statism watch

Flashback: Government will review ‘anti-terror’ security certificates: Van Loan | Adil Charkaoui, ‘terror suspect’, to be freed | Charkaoui asks court to toss security certificate case | Selective enforcement: Charkaoui barred from US airspace on flight from Fredericton to Montreal | CSIS reviews security certificate cases in wake of criticism | Tories aim to bring back anti-terrorism provisions | High court reprimands CSIS policy of destroying secret evidence in security case | More secrecy added to already secret process | Charkaoui set to fight new security certificate law | New security certificates issued | The New Security Certificate: Rushing injustice through the Senate | Court puts security certificates in limbo

The Canadian Press
March 12, 2010

A simple “sorry” and an offer to pay his legal fees might have sufficed, but Adil Charkaoui said he didn’t even get that courtesy from the federal government.

So the Moroccan-born Montrealer who was accused by Ottawa of being a terrorist and who spent several years living under tight restrictions believes he was left with little choice but to sue the federal government.

Charkaoui said Friday he intends to sue for $24.5 million to restore his tattered reputation after failing to get an apology from Ottawa.

He said the civil suit, filed in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 22, is not about the money.

“I’m doing it to clear my name, this is very important for me,” Charkaoui told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview between teaching classes.

He said he sent a letter asking for an apology, Canadian citizenship and compensation for lost income and legal fees after a federal judge quashed a security certificate against him.

The response he says he received was that the government was just doing its job.

“To me it meant ‘Go to hell’,” Charkaoui said. “This is about accountability. I want to restore my name, and they made a mistake and destroyed my life in Canada and outside Canada, and they have to pay for what they did.”

(more…)

Good news. As Mike Masnick at Techdirt notes, “This is pretty big — and a massive setback for ACTA supporters. The MEPs didn’t just reject the lack of transparency, they were blatantly rejecting some of the proposals that were in the leaked documents.” Let’s hope that any other parliamentary defenders of the freedom of information as may exist out there don’t lose the momentum this generates.

Related: ACTA Internet Chapter Leaks: Renegotiates WIPO, Sets 3 Strikes as Model | ACTA Is Called An ‘Executive Agreement’ To Implement Restrictive Copyright With Less Hassle Than A Treaty | ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored | UK MPs frozen out of super-secret ACTA copyright talks | Reading Between The Still Secret Lines Of The ACTA Negotiations | Beyond ACTA: Proposed EU – Canada Trade Agreement Intellectual Property Chapter Leaks | New Leaks of Secret ACTA Copyright Law Reveal Oppressive ‘Global DMCA’ | MPAA Says Critics of Secret Copyright Treaty Hate Hollywood | ACTA Threatens Made-in-Canada Copyright Policy | More ACTA Details Leak: It’s An Entertainment Industry Wishlist | Six Days Left: Canadian Net Users Caught As Copyright Consultation Nears Conclusion | MP Charlie Angus on copyright: industry lobby pulling for ‘dead business model’ | Ottawa denies altering public’s ECopyright Consultation submissions | Security guards stop MPs, students from distributing fair use flyers at Toronto copyright townhall | Can The Public Be Heard On Copyright Issues? | Copyright Consultation Launches: Time For Canadians To Speak Out | Third stab at copyright law ‘reform’ to kick off with consultations | Time to slay Canadian file-sharing myths | Canadian copyright lobbyists leaned on “independent” researchers to change report on file-sharing | Think tank plagiarizes, pulls report on Canadian piracy | Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets | Latest Round of Closed-Door ACTA Copyright Negotiations Wrap Up | Digital rights groups sue for access to secret ACTA treaty | Critics waging a cyber offensive to fight copyright changes | Canadian Industry Minister lies about Canadian DMCA on national radio, then hangs up | The Canadian DMCA: Check the Fine Print | Government ready to drop copyright bomb | Transparency needed on ACTA | Revamped copyright law targets electronic devices | New Attempt to Align Canada’s Copyright Act with USA Coming Soon | Canadian DMCA To Be Introduced Tomorrow Morning?

Euractiv.com
March 10, 2010

The European Parliament defied the EU executive today (10 March), casting a vote against an agreement between the EU, the US and other major powers on combating online piracy and threatening to take legal action at the European Court of Justice.

