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: First Nations
Roundup: A good kid
Correctional Services’ own reports show that Omar Khadr is a “good kid,” non-radicalised and highly compliant, but that hasn’t stopped the government from trying to paint him as a heinous war criminal as they continue to deny journalists’ requests to interview him in prison. It looks more and more like they are trying to protect the narrative about him that they have built up for political cover.
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: CRA takes exception
Things with the CRA seem to be taking a turn for the bizarre as they are getting into a fight with well-known charity Oxfam over the charity’s stated goal of trying to prevent poverty around the world. According to the CRA, that’s not an acceptable goal – they should only try to alleviate poverty, as preventing it might benefit people who are not already poor. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure that one out too. According to CRA, the courts haven’t found that that the risk of poverty is the same as actually being in need, so this splitting of hairs means that they can’t put “prevention” in their purpose statement. And it’s not like this is part of the supposed “crackdown” on charities either – this had to do with a regular process of renewing Oxfam’s non-profit status, but it has been noted that Jason Kenney singled them out earlier in the year over their opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Why the CRA would play petty politics for any minister – especially one that they don’t report to – sounds a little too odd, but this whole situation is just so strange that it will invite conspiracy theory.
Roundup: Funerals and personal trainers
Mike Duffy’s charge sheet has been released, which gives us a few more details about the 31 charges he is now facing. Some of those include the contract he gave to a friend for little or no work, of which some of those funds were funnelled elsewhere – including to a make-up artist and personal trainer – and that some of the claimed expenses were to attend funerals or other such ceremonies. Duffy of course denies any wrongdoing. Here is an updated timeline of the whole expenses scandal in the Senate.
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: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.
Roundup: Conservative senators see looming crisis
Wouldn’t you know it, but Conservative senators are pressuring Stephen Harper to start making some new Senate appointments as the current number of vacancies is at eleven, and will be at 17 by the end of the year – almost a fifth of the Chamber. The lack of membership means committees are starting to be affected, and provinces are losing a good portion of their representation, which is a problem. And despite what Hugh Segal says, the Prime Minister actually does have a constitutional obligation to make appointments, and if he doesn’t, he risks triggering a constitutional crisis because he would be in breach of his duties. He certainly has options when it comes to how he makes appointments, especially because of the cloud he’s put himself under by making irresponsible choices in the past (because he was petulant and refused to make appointments until his hand was forced, it should be said), but they need to be made, sooner than later. I did hear from some sources that with the Supreme Court appointment issue out of the way, he could spend the summer making Senate appointments, but I guess we’ll see if that bears fruit. I recently wrote about this very looming crisis here.