The Dominion - surveillance

Online Privacy and the Police

Tim McSorley — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:17:12 +0000

Tory government pulls controversial online security bills, but concerns remain

VICTORIA—It won’t be long before Canadian privacy laws regarding telecommunications come under attack again. These laws apply to technologies everyone relies on—from cell phones to the Internet. And as seen before, the federal government is likely to soon change them in a push towards facilitating online surveillance of individuals’ lives. If the government succeeds, it would mean online monitoring could be done without a warrant and other impingements on Canadians’ rights to privacy.

When parliament started with a Conservative majority in fall 2011, many privacy rights experts and advocated worried that the Conservative were going to push for “Lawful Access” measures in the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10. These measures, which failed to pass the last parliament, would change the rules around what the state can and cannot monitor. They’re designed to expedite the passing of a variety of laws, from raising mandatory minimum sentences, to harsher sentencing for young offenders, and even providing victims of terrorism the right to sue for compensation.

Canada’s Federal Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, supported by many Provincial Privacy Commissioners opposed the “Lawful Access” measures in an open letter, dated October 26, 2011, to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Mr. William V. Baker. After outlining how the new laws would “make it easier for the state to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny,” Stoddart went on to point out that there is a lack of evidence to support those measures.

“At no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning to suggest that CSIS or any other Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings attributable to current law, [telecommunications service providers] or the manner in which they operate,” she wrote.

Stoddart wasn’t alone in the mobilization against “Lawful Access”. Many NDP government critics penned letters condemning the proposed laws, and grassroots groups such as Openmedia.ca opened a petition, “Stop Online Spying”, that was signed by more than 70,000 Canadians.

The “Lawful Access” provisions, however, were in the end removed from the omnibus crime bill before it was formally tabled in September. But even though they aren’t currently up for consideration, many critics believe they will undoubtedly return to the table. Whether they are to be reintroduced with or without changes remains uncertain.

The “Lawful Access” measures were first introduced in the 40th parliament in November 2010 via three complimentary internet crime bills, designed to tighten governance of Canada’s cyberspace: Bill C-50, Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-51 Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; and Bill C-52, Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act.

Looking at the bigger picture, the government was presenting each new item of Internet law as a stand-alone policy necessary to “modernize” telecommunications (ie, the Internet) in a bid to hide the interlocking nature of what is emerging: each new law, once passed, sets the stage for the next, facilitating unprecedented powers to implement mass online surveillance.

To begin, let’s look at some of the “modernization” items included in Bill C-51, The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. Firstly, the bill has been crafted to take advantage of technological developments in order to extend surveillance powers. For example, if a warrant to secretly install a tracking device is obtained, this legislation “upgrades” its use to permit an officer to take advantage of the tracking capabilities installed in some cell phones and vehicles by allowing their remote activation. Then, there are changes in terminology within existing laws, such as the replacement of out-dated vocabulary like “telephone” and “pager” with an umbrella term, “telecommunication device.” The new term is intended to be vague enough to include current and future technological developments, covering all possibilities of surveillance in ways never imagined before the technology came along and anticipating the seamless integration of ever newer and more robust capabilities.

Reflecting the desire of authorities to have the ability to track and contain information in a timely fashion, C-51 also includes new data retention and retrieval powers in the form of Preservation Demands and Preservation Orders directed at Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs). Preservation Demands may be made by police officers, and judges authorize Preservation Orders. The purpose of both Preservation Demands and Orders is temporary: to preserve data on file to ensure it is not deleted or altered while waiting for a search warrant or a Production Order, which is yet another new tool.

Production Orders are like search warrants, but instead of requiring officers to physically search and seize equipment and data, the individual or business entity on the receiving end of a Production Order must obtain and deliver the requested information to the authorities. The information obtained in a Production Order, is historical, which includes anything the TSP has available in data storage at the time. However, requests for “real-time” data, in other words, information that can be captured or recorded as events unfold, do require a warrant. Furthermore, in an aside comment in the legislative summary, Production Orders are viewed as tools specifically designed to obtain information from other countries, which indicates reciprocal agreements between countries are in effect.

Moving on, one of the main concerns around Bill C-52 is the legitimization of warrantless wiretapping. This is the concern of Bill C-52, which concentrates on TSPs obligations to upgrade and retrofit infrastructure to enable data reporting to policing authorities. The bill provides extensive lists of fines and punishments if TSPs do not comply. The most invasive point of compliance in the proposed legislation is the creation of a new class of authorities, to whom the TSPs must supply information. The Commissioner of the RCMP, the Director of CISIS, the Commissioner of Competition, and any head of a police force constituted under the laws of a province may appoint such individuals who are “designated” to ask for such information, but the number of officers authorized with these new powers cannot total more than 5% of a policing agency. Interestingly, C-52 also establishes a new class of administrator whose role is to verify whether the TSPs have complied with the Act: they can test, investigate, search, examine, and print or reproduce any information at any telecommunications facility, all without a warrant, except when the facility is located in a personal residence.