And the other fork of the dual attack on online freedom is exhumed to lend support in the present assault – ‘cyberterror’, meet ‘cyber bullying’. Of course, if someone says something mean to someone on the telephone, do you ban the telephone network? Do you set up some new infrastructure to filter bad words and ideas from being spoken on the phone? Do you sue Bell Telephone? Of course not, because this is a question of human action and human nature. The technology isn’t what is at fault. The media is hyping and hyping these isolated cases where some kid commits suicide because some other kid said they were fat (or whatever the case may be), and the outcome is going to be some sort of ‘driver’s license‘ or vetting process or an automated censor board unless people get a little perspective and look at why the media establishment really wants the Internet locked down: Control of content.

Related: Italy Convicts Google Execs over Youtube Video of Downs Syndrome Boy | UN agency calls for global cyberwarfare treaty, ‘driver’s license’ for Web users | China launches interview requirement, licensing for personal websites | Internet companies voice alarm over Italian copyright law | Death Of The Internet: Censorship Bills In UK, Australia, U.S. Aim To Block “Undesirable” Websites | Australia introduces web filters | Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned | Security boss calls for end to net anonymity | Cyber Bullying Case Officially Dismissed for Vagueness | Do We Need a New Internet? | Cyberbullying verdict turns rule-breakers into criminals | Felony hacking precedent not set in case of Myspace cyberbully | Myspace terms of use could become fulcrum for destruction of online anonymity in precedent setting case | Microsoft patents web moderator robots, forbidden phrases to be memory-holed | Berners-Lee W3C Consortium to ‘Authorize’ Website Content? | Law Professor tells tech conference: plans to shut down Internet already on deck | MySpace signs up to OpenID scheme

Dan Whitcomb, Reuters
March 9, 2010

The Internet was built on freedom of expression. Society wants someone held accountable when that freedom is abused. And major Internet companies like Google and Facebook are finding themselves caught between those ideals.

Although Google, Facebook and their rivals have enjoyed a relatively “safe harbour” from prosecution over user-generated content in the United States and Europe, they face a public that increasingly is more inclined to blame them for cyber-bullying and other online transgressions.

Such may have been the case when three Google executives were convicted in Milan, Italy on February 24 over a bullying video posted on the site – a verdict greeted with horror by online activists, who fear it could open the gates to such prosecutions and ultimately destroy the Internet itself.

Journalist Jeff Jarvis suggested on his influential BuzzMachine blog that the Italian court, which found Google executives guilty of violating the privacy of an autistic boy who was taunted in the video, was essentially requiring websites to review everything posted on them.

“The practical implication of that, of course, is that no one will let anyone put anything online because the risk is too great,” Jarvis wrote. “I wouldn’t let you post anything here. My ISP (Internet Service Provider) wouldn’t let me post anything on its services. And that kills the Internet.”

(more…)

So the DNA of innocent people will ‘only’ be kept on file for three years. One day is completely unacceptable. If less than one percent of cases are solved using the DNA database, they’re not spending all that money to maintain it to fight crime. It’s for something else. In the US, DNA is being sent to the military for research. Why? Should we be taking a closer look at the kind of warnings well placed people like Aldous Huxley made about the use of eugenics technology in Brave New World?

Related: DNA matches solve only a fraction of crimes, police admit | UK Police routinely arresting people to get DNA, inquiry claims | UK: Terror ’suspects’ could remain on DNA database for life, innocents get 6 years | UK: Home Office climbs down over keeping DNA records on innocent | UK: Police ‘must purge innocent DNA’ | UK: Police ‘arrest innocent youths for their DNA’, officer claims | US: Ruling allowing Taser use to get DNA may be nation’s first | UK: Fury as Commons denied vote on DNA database | UK: DNA details of 1.1m children on database | Controversial US measure would require DNA sampling at arrest | Police to demand blood, urine at roadside stops | Newborn Blood-Storage Law Stirs Fears of DNA Warehouse | Man spends 18 hours in police cell and has his DNA taken for ‘dropping an apple core’ | Widen DNA dragnet: Police Chief Blair

Alan Travis, The Guardian
March 8, 2010

MPs’ report ahead of key vote says DNA profiles of inncent people should be kept for no longer than three years

Government proposals to keep the DNA profiles of innocent people for up to six years have been rejected by the Commons home affairs select committee.

