Civilian oversight key to offensive cyber operations??? YEA RIGHT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ALREADY HAVE THAT DUDE.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyber-weapons-canada-1.4164696

Civilian oversight key to offensive cyber operations, says expert

503 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.



Ray Thomas

With Goodale and Trudeau calling the shots, what could possibly go wrong?

David Raymond Amos

@Ray Thomas Truly you jest.

mo bennett

@David Raymond Amos there are those out there that have difficulty recognizing incompetent.

  

mo bennett

who wrote this? you can't use the phrase careful thought in any sort of dialogue that involves this government! can you spell phoenix?

David Raymond Amos

@mo bennett The CSE has been teaching the NSA dirty tricks and helping them for years. Everybody knows that by now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowden-document-shows-canada-set-up-spy-posts-for-nsa-1.2456886

Anyone remember why the Canadian government had to appoint an oh so secretive Commissioner to oversee CSE antics in the first place? Anyone recall when and why I started studying the CSE et al and why I ran in the election of the 38th Parliament? 

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/37-3/NDVA/meeting-8/evidence

Anyone recall how Harper was not long appointing Judge Jean-Pierre Plouffe CSE Commissioner once he was embarrassed in Canada and on the world stage as well? Has anything changed since I ran in the election of the 42nd Parliamnet and sued the Crown as well?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csec-watchdog-muzzled-defanged-greg-weston-1.2462279

 

David Raymond Amos

@David Raymond Amos I can't help but wonder how many times the CSE and their cohorts in the FIVE EYES studied this old blog over the past four years

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2014/03/fwd-re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html

Kate Laurie

@David Raymond Amos That last link doesn't work.

David Raymond Amos

@Kate Laurie I just checked and the links all worked for me

That said just Google David Amos Brazilian Tweets and you will find it

David Raymond Amos

@Ben Hague You, Mo and Murray should study all the comments and links within this thread more closely. That is if any of you are truly serious in what you say.

mo bennett

@David Raymond Amos the government is inept. period. how many examples would you like? how hard is it to understand that concept?

mo bennett

@David Raymond Amos has no impact on the fact this government is inept at everything it touches.

mo bennett

@David Raymond Amos yep, no, not interested, vaguely, nothing will change.

mo bennett

@David Raymond Amos you should truly be serious about what's in your wallet.

  

Fred Stevens

OMG do you know how stupid this sounds? As a programmer of 35 years, "cyber bombs" is just silly and downright uneducated.
"Hacking tools" take advantage of bugs in software, over time, those bugs get fixed, sometimes new ones are created. To have "cyber reservists" to exploit these bugs is really quite a silly thing. Everyone is working hard to FIX bugs, not exploit them.

There is no such thing as a 'cyber bomb', what stupidity, please get educated on even the most basic understanding of TCPIP/sockets/bluetooth and understand how these systems work.

Nothing worse than the "press" spreading fake fear, you job is to educate with real information, not encourage a government to make 'cyber reservists', if you knew what a joke you sound like you'd be embarrassed

Richard Bailey

@Fred Stevens

You might want to check out Stuxnet. Call it a bug or anything else but it was a cyber weapon, was meant to be a cyber weapon and brought down Iran's nuclear program.

Lee Hall

@Fred Stevens
It rationalizes the spending of billions on militarizing the police, financing the military industrial complex and enriching the oligarchy.

The CBC and other corporate media are integral tools in the propaganda message of 'fear'.

Doesn't matter whether it is a corporate establishment 'left wing' or 'right wing' party in power.

Content disabled.

David Raymond Amos

@Lee Hall True but speaking of 'cyber bombing' do you have any idea how many comments CBC deletes on their own accord without any assistance from other questionable Feds?

David Raymond Amos

@David Raymond Amos YO CBC you are way past too late blocking that comment Trust that more that Five Eyes are monitoring this comment section on Father's Day.

David Raymond Amos

@Fred Stevens Actually about 12 years ago I was told of a software program that could damage hardware no kidding.

David Raymond Amos

@Richard Bailey Yup

Joel Whitfield

@Fred Stevens

Yup, I think you're correct about everything you say. I wonder how you got 206 down votes so quickly? Bots? Or perhaps it was a cyber bomb :-)

 

robert williams

The CBC cannot stop the hacking here with the comment section. I imagine posters accounts have already been accessed as well. The problems with