If Bill C-52 becomes legal reality, TSPs have 18 months to fulfill their obligations and install the appropriate software to facilitate these measures and must submit a status report outlining their progress within the first 30 days. Smaller service providers (less than 100,000 subscribers) need only provide a physical access point to conduct interceptions. In the past, opponents to “Lawful Access,” speculated costly upgrades Canadian TSPs will have to undergo to enable their transformation into surveillance state tools might derail the legislation, but Bill C-52 stipulates government assistance will be provided to help integrate surveillance technology for newly “deputized” TSPs.

In anticipation of the government’s current move, Canadian TSPs actually began writing into their service agreements the right to disclose customer information, should they be required by law to do so, as early as 2006. Indeed, elements of “Lawful Access-like” cyber-legislation already exist in current copyright and privacy bills.

Recently, at a September 2011 press conference announcing Bill C-11 (previously Bill C-32), The Copyright Modernization Act, evidence of the current capacity to retain users’ data and identify content was offered by Bell Canada representatives, who discussed past incidents of having to turn over some of their customers’ IP addresses to investigators.

In the same month, Bell Canada, Videotron, and Cogeco were hit with a court order to provide the IP addresses of customers who had violated copyright by downloading pirated copies of The Hurt Locker. The movie was released a year ago, in October 2010, and the first American copyright court cases emerged last May, with Canadian court orders served in September. Whether Bell is capable of retaining its users’ data for the entire year the movie was available, or if limited storage capacities affected the amount of data they have on their users, is unclear. What is certain is that changes to Canada’s copyright laws will undoubtedly benefit from the pending expansion of online investigative capacities.

Another “Lawful Access” puzzle piece has recently turned up in the form of an amendment to a law originally written to protect the online privacy of business transactions, The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), passed in 2000. The proposed amendment has been compared to the U.S. Patriot Act. It allows companies, of their own volition, to hand over personal files to the authorities without a warrant and, if the authorities deem it necessary, they may also be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement to keep the individual in question in the dark.The specific circumstances under which some companies may consider it necessary to hand over personal information is unclear, but presumptions of illegal behaviour are undoubtedly a factor.

The range of bills by which personal information can be disclosed without judicial oversight demonstrates an alarming trend in the government’s disrespect for privacy standards. Critics need to expand the parameters of analysis to reveal the larger pattern, but targeting the re-introduction of Bills C-51 and 52 is a start. As Lindsay Pinto, spokesperson with Openmedia.ca reflects, “Public pressure knocked online spying out of the omnibus though, and it seems to be delaying the release of the bills—we at OpenMedia.ca are still confident that Canadians can convince [Public Safety Minister] Toews to do the right thing and adjust the legislation to include comprehensive internal controls, clear oversight from the courts, meaningful deterrents, and a system of enforcement.”

Kimberly Croswell is a freelancer who lives on
traditional Lekwungen Territory in in Victoria, BC. Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

online spying

Political policing in Montreal

Tim McSorley — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:59:57 +0000

Human rights complaints filed against Montreal police’s GAMMA squad

MONTREAL—The creation of a new police squad meant to monitor anarchist and marginal political groups is raising serious questions about the politicization of the police in Montreal. At least four organizations have objected to the formation of the unit dubbed GAMMA, and two have filed official complaints with human rights and ethics commissions since the public became aware of the unit in May.

“This squad is really a new kind of political police to fight against social movements,” said Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, a spokesperson for the Association for Student Union Solidarity (ASSE). The student coalition, one of the groups filing complaints, saw three of its executive members and one other student member arrested by the GAMMA squad this summer.

The GAMMA unit was formed in January 2011 as an adjunct to the Montreal Police Force's Organized Crime Unit. According to their website, the unit uses tactics developed to monitor mafia and street gangs in order to keep tabs on political activists.

GAMMA's existence came to light last spring in an article published in the Journal de Montreal following the arrest of several activists in their homes in relation to two separate incidents. In response, two groups, the ASSE and the Coalition against Repression and Police Brutality (CRAP), filed complaints with the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

The complainants allege that GAMMA’s mandate contravenes Section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to peaceful demonstration, without distinction based on race, religion or political conviction. In response to the complaints, the Montreal Police Service (SPVM) issued a statement proclaiming “full and unconditional support” for the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms, but maintained police must act to prevent crime and maintain public order.

Last March, members of ASSE participated in an occupation of the offices of Quebec Minister of Finance Raymond Bachand in opposition to tuition fee hikes. It wasn't until July that the GAMMA squad proceeded to arrest four people for their involvement. Three ASSE executives are facing charges of mischief, aggression, and break and enter. “There is nothing criminal in our intentions or actions,” said Nadeau-Dubois, who maintains that the arrests were politically motivated.