The MPs’ report, published in advance of a key Commons vote on DNA, says they are not convinced that such a long retention period will lead to any more cases being cleared, let alone getting more convictions.

Instead, the cross-party committee backs a maximum period of three years for the police to keep the DNA profiles of those people they arrest but release before they are charged or convicted.

The home affairs committee says its short inquiry has concluded that as few as 0.3% of crimes are detected as a result, at least in part, of matching crime-scene DNA to a personal profile on the national DNA database.

(more…)

The great English common law traditions of the Magna Carta are now open to question, apparently. It was the Magna Carter, forced upon the King by the nobles in a time of wildly extortionate taxes – including the first income tax in history – that first set the precedent that the King’s actions are subject to the rule of law, that the judiciary is an independent body. It is difficult to overstate the dangers of the recent erosion of this principle in Western nations.

Related: UK: Government fury as judges attack MI5, security services | MI5 chief denies cover-up claims over detainees | UK Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture | Britain reveals details of Binyam Mohamed torture | UK: Rights watchdog reveals Pakistani spies pressed by British to torture detainees | UK: Move to withhold evidence in MI5/MI6 torture collusion claim | UK: New evidence in Binyam Mohamed torture case | UK: Secrets of CIA ‘ghost flights’ to be revealed | UK: CIA ‘put pressure on Britain to cover up its use of torture’ | Revealed – the secret torture evidence MI5 tried to suppress | Guantanamo’s closure window dressing – overseas CIA ‘black sites’ to stay | ‘If I didn’t confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,’ claims torture victim | MI5 faces fresh torture allegations | UK: Government makes ‘unprecedented’ apology for covering up Binyam torture | Obama administration: Guantanamo detainees have ‘no constitutional rights’ | Tortured Guantanamo detainee set free | UK agents ‘colluded with torture in Pakistan’ | Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners | U.K. resident held at Gitmo alleges Canadian involvement in torture | Senior judges attack US over ‘torture evidence suppression’

Afua Hirsch, The Guardian
March 8, 2010

The government will attempt today to have a case about torture heard entirely behind closed doors in a move that some lawyers say would extend secrecy to a new area of hearings, overriding ancient principles of English law.

This morning a case will come before three appeal judges in London in which seven men are seeking damages against the government for mistreatment during what they say was their “extraordinary rendition” and torture facilitated by the British security services.

The men include former Guantánamo Bay detainees Binyam Mohamed and Moazzam Begg. But the government is seeking to have the case held in secret, less than two weeks after the court of appeal ruled that seven paragraphs of secret evidence in the case of Mohamed should be made public.

Lawyers for the men say that if successful, the government’s application would extend closed proceedings into findings of fact in the civil courts for the first time.

(more…)

Related: UK Citizen snoopers recruited to spy on Londoners | UK University student fined £80 for dropping matchstick on Oxford pavement | Embryonic EU security office set up in secret talks under Lisbon Treaty | UK: Garbage spies alarm neighbourhood | US Homeland Security: Terror fight needs public’s vigilance | UK: Big Brother state wants even more spy powers | UK recruits an army of snoopers with police-style powers | ‘AmeriCorps’ Domestic Paramilitary Propaganda Ad | Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More | London Police Encourage Citizens To Inform on Neighbour’s Garbage | UK Home Secretary unveils civilian anti-terrorism security force | Pre-Olympic transit ads encourage citizen surveillance | US Congress passes mandatory national service bill | New World Order Crony Gary Hart Calls for “Civic Duty” | UK: Civil servants attacked for using anti-terror laws to spy on public | Justin Trudeau introduces National Voluntary Service motion | US Democrats Introduce Public National Service Bills | UK House of Lords warns over ’surveillance state’ | UK Shortly to Become Worse Surveillance Society than Stasi East Germany | ‘Environmental volunteers’ will be encouraged to spy on their neighbours | ‘Our People’ stand up for Putin | Vladimir Putin sets up nationalist Russian Youth brigade

Tom Whitehead, The Telegraph
March 8, 2010

Hundreds more town hall staff and private security guards are to be handed police-style powers in a fresh Home Office drive to create an army of civilian “spies”.

Almost 1,700 people, also including car park attendants and dog wardens, already have powers to hand out a string of fines and even take photographs of low level offenders under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme.

But the Government has quietly announced it plans to review the scheme with chief police officers to see how it can be expanded further.

