The National Research Council had concerns about their IT security before the hack attack happened, and some of those concerns delayed their move to join Shared Services Canada. What the article doesn’t mention is that NRC also has a lot of legacy computer systems that wouldn’t integrate easily, and that was part of the concern with amalgamation. That said, amalgamation creates its own security risks because everything is in one place, so a well-placed hack there would have far broader implications than the current “federated” model, where individual systems can be isolated. Meanwhile, the Privacy Commissioner’s officer has confirmed that the attack breached a system that contained personal information, and they’re still assessing the damage.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: Hacking very valuable data
Hackers, allegedly from China, have hit the National Research Council’s systems and have compromised them, leading to them being shut down. While we don’t know what kind of damage there is or what has been accessed, this is the country’s premier research institution, which has more recently been billing itself as a partner for businesses around the country to help them develop and get to market new technologies. It’s suspected that employee personal information and client data may have been compromised. It’s no wonder that it would be a prime target for industrial espionage. China denies that they were involved, but CSE seems to believe that the hackers originated from there. It may be a year before NRC has a more secure platform for their data, though curiously, they have been working on quantum communications, which promise to be unhackable and secure. Not soon enough, however, it would seem.
Roundup: Getting what we ask for
From across the pond comes a very interesting op-ed for your consideration, about the kind of insult and scorn that we heap on the political class. In taking a look at the example of the deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader David Clegg, currently one of the most hated men in UK politics, it looks at how everyday cynicism about politics has obscured the reasons why people get into it in the first place, and the kinds of impacts that they can have by doing the work that they do, no matter that they’re currently not popular with the people. The title of the piece also speaks volumes – “If you believe that politicians are useless, you’ll wind up with useless politicians.” It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that we are reaping in spades here in Canada as we get MPs who are increasingly disengaged from their own jobs, and who are becoming little more than ciphers for their party leaders because we, the electorate, aren’t demanding of them to do their jobs. Instead, we have bizarre expectations of them to not be politicians, and what we’re getting in return is, well, an abrogation of parliamentary oversight and boosterism for central leaders’ offices that are increasingly run by junior functionaries whose chief virtue is loyalty and not experience. We, the electorate, should start rethinking our priorities before things get too far down the dark path we’ve started down.
Roundup: An apology owed
The International Commission of Jurists has looked over the dispute between Stephen Harper and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin around accusations that she was “lobbying” against the appointment of Justice Nadon. The ICJ declared that McLachlin did nothing wrong – and that Harper owes her an apology. In response, the PMO responded that they saw the response and “noted it.” At least it wasn’t yet another angry denunciation of “activist” judges protecting their own, or some other nonsense. Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association has responded to all of those Conservative MPs whinging that the courts are doing an “end run around democracy” by reminding them that the courts are an essential part of our democratic system, ensuring that rights are respected and that laws are applied properly. Not that it will soothe the sting being felt by sore losers, which is really what those complaints are all about.
Roundup: Right vs privilege confusion
The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Roundup: Hostile witnesses
Kady O’Malley looks at how sex workers were treated as hostile witnesses at the Justice Committee, in particular by Conservative MP Stella Ambler – who, it should be noted, isn’t even a regular member of that committee. Any of their experiences in which they stated that they weren’t victims were often dismissed or challenged as being somehow untrue, which is unfortunate but not surprising given that the government has a narrative around this bill that they intend to push.
Roundup: Minimal amendments
The Commons justice committee did their clause-by-clause review of the prostitution bill, and they agreed to two minor amendments – one that narrowed the reach of the communication provision from anywhere that children could be present, to simply being next to schools, playgrounds of daycares; the other being that they agreed to put in a provision to review the bill in five years, though the NDP tried to get that down to two. The Liberals didn’t put forward any amendments since they voted against the bill in principle at second reading, feeling it is unconstitutional and unsalvageable. The Greens largely feel the same way. Interestingly, Independent MP Maria Mourani doesn’t feel it goes far enough, and wants prostitution outlawed writ large. Here’s a look at some of the criminalization of both the sex workers as well as pimps and johns in Canada, and apparently we have fairly low rates of going after those who abuse sex workers – but one wonders if that also has to do with the fact that the women who were abused or assaulted didn’t feel safe reporting it because they feared being further criminalised.
Roundup: Information sharing concerns
The Commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment has concerns that the information we share with our allies may be used improperly, and that they may not be properly protecting information about Canadians. Not coincidentally, there are serious concerns (paywall) that the American government won’t protect information on tax filings with those they deem “American persons” to comply with FATCA also aren’t going to be properly protected, and their Congress is already tabling laws that would ensure that said tax information on ostensible Canadians isn’t protected either. It underscores the dangers and uncertainties with information sharing – particularly when the Americans seem to feel that the rules that others abide by don’t apply to them.
Roundup: Defending Goguen, unbelievably
The former trafficked prostitute that Robert Goguen asked that braindead question to the other day at committee was out defending him and his awful, aren’t-I-clever straw man of a question to the press, saying that she refused to let him apologise, and accused the media of basically inventing a controversy. It’s utterly unbelievable. Meanwhile, one of the architects of the Sweden’s “Nordic model” has said that the proposed Canadian law won’t stand up to the Charter, in particular because of the portions that still criminalise the sex workers, such as if they are working at a place where children could be present. (And on a side note, there are no credible studies that show there to be a real decline in prostitution in Sweden, as the figures that show a decline are mostly police stats, which don’t capture how it’s been pushed further underground). Here’s a look at seven of the voices we’ve heard so far in the prostitution bill hearings at the Commons justice committee, from all ends of the spectrum. Of course, there has been plenty of testimony from women who have been victimized terribly, but little of it seems relevant to the bill because what they suffered is already illegal and not actually the scope of what the bill is supposed to be achieving, thus further muddying the waters.
Roundup: Goguen makes everything worse
The first of the witnesses with the prostitution bill appeared before the Commons justice committee in its special summer session yesterday, starting with Peter MacKay, who admitted that they got no outside legal advice as to the bill’s constitutionality, and everything has a chance of being sent before the Supreme Court, so he’s just shrugging it all off. Um, okay. Way to go doing the responsible thing in crafting sound laws that will pass constitutional muster, and all of that, guys. Well done. As for MacKay’s assertion that yes, the intent is to criminalize prostitution, the bill pretty much goes about doing that in the most backward and arbitrary way possible rather than just outright criminalizing it, thus setting it up for yet another defeat by the Supreme Court. Oh, but don’t forget – we’re on a deadline of mid-December, so MPs need to hurry it up. And amidst all of the other testimony around the bill, both for and against, Robert Goguen, the parliamentary secretary, decided to be clever at one point and ask one of the government-friendly witnesses, who had been trafficked into prostitution from Hungary, whether the police bursting in while she was being gang-raped would violate her freedom of expression, since someone said that the bill contravenes that Charter right. And then the nation’s collective heads exploded. Apparently Goguen confuses prostitution with rape (it’s not), trafficking with prostitution (they are not the same and trafficking remains illegal), and because sections around communication and advertising have anything to do with the illegality of rape? It’s so stunningly brain dead that it defies logic how he possibly thought he could have been scoring any points with it. Manitoba’s Attorney General thinks that the Nordic Model is great, but the current bill has problems and he doesn’t want to see any sex workers criminalised, not that criminalising their clients actually makes them any safer since it drives them underground regardless.