In a separate case, the GAMMA squad arrested four demonstrators in late June, this time in relation to a confrontation between police and protesters at an anti-capitalist march on May 1. Accounts differ as to what actually happened at the march. Police claim they were attacked by a group of 15 protesters with wooden and metal sticks, and pelted with projectiles. Demonstrators say police on horseback charged a crowd of parents and children who were there in the hopes of limiting police aggression. Approximately ten minutes after splitting the march in two, police proceeded to snatch Patrice Legendre, a photographer for the communist newspaper Partisan, from the crowd. According to eyewitnesses, a group of protesters pulled him back and a struggle ensued, until police discharged a canister of tear gas and the march continued.

Legendre and three others were arrested at their homes on June 29. It was the first public operation by the GAMMA squad. Nearly 30 officers made the arrests, and the four activists were charged with offenses including assaulting a police officer, assault with a weapon and obstruction of justice. Under their bail conditions they cannot participate in any "non-peaceful" demonstration, carry flags or placards, wear a scarf or carry a backpack at any demonstration.

According to the Partisan, police began monitoring the Maison Norman Bethune bookstore run by the Revolutionary Communist Party following the May 1 march. The interrogations of arrestees were monitored by an investigator from the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), an inter-jurisdictional anti-terrorism group that allows collaboration between CSIS, Canadian Border Security, RCMP, and municipal police. This police intelligence organization was formed as recently as 2010. Attempts were made to link the accused marchers to the detonation of an explosive device outside a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in Trois Rivières, a town 140 kilometres north-east of Montreal, last year, but witnesses failed to identify the accused from photos.

Although no one from the Coalition Against Police Repression has been specifically targeted by the GAMMA squad, the group has filed complaints with both the Human Rights Commission and the police ethics commission. In an interview, Alexandre Popovic, spokesperson for the group, objected to a statement made by Deputy Chief Robinette to the Montreal Gazette, that, "[Anarchists] are using various protests, like those about [police shooting victim] Fredy Villanueva, tuition fee hikes and even St-Jean Baptiste—as a pretext to vandalize, throw projectiles and assault police officers."

“This is just slander,” said Popovic. CRAP has organized several demonstrations in Montreal North for Fredy Vilanueva, a youth killed by police in 2008. "All were peaceful, calm, and no police were ever attacked. So calling them [anarchists] violent did make me angry, because it’s simply not true.” If the GAMMA unit was created to police vandalism at demonstrations as the SPVM has stated, "then why does the acronym translate to ‘Monitor Activities of Marginal Movements and Anarchists?'" he asks.

“CRAP is not a specifically anarchist group, but we do participate in anarchist organized events like lectures and book fairs," said Popovic. "Why should we have to worry that we are being spied on by police, while an extreme right wing organization doesn’t?”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has also weighed in on the activities of the GAMMA squad. In August they sent a letter to the SPVM expressing concern and asking for several clarifications about GAMMA's actions and mandate. “In a democracy, there is no justification for police to target 'anarchists' who commit violence or property damage any more than liberals, conservatives, or socialists,” wrote CCLA counsel general Natalie Desrosiers.

When asked if he were optimistic about whether the Quebec Human Rights Commission or the police ethics commissioner would rule the GAMMA squad to be a violation of the Quebec charter, Popovic was ambivalent. “Police often believe that they can get away with anything, but once in a while the courts will recognize police abuse. Sometimes they get a surprise, ‘Oh shit, I’m guilty.’ So people shouldn’t hesitate to file complaints when they violate our rights.”

Christian MacDonald is a full time cook, a part time writer, and an ideological freelancer. He’s from Cape Breton, and currently lives in Montreal.

Montreal riot cops

Cameras, Cops and Crime

dawn — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:43:08 +0000

Police, business and the city of Peterborough collude for more closed-circuit television cameras

PETERBOROUGH—Even though surveillance cameras seem to be everywhere these days, their effectiveness in ensuring safety and lowering crime rates is still contested. That debate is heating up in Peterborough, Ontario, where city council recently considered joining the ranks of other medium-sized cities in Ontario that have installed closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras.

On Monday, June 20, the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Service made a presentation to the Peterborough city council, requesting support for a plan to install 12 closed-circuit television security cameras in the downtown core. The following week, council debated the request, which would see the initial cost of the cameras be provided by a Civil Remedies Grant Program from the Ontario Attorney General's office.

On top of the initial $150,000 grant, the proposal would require the city to shell out an additional $5,000 each year for continued operation of a system that opponents and even some of its backers admit may not prevent crime.

A number of other medium-sized municipalities, such as Cornwall, Belleville and Barrie have already installed CCTV cameras with funds from the same grant, and it is expected that other towns and cities will follow suit. The city of Barrie, which only has six cameras, spends double what Peterborough proposes to spend on the operation and maintenance of its cameras.

Despite the increasingly widespread use of this surveillance technology in Ontario, Peterborough residents are questioning the value of being watched around the clock. Some of these opponents are concerned about the general privacy implications of such cameras, making reference to the dystopian police-state vision of author George Orwell.

Other concerns are much more immediate, like those of one Peterborough homeowner who asked to remain anonymous. She noted that in her experience working at a women’s clinic in another city, cameras near the clinic became a barrier to women accessing important services. Similar services, such as the Kawartha Sexual Assault Center, are located in Peterborough's downtown core, and she is concerned that such services may be forced to move to more inaccessible locations if the cameras are installed.

Some backers of the plan appear to be banking on the cameras' ability to simply displace crime and other "antisocial behaviour" to other less-visible areas of town. Councillor Bill Juby stated that pushing crime out of the downtown core and over to the next street would be a good start.

This seemed to spark some outrage in the packed council hall, with one attendee shouting that he lived on that next street. The approval came despite 13 presentations opposed to the cameras, and only two in favour.

The two people who spoke in favour of more cameras downtown were both board members of the Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA). In A Report on Camera Surveillance in Canada, prepared by the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queens University, it was found that local Business Improvement Associations are largely responsible for the proliferation of cameras, with the political impetus and funding often coming from them.

The same report found “camera surveillance has never been extensively debated as a national policy issue.” What doesn't happen nationally, however, is unfolding on the local level, as illustrated by events in Peterborough.

In an interview, Paul Raino of the Peterborough DBIA stated that "people shouldn’t be overly concerned” about being watched by cameras, noting the “international dangers out there.”

While acknowledging that the cameras will likely not act as a deterrent to crime, Raino thinks that they are a good idea, saying that the DBIA stands behind the idea in order to “support the police.”

According to Peterborough Police Chief Murray Rodd, the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Service made the request to city council on behalf of the DBIA, though he denied that the police were doing the bidding of business at the expense of other communities. Rodd maintained that regardless of the concerns brought up in regards to the system, “New tools will always help the police do their job.”

Redge Smith, who works in Peterborough's downtown core and attended the meeting at city hall, disagrees, arguing that these tools will be disproportionately used against marginalized communities. When interviewed a few weeks after the council debate, he also spoke of the lack of consultation with people who may be impacted, including downtown residents, people who work downtown, the homeless and others who shop and visit the downtown area.

The report given to city council is endorsed only by the police and the DBIA, and indicates no other consultation.

“There is a shockingly transparent partnership between political power in the city, businesses and the police,” said Smith. The money could be much better spent to address underlying causes of crime, says Smith, such as poverty and marginalization. “Instead, it is being used to watch us.”

Matthew Davidson is a community organizer based in Peterborough, Ontario.

Surveillance

First Nations Under Surveillance

Martin Lukacs — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:00:00 +0000

Harper government prepares for Native “unrest"

TORONTO—Internal documents from Indian Affairs and the RCMP show that shortly after being elected in January of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the federal government intensify the gathering and sharing of intelligence on First Nations. This was done so that the government could anticipate and manage potential First Nation unrest across Canada.

Documents obtained by Access to Information requests reveals that almost immediately upon taking power in 2006, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was given the lead role to spy on First Nations. The goal was to identify the leaders, participants and outside supporters of First Nation occupations and protests, and then to closely monitor their actions.

To accomplish this task, INAC established a "Hot Spot Reporting System." These weekly reports highlight all those communities across the country that engage in direct action to protect their lands and communities. They include bands from the coast of Vancouver Island to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

What we see in these documents—from the hot spot reports themselves, to the intelligence-sharing between government and security forces—is a closely monitored population of First Nations, who clearly are causing a panic at the highest levels of Canadian bureaucracy and political office.

In 2006, INAC gave the name"hot spots" to those First Nations conflicts of "growing concern" due to "unrest" and increasing "militancy." In a briefing presentation that INAC gave the RCMP that year, they identified certain communities as hotspots: Caledonia, Ontario (Douglas Creek Estates occupation); Belleville, Ontario (Montreal/Toronto Rail Blockade in sympathy to Caledonia); Brantford, Ontario (Grand River Conservation Authority Lands); Desoronto, Ontario (Occupation of Quarry); Grassy Narrows (Blockade of Trans Canada Hwy by environmentalists); and Maniwaki, Quebec (Blockade of Route 117).

But the "hot spot binder" prepared each week by INAC officials closely monitors any and all action taking place across the country and names dozens more communities as sources of potential unrest. A particular concern of the federal government is that these "hotspots" are unpredictable. ‘Hotspot’ protests are generally led by what the federal government labels "splinter groups" of "Aboriginal Extremists." As INAC describes in the same presentation to the RCMP:

Incidents led by splinter groups are arguably harder to manage as they exist outside negotiation processes to resolve recognized grievances with duly elected leaders. We seek to avoid giving standing to such splinter groups so as not to debase the legally recognized government. Incidents are also complicated by external groups such as Warrior Societies or non-Aboriginal counter-protest groups.

Telling in the INAC statement above is that the identified protests are "outside of negotiation processes" with elected councils. Canada is clearly spooked by the spectre of First Nations demanding Crown recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, as well as Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, beyond the narrow confines of Crown land claims and self-government policies. These so-called "splinter" groups also threaten the status quo by demanding their own First Nation leaders, staff and advisors to pull out of the compromising negotiations

Judging from the INAC briefing to the RCMP, Indian Affairs now operates less as an institution of reconciliation and negotiation and more as a management office to control the costs of Native unrest.

In addition to hotspot reporting, the Deputy Ministers of Public Safety Emergency Preparedness Canada and INAC directed that a summer operational plan be prepared in 2006 to deal with Aboriginal occupations and protests. A progress report on the operational plan reveals the blueprint for security integration on First Nations issues.

The Standing Information Sharing Forum, for example, is chaired by the RCMP and includes as its members the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Department of Fisheries, Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transportation Canada, and involves weekly conference calls and continuous information dissemination by INAC to its partners.

The inclusion of these government departments at the Information Sharing Forum should also alert us to the commercial threat of Aboriginal resistance to the free trade agenda.

Aboriginal people who are defending their lands are now treated on a spectrum from criminals to terrorists. Under Harper, an intensification of intelligence gathering and surveillance procedures now govern the new regime.

Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy

The reports mention "Warrior Societies" and an "illicit agenda" referring at several points to concerns around smuggling. The federal government deems the tobacco/cigarette trade as "illicit" because Canada is not getting paid taxes by the Mohawks who are operating the businesses.

However, the 1995 federal Aboriginal Self-Government policy, which was developed unilaterally by the federal government, does not allow First Nations to share jurisdiction with government over trade and commerce matters. The federal self-government policy only allows small business operations on-reserve. Historically, the federal government has used the Indian Act to control and manage on-reserve economic development to prevent adversarial competition with surrounding non-Indian businesses and towns. For example, On the prairies, First Nations agriculture was undermined and led to the failure of farming on-reserve because of complaints from non-Indians. This policy of non-competition is still the reality today.

The federal government is particularly concerned about the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy actions at Caledonia. As the INAC 2006 report describes it:"Caledonia was and remains a significant event in risk management."

The RCMP agree. In a 2007 report to CSIS, they state: "Caledonia continues to serve as a beacon on land claims and Aboriginal rights issues across Canada."

The Canadian government is extremely worried about First Nations taking back lands and resources outside the scope of their one-sided land claims and self-government "negotiation processes," as was done at Kanenhstaton/Caledonia.

In order to contain the situation, the Crown governments have dispatched hard-nosed, experienced negotiators who have presented fixed negotiating positions from the Harper government, which is likely why there hasn't been any negotiated resolution of the situation at Kanenhstaton/Caledonia to this date. The Crown government obviously remains worried more lands will be "occupied" by the Six Nations "extremist" "splinter groups."

Ever since the 1990 stand-off in Kanesatake and Kahnawake, the federal government, the security and police agencies, and the Canadian army have been worried about a repeat of coordinated First Nation political actions across Canada.

The 2007 National Day Of Action

Specific information about policing First Nations was obtained in a series of Access to Information requests about the AFN National Day of Action that took place on June 29th, 2007. A 2007 RCMP brief to CSIS lays out a number of concerns regarding the National Day of Action. The RCMP were mainly concerned with protecting their men and women in uniform from First Nations protesters who confronted the police on the front lines. They were also concerned, by the bad public relations that might result from a particularly heavy handed approach to protesters at the event: "The often disparate and fractured nature of these events can lead the police to become the proverbial meat in the sandwich and the subject of negative public sentiment."

The RCMP also show concern that a lack of coordination, or "a fractured and inconsistent approach" by police forces, could "galvanize Nations throughout Canada." In response, cooperation between departments, security forces, and ministries are deemed to be necessary to provide a strong united front against First Nations protest.

The RCMP also caution that "Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal extremists often see these events as an opportunity to escalate or agitate the conflict." By inference, we can guess that they may be referring to groups unaffiliated with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), unwilling to negotiate under Crown policies, or prepared to engage in tactics not sanctioned by the official leadership, such as property destruction and armed conflict. Non-Aboriginal groups are also cited here as potentially threatening, giving credence to recent targeting of G20 "ringleaders" who feel their Indigenous solidarity work has made them targets of the Crown and police forces.

Cost is a serious concern to the RCMP as well. The price tag for policing these nation-wide events is "exorbitant" and therefore can lead to rash policing decisions where force is used in order to bring a quick end to conflicts. The economic risks of blockades are themselves potentially catastrophic. As the RCMP warn, "The recent CN strike represents the extent in which a national railway blockade could effect the economy of Canada."

The RCMP also express this curious concern: "The police role may be complicated by the conventional and sometimes political view that there is a clear distinction between policy and police operations." Clearly, where the distinction slips between police and policy roles, the RCMP become simply Indian Agents, carrying out the colonial work of the department. Given the information disclosed here, this distinction is impossible to maintain. Where police intimidate and arrest Indigenous peoples on their own lands, there is no law on the police's side.

There is also a considerable public relations issue at stake here. The RCMP displayed concern at the potential fall-out of a number of "perception" problems that could befall the forces:

Perception of a two-tiered approach to enforcement can generate significant criticism and motivate non-Aboriginal activists.

An intense and protracted event may lead to long-standing erosion of relationships for the police and the community—they are usually always the victims.

Because there are limitations on what the police can negotiate and success often depends on others, the role of the police can become frustrating.

It appears as though the RCMP realize to some extent that they must choose between First Nations approval of their policing tactics and the wrath of a public convinced that blockades are criminal, rather than political acts. The police, however, contrary to their assertions, are not the victims here. They are just the dupes in a much older game of cowboys and Indians.

The above RCMP statements show that even with federal financial and managerial control over First Nation Chiefs and Leaders, the same Chiefs and Leaders were still not trusted by the federal government.

One insight emerges strongly here: most threatening of all to security and government forces is coordinated First Nations action. At one point in the 2007 INAC to RCMP briefing, concern is expressed about a First Nations conference because, "The 2006 Numbered Treaty Conference proposed a 'national' movement of independent actions to express discontent."

The concern is obvious in the documents where the government follows the trajectory of the Day of Action. It was first proposed by Chief Terrance Nelson at the Assembly of First Nations' general assembly, where the motion carried. After having been approved at the AFN general assembly the nation-wide day of action was later confirmed in a personal meeting between the RCMP Commissioner and then-National Chief Phil Fontaine. "Mr. Fontaine expressed his concern over the sense of frustration that seems to exist among First Nation leaders and the growing resolve to support a June 29th blockade," a memo states.

The growing unrest, of course, cannot be resolved through greater coordination of security and government forces. First Nation frustration with this strategy will only continue to mount.

Crown Reward-Punishment System Divides Leaders and People

If coordinated action gets the goods, special attention must be paid to the government’s particular interest in "splinter" groups.

Under Canada’s colonial system, the struggle for Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, Aboriginal and Treaty rights has historically been undermined by First Nations who cooperated with the Crown government turning in those members of First Nations who were resisting the Crown’s colonial system.

Over time this evolved into the Crown dividing First Nations into the "progressive" Indian Bands and the backward or "traditional" Indian Bands. Through its various Indian Affairs departments the federal government developed an approach to reward the "progressive' Indians and punish the "traditional" Indians.

This federal reward-punishment approach still exists, although the "Indian Agents" have been replaced by Band Councils who now do the job of delivering Crown programs and services to their community members. Funding for Band Councils and other First Nation organizations’ is tightly controlled by the federal government’s bureaucracy through a system of legislation, policies, terms and conditions.

The First Nations Chiefs and Leaders who become more known and prominent are largely the individuals who have been trained and supported by federal bureaucrats. These individuals become known for their seeming ability to get federal funding for First Nations’ projects.

However, many of these individuals depend on federal support to advance their political careers. This is the reward system at work. Those Chiefs and Leaders who do not cooperate with the federal government often have their funding requests ignored or given less precedence. In some circumstances the federal government will even support "splinter" groups to take out the offending Chief or Leader. A current prominent example of this is the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in Western Quebec, but this also occurred historically at the Six Nations Grand River Territory.

The INAC and RCMP documents make it clear that while the Canadian State Security Apparatus is concerned by "splinter" groups, they are also apprehensive even when dealing with the current Aboriginal establishment. The reports indicate a belief that Chiefs and Leaders from Indian Act Band Councils and First Nation establishment organizations like AFN and their Provincial/Territorial Organizations have the potential to become Aboriginal "extremists."

What the INAC and RCMP briefings show is that there needs to be unity on the ground with coordinated political actions between First Nations Peoples in order to protect, defend and advance First Nation pre-existing sovereignty, and First Nation Aboriginal and Treaty rights to lands and resources. Divide and conquer tactics can only be met with new strategies of alliance-building, and by bringing the leadership back down to the land.

Russell Diabo is a member of the Mohawk Nation at Kahnawake, Quebec, and a policy advisor. Shiri Pasternak is a Toronto-based writer, researcher and organizer. An earlier version of this article appeared in the Mediacoop.ca and the First Nations Strategic Bulletin.

Barriere Lake riot police

Fear: An Olympic Legacy

Moira Peters — Fri, 28 May 2010 05:21:09 +0000

How the security apparatus rules our world

Watch Yourself: Why Safer Isn’t Always Better
Matt Hern
New Star Books: Vancouver, 2007

ROME, ITALY—East Vancouver author Matt Hern wasn’t talking about Vancouver’s 2010 Olympic Games when he penned Watch Yourself: Why Safer Isn’t Always Better several years ago, but he may as well have been.

Indeed, the book should have been required reading for each security agency linked to the three levels of government as it contemplated delivering a “safe and secure” Winter Olympics without descending into total security hysteria. Alas, the book never made the must-read list of the Integrated Security Unit (ISU), the organization created by the RCMP to coordinate Games security.

The ISU’s mandate, at least as they understood it, was to ensure that absolutely nothing could go wrong during the Olympics and Paralympics. The ISU began by considering possible “threats” based on the evaluations of the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC) of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS). ITAC identified three key concerns: foreign-inspired terrorism, crime, and domestic protests—and pretty much in that order. However, long before the Games had arrived, the order had shifted and the fear of protest became paramount. Vocal critics of the Olympics found themselves followed, monitored, surveilled, visited, and, in more than a few cases, intimidated and threatened by undercover ISU agents.

In the end, nearly $1 billion was spent on Games security; thousands of police from across the country patrolled Vancouver and thousands more soldiers patrolled cold, wet, mountain slopes. Close-circuit cameras (CCTV) in the downtown core monitored people 24 hours a day and the city and province passed egregious laws that violated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And despite all of this, the authorities could not, or chose not to prevent the breaking of a few Hudson’s Bay windows during the second day of the protests.

In hindsight, it all sounds ridiculous. And it was. Any half-bright ISU agent (and there were a few) or any Vancouver Police Department deputy chief could have done a more realistic assessment of the real threats and responded appropriately—and far more parsimoniously—by realizing that the assessment itself was badly overblown. The massive preparations were so over-the-top and out-of-proportion that the entire plan should have been significantly scaled back.

But nothing was scaled back. All threats were considered massive and the response even more so.

Indeed, the state of mind that sees anything and everything as a potential threat is precisely the subject of Watch Yourself. And Hern’s book taps into they ways we respond when we let fear rule our world. This mindset dictates that kids need to be safeguarded from being kids; forget protecting your child from playground equipment and strangers, we need intrusive policing and scores of cameras to keep them safe. We need constant surveillance for our own safety, and adults need to have their habits controlled for their own good too. We have become, in effect, the perfect example of the ultimate security state that is ruled, not by a dark authoritarian presence, but by our own fears. And, one might say, such fears enable and nurture the apparatus that feigns security.

Although Hern did not address the Olympic madness—the five ring circus—his book foreshadows the mentality of a security-obsessed society. “l’d say that the Olympics were a monumental exercise in total securitization,” he told me over the phone after the Vancouver Organizing Committee shut up shop and left town. “Not just the billion-dollar, multi-layered policing effort, nor the sea of CCTVs, nor the endless security guards, nor the reaction to protest, nor the bewildering array of security agencies from all over the globe...” a point well made, I thought, “but all these in combination and the willingness of our elected officials and civic leaders to mobilize a huge swath of citizens—city workers, volunteers, bus drivers, garbage collectors, the media—into a comprehensive exercise in discipline and abhorrence of anything not officially corporatized and cleansed.”

In barely a few breaths, Hern had summarized the detriments of the 2010 Winter Games and pin-pointed its greatest legacy: fear.

He continued: “The effort largely succeed[ed] in moving huge chunks of capital from the common wealth into privatized hands and continued to cleanse the city of working class, radical, alternative and affordable possibilities by insisting on a relentlessly ‘safe,’ contained, controlled, clean and tourist-slash-investor friendly ethic where nothing out of order is permitted.”

I write this from Rome, a city that is alive in ways that Vancouver may never be in spite of the aching need to feel world-class. Indeed, much of this angst drove the Olympic venture from the beginning. While we still debate the role of police in Canadian society and worry that kids might fall off the jungle gym, here in Rome kids play outside unsupervised and wander into bars with their parents while people picnic with wine in full view of the constabulary. And who could care less? The streets are filled with people day and night, drunk and sober, happy and sad. Romans have not yet let their fear blind them to the possibilities of being human—a vista that is remarkably refreshing coming from “no fun” Vancouver.

Maybe if we listened to Hern (or simply heeded our own better instincts) and accepted that some risk is the price for being human, we can escape our self-imposed state of fear, a state that is not only sterile, but also soul-destroying.

Chris Shaw is a Vancouver-based neuroscientist, academic and author. He wrote Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, published in 2008 by New Society Publishers.

For a recent example of Canada's security apparatus at work, see the Vancouver Media Co-op's latest coverage of protests and police response at the G8 University Summit in Vancouver over the weekend. Check out the Vancouver Observer's case-in-point of security using fear at these protests.

Watch Yourself

Smile, Vancouver!

dawn — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:00:23 +0000

Nearly 1,000 new surveillance cameras are here to stay

VANCOUVER—When the last of the Olympic athletes ski, skate and slide out of town, Vancouverites will be left with an unexpected legacy: 970 cameras.

“Security investment always leaves a good legacy of security for the country,” International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge told media gathered last February in Whistler, marking the one year countdown to the Games.

The security bill for the Olympics is expected to reach the $1 billion mark. A March 2009 Vancouver city report includes the total cost of installing Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems. The Vancouver 2010-Integrated Security Unit (V2010-ISU) will pay $2.1 million, in addition to the $435,000 the province is contributing. But all costs do not appear on the balance sheet. There are also social costs, such as the diminished personal privacy in public spaces.

In March 2009, Philip Boyle and Kevin Haggerty from the University of Alberta, published a report about surveillance and the Vancouver Olympics.

“Public officials occasionally use the pretext of the Olympics to introduce forms of surveillance that the public might oppose in any other context, capitalizing on the fact that in anticipation of the Games citizens tend to be more tolerant of intrusive security measures,” wrote Boyle and Haggerty in Privacy Games: The Vancouver Olympics, Privacy, and Surveillance.

The apparent acceptance of increased surveillance is something that requires a sober second thought, according to Adrienne Burk, professor in Sociology and Anthropology at Simon Fraser University.

“It’s important to ask ourselves what happens socially when we set up this kind of system of monitoring,” she told The Dominion. “Does the presence of cameras transmitting our images to unknown viewers help us know our neighbors better, or less well? Is there an increase in fear and suspicion, or in feelings of community and safety? We have to be careful when cameras are introduced for one reason, but left in place, or re-deployed for another, without these contextual conversations taking place.”

Although the Vancouver city report Privacy Games: The Vancouver Olympics, Privacy, and Surveillance points to the cruise ship terminal and entertainment district as key areas the cameras will be installed, the City of Vancouver and the V2010-ISU have not been specific regarding locations for all CCTV systems.

“Approximately 900 CCTV security cameras [have been] installed at venues for the Winter Games with another 50-70 CCTV security cameras installed in the urban domain," states the report. "The urban domain consists of areas where the public gather outside a venue,” reads the V2010-ISU's website.

The urban domains have been dubbed "Safe Assembly Areas" by the ISU. These are areas, also known as "Free Speech Zones," or "Protest Pens," where people are allowed to engage in lawful protest.

Minimal research has been conducted on the number of surveillance cameras that currently exist in the Downtown area. A collaborative effort between the Vancouver Public Space Network and the Simon Fraser University Surveillance Project aims to change that.

Late in August, volunteers set out to count and record the locations of cameras they could spot on city streets and alleyways.

“Surveillance cameras are distributed primarily in focused local areas or higher end shopping areas,” David Eby, Executive Director of BC Civil Liberties Association told The Dominion in a telephone interview.

Eby calls attention to the irony of the scenario of increased cameras in Vancouver. “You end up with a paradoxical situation where low income and middle income neighborhoods essentially, financially and logistically, facilitate the displacement of crime into their neighborhoods.”

People who are engaged in so-called “undesirable activities” such as panhandling in shopping districts like Robson Street or Gastown, may end up being displaced from public spaces as a result of security cameras that business owners argue are necessary in order to increase consumer confidence.

BC Civil Liberties has received confirmation from the ISU that no new cameras will be installed in the Downtown Eastside, an area of Vancouver that is the poorest off-reserve postal code in Canada.

The Carnegie Community Action Project (CCAP) identified some of the the problems with CCTV back in 1999 when it challenged the VPD’s efforts to install cameras in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

“Cameras do not provide employment or housing opportunities... Rather than targeting business-operators or landlords who take advantage of poverty and addictions, [the use of CCTV] focuses on the behavior of those individuals who do not fit the expectations or mores of the camera monitors,” their report states.

Ten years later, the CCAP report is still relevant to the concerns about the social costs of these cameras in the context of the Olympics and the Downtown Eastside.

Andrew Pask, director of the Vancouver Public Space Network, cautions that CCTV cameras should only be seen as a “tool of last resort.”

The pattern of Olympic cities, including Athens, Turin, and Beijing, has been to retain surveillance cameras after the Games.

The City of Vancouver has admitted the $435,000 worth of cameras will not be temporary, but part of a “redeployable unit.”

“You know, witnessing has always been a fundamental aspect of democracy, involving actors, observers, and recording of incidents,” professor Burk indicates.

“But cameras complicate that relationship, because the viewers and actors can be removed from each other, and recordings substantively altered," she said, arguing for a public debate before more cameras are installed.

Francesca Galasso is a 4th-year sociology student at Simon Fraser University. She lives in Vancouver.

For up-to-the-minute Olympics resistance coverage, check out the Vancouver Media Co-op, and the Convergence website. Follow the VMC on twitter!

surveillance stencil