Rank and file officers warned the move is “blurring the lines” of legitimate law enforcement and is creating a “third tier” of policing.

Even chief constables are now cautious over the scheme following it’s rapid growth, which has seen numbers increase by a fifth in just 12 months.

(more…)

Incredibly, columnists at the National Post and the Star may actually have some common ground here. There is a distinction in philosophy that is worthy of more consideration precisely because it is lost on so many people, that of natural rights versus legal rights. In Canada and much of the Western world these days, we assume that rights are privileges granted by the state, a sort of legal allowance granted by our Mommy or Daddy, subject to change, without which all our actions would be proscribed, prohibited, and we would be unable to live. Gee, thanks Mom! This is a fundamentally Hobbesian notion of rights – rights as granted by social contract and enforced by the overwhelming power of government, without which there would be anarchy and a ‘war of all against all‘.

There is an alternative view however, and this gets to the heart of Mr. Jonas’ point on gun ownership and the conduct of one’s business. The classical liberal or Lockean tradition- which has nothing to do with what ‘Liberal’ means to the public today – was the tradition that ran through our culture when the American constitution was framed, and by contrast, it subscribed to a rather more benevolent view of human nature. On this view, rights are not granted, but observed by government. In a state of nature, the thinking goes, men and women are unmolested and so perfectly free to sustain their lives, their rights are inalienable, granted by nature (or God). Thus government’s role is not to grant rights, but to sustain them in a social setting. Which view do you subscribe to? Are you an atom of the state, or is the state your servant?

Flashback: Toronto Star Columnist Fiorito: The cops came and took my gun | BATF Notice Bans Private Gun Sales In Texas | Parliament votes ‘in principle’ to scrap gun registry, bill moves to second reading | Tories move closer to killing gun registry | UK: Paramilitary police placed on routine foot patrol for first time | Toronto police seize 400 guns in ’safety push’ | Handgun bans and the world of make-believe | No vote scheduled on Tory bill to kill gun registry | Americans stick to their guns as firearms sales surge | Secret Homeland Security Threat Assessment Labels Gun Owners Potential Terrorists | Harper urges supporters to fight long gun registry | Police-run gun amnesties in trouble across country | 1,900 Guns Traded for Cameras in Toronto | Toronto Police offer gun owners shiny new camera, home visit to disarm themselves | Layton promises urban gun control | Ont. premier calls for Canada-wide ban on handguns | Citizens Witness Gunplay, Black Uniforms as ‘Flashpoint’ Shoots Drama in Heart of Toronto | A historic gun club’s final days | Chicago, awash in gun violence, gives Toronto advice: You need a gun ban like ours | Illinois governor suggests National Guard help with Chicago gun crime | Armed Police to Roam Toronto High Schools | My gun, my right. We’ll see | Municipalities Join Miller in Calling for Final Citizen Disarmament | Pistol Pendant Causes Airport Holdup | Miller wants shooting ranges shut down | Machine Gun-Toting Officers To Patrol NYC Subway

George Jonas, The National Post
March 6, 2010

The minute anyone talks or writes about free speech, some twit is sure to pop up and say that there’s no absolute freedom of speech. They usually can’t resist adding that no one is free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre.

They’re quite right. The only thing wrong with those who keep insisting there are no absolutes is they do it to restrict some particulars that irk them.

Everyone knows free speech isn’t “absolute.” If it were, it would be legal to defame people, counsel murder, or impersonate a police officer. No one disputes that being free to use hand gestures doesn’t entitle anyone to signal a truck to back over a toddler. Our freedom to gesticulate isn’t “absolute.” It’s enough, though, to give censors the finger.

(more…)

Look at points three and five of the proposed bill – it  completely contravenes any rational notion of your right to the security of your person. Americans may be held and interrogated indefinitely for any “…ther matters as the President considers appropriate.” That is the fuhrer precept, the vesting of the absolute power to ruin lives in the hands of the president on any arbitrary whim. If this goes through, you have no rights in the US. They may as well rename the office of president to ‘The Decider’.

