina via a Freedom of Information Act claim. (After the group gave a copy to Wired.com, we also discovered it in two other places on the internet by searching its title.)
“People who are upset that Facebook is storing all their information should be really concerned that their cell phone is tracking them everywhere they’ve been,” said Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney. “The government has this information because it wants to engage in surveillance.”
The biggest difference in retention surrounds so-called cell-site data.
That is information detailing a phone’s movement history via its connections to mobile phone towers while its traveling. Verizon keeps that data on a one-year rolling basis; T-Mobile for “a year or more;” Sprint up to two years, and AT&T indefinitely, from July 2008.
The document also includes retention policies for Nextel and Virgin Mobile. They have folded into the Sprint network.
The document release comes two months before the Supreme Court hears a case testing the government’s argument that it may use GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s every movement without a warrant. And the disclosure comes a month ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Electronic Privacy Communications Act, an outdated law that the government often invokes against targets to obtain, without a warrant, the data the Justice Department document describes.
“I don’t think there there is anything on this list the government would concede requires a warrant,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This brings cellular retention practices out of the shadows, so we can have a rational discussion about how the law needs to be changed when it comes to the privacy of our records.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has proposed legislation to alter the Electronic Privacy Communications Act to protect Americans from warrantless intrusions. Debate on the issue is expected to heat up as the anniversary nears, and the Justice Department document likely will take center stage.
Which Telecoms Store Your Data the Longest? Secret Memo Tells All By David Kravets Email Author September 28, 2011 | 6:30 am |
________________________________________________________________
The nation’s major mobile-phone providers are keeping a treasure trove of sensitive data on their customers, according to newly-released Justice Department internal memo that for the first time reveals the data retention policies of America’s largest telecoms.The single-page Department of Justice document, “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” is a guide for law enforcement agencies looking to get information — like customer IP addresses, call logs, text messages and web surfing habits – out of U.S. telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
The document, marked “Law Enforcement Use Only” and dated August 2010, illustrates there are some significant differences in how long carriers retain your data.
That makes Verizon appear to have the most privacy-friendly policy. Except that Verizon is alone in retaining the actual contents of text messages. It allegedly stores the messages for five days, while T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint don’t store them at all.
The document was unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina via a Freedom of Information Act claim. (After the group gave a copy to Wired.com, we also discovered it in two other places on the internet by searching its title.)
“People who are upset that Facebook is storing all their information should be really concerned that their cell phone is tracking them everywhere they’ve been,” said Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney. “The government has this information because it wants to engage in surveillance.”
The biggest difference in retention surrounds so-called cell-site data.
That is information detailing a phone’s movement history via its connections to mobile phone towers while its traveling. Verizon keeps that data on a one-year rolling basis; T-Mobile for “a year or more;” Sprint up to two years, and AT&T indefinitely, from July 2008.
The document release comes two months before the Supreme Court hears a case testing the government’s argument that it may use GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s every movement without a warrant. And the disclosure comes a month ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Electronic Privacy Communications Act, an outdated law that the government often invokes against targets to obtain, without a warrant, the data the Justice Department document describes.
“I don’t think there there is anything on this list the government would concede requires a warrant,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This brings cellular retention practices out of the shadows, so we can have a rational discussion about how the law needs to be changed when it comes to the privacy of our records.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has proposed legislation to alter the Electronic Privacy Communications Act to protect Americans from warrantless intrusions. Debate on the issue is expected to heat up as the anniversary nears, and the Justice Department document likely will take center stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)