Security Agencies And Their Neverending Need For Increased Powers
(...) because something/anything deemed potentially disruptive (even remotely or not at all) to "the safety and security of Canadians or the integrity of Canada's critical infrastructure" may or may not happen, this warrants the full use and deployment of the government's terrorism monitoring apparatus to spy on lawful citizens.This also implies that police and security agencies will ever demand more and more spying powers in order to fullfill their self-ascribed "mission".
Let this reality sink in for a minute or two ... or five ... or ten.
Do you get it now?
This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.
Anything.
From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.
Because any such activities may or may not -immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".
So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.
And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.
I repeat: no one is safe.
Another case in point to consider (emphasis added):
NSA aims to expand power: Eavesdropping agency looks to take over cybersecurityTo recap: a) we are threatened (of course); b) we need more powers to meet these threats; and c) don't worry about abusing such powers - we'll help you make us trust us.
The spy shop that brought you the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program wants to expand its power under President Barack Obama, the nation's top intelligence chief told Congress Wednesday, in a little-noticed intelligence grab.
While acknowledging that many distrust the agency for its role in eavesdropping, Obama Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair said he believed the agency should expand into a permanent role in handling government cybersecurity efforts.
In essence, his agency's move is an effort to take the responsibilities away from the Homeland Security Department. The head of Obama's cybersecurity transition team, Paul Kurtz, said he supports giving the NSA more power in handling cybersecurity.
Blair told a House committee: "The National Security Agency has the greatest repository of cyber talent."
"There are some wizards out there ... who can do stuff," Blair added. "I think that capability should be harnessed and built on."
Some critics have questioned whether the agency is already involved in surveilling domestic e-mail and other correspondence in searching for foreign intelligence threats.
Blair said that foreign countries increasingly post a threat to the US in the cybersecurity realm. The agency, in general, is tasked with foreign intelligence.
"A number of nations, including Russia and China, can disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure," Blair remarked. "Cyber-defense is not a one-time fix; it requires a continual investment."
But he said that the NSA had "two strikes out" for its role in appearing to subvert civil liberties. Many critics say that Bush's wiretapping program was illegal, because taps did not go through proper court channels.
"The NSA is both intelligence and military, two strikes out in terms of the way some Americans think about a body that ought to be protecting their privacy and civil liberties," Blair said.
"I think there is a great deal of distrust of the National Security Agency and the intelligence community in general playing a role outside of the very narrowly circumscribed role because of some of the history of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] issue in years past," he continued. "So I would like the help of people like you who have studied this closely and served on commissions, the leadership of the committee and finding a way that the American people will have confidence in the supervision."
How eerily familiar ...
Does this ring any (alarm) bells to you, folks? It damn well should.
Things are getting worse to that effect indeed in the U.S. Here in Canada, such worsening is catching up all-too-quickly.
Talk about deep integration between Canada and the U.S. ...
And to think that this "next step" in increasing spying powers of the NSA is happening under President Barack Obama.
Meet the new boss fucking indeed.
In parting, allow me to repeat myself thusly:
(...) I remain staunchly opposed to the ludicrous and very dangerous wrong-headed idea that police and security agencies can get any information on us without a court-approved warrant, regardless of whatever reason they want to invoke to justify such blatant violation of civil rights - because police and security agencies will inevitably abuse such vast, indiscriminate powers of domestic spying (examples here and here). It is in their nature to do so.Word to the wise ...
Then again - I told you so, bis repetita, eh?






















police and security agencies will ever demand more and more spying powers in order to fullfill their self-ascribed "mission"
ReplyDeleteYes, they will. And as I've written at my place on a number of occasions, it's entirely predictable behaviour. It's up to our legislators to lay down the boundaries and mean it, to say "This far and no farther or it's you who will end up being punished." I complain about individual lapses on the part of law enforcement and intelligence agents but ongoing and institutional problems with these agencies are the responsibility of our elected officials.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still emphasize (as I've written enough about here) that it all boils down first and foremost to our taking responsibility on such matters - that is how we can then move our elected representatives to act upon theirs ...
In other words - if we don't complain or don't care (or worst: actually approve), then our politicos will invariably interpret this as we approving of their job (or lack thereof).
Hence why we must keep on raising these issues and making noise about them ...