Related: Obama gives Patriot Act another year with no privacy protections | US Interrogation Squad Doing ‘Scientific Research’ | Harkat challenge of security certificate goes to court | Almrei security certificate struck down | Government will review ‘anti-terror’ security certificates: Van Loan | Obama approves new interrogation unit | Tories aim to bring back anti-terrorism provisions | British Terror Bill Divides Labor | More secrecy added to already secret process | Charkaoui set to fight new security certificate law | The New Security Certificate: Rushing injustice through the Senate | New security certificates issued | Court puts security certificates in limbo

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic Monthly
March 5, 2010

Why is the national security community treating the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration’s choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity. Read the bill here, and then read the summarized points after the jump.

According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

(There is no distinction between U.S. persons–visa holders or citizens–and non-U.S. persons.)

(more…)

The system eats its own.

Flashback: Alleged 9/11 mastermind to go on trial in NYC | CIA waterboarded 2 al-Qaida suspects 266 times | Sept. 11 suspects want to “confess” | Guantanamo 9/11 suspects on trial

Jennifer Loven, Associated Press
March 5, 2010

Senior officials say White House advisers are close to recommending military tribunals for self-professed 9/11 mastermind and four alleged henchmen

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that U.S. President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior officials said.

The review of where and how to hold a Sept. 11 trial is not over, so no recommendation is yet before the president and Mr. Obama has not made a determination of his own, officials said. The review is not likely to be finished this week.

Officials spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss private deliberations.

Attorney General Eric Holder decided in November to transfer Mr. Mohammed and the four other accused terrorists from the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York City for civilian trials. That was initially supported by city officials, but was later opposed because of costs, security and logistical concerns.

When opposition ballooned further into Congress and an attempted Christmas airline bombing brought massive scrutiny to Mr. Obama’s terrorism policies, the administration said it would review Mr. Holder’s trial decision and consider all options for a new location.

(more…)

Do it. It will get the issue right back on the agenda, and teach this administration they can’t push issues to the side by shutting down parliament.

Flashback: PM Harper downplays detainee torture scandal, prorogation | Claims troops mistreated prisoners unfounded: military police | Peter MacKay, Red Cross discussed detainees in 2006 | Canada’s troops investigated for Afghan abuse | Colvin disputes witnesses’ detainee testimony | Tories sabotage Afghan committee meeting | Canada ‘defended’ torturer | Ottawa won’t release Afghan torture documents | Top general’s Afghan detainee reversal hikes pressure for public inquiry | Richard Colvin’s Afghan torture memos reveal government concealed prisoner access issues | Torture claims unreliable, officials say, despite having found evidence of torture | MPs vote public inquiry into Afghan detainees, Tories ignore majority motion | Torture claims weren’t probed, official testified | Harper government changes tune on Afghan prisoner issue | Colvin’s testimony true: former Afghan MP | David Mulroney testifies war confused issue of torture | Hillier says he saw no credible reports of torture | Afghan torture emails reached MacKay’s office | Opposition wants documentation prior to government torture rebuttal, PM cries foul | Canadian officials discussed torture in 2006 | Canada shamed on Afghan prisoner torture | Canada ignored torture warnings: Diplomat | Military lawyer stonewalls on Afghan torture claims | Ottawa was warned Afghan detainees might be tortured | Military commission suspends torture hearings, gags witness | Torture probe delayed; Tories deny gagging witness | Federal court limits Afghan detainee torture probe | Watchdog rejects government bid to delay Afghan detainee inquiry | Ottawa moves to block Afghanistan detainee torture hearings again | Bid to Block Afghan Detainee Inquiry Slammed | What Ottawa doesn’t want you to know: Government was told detainees faced ‘extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial’

CBC News
March 1, 2010

A Liberal MP is threatening to table a motion in the House of Commons that, if passed, could see the government in contempt of Parliament for not complying with a House Standing Order to produce unredacted documents about the handling of Afghan detainees by the Canadian Forces.

Ontario MP Derek Lee, who has drafted the three-part motion, said the government hasn’t complied with requests to release the documents, one made by the Afghanistan committee looking into the detainee situation and the other by an order of the House.

“If the government doesn’t deliver on the House order, and the majority in the House feels this way, they can find the government or a person in contempt and go about seizing the documents … just as a court would,” Lee told CBC’s Power & Politics.

Lee, who waged a year long-battle in 1991 with the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney over a parliamentary committee’s right to see government documents and won, said he hopes the government will act accordingly with parliamentary law and procedure.

“Otherwise, there’s confrontation coming between the government and the House of Commons,” he said.

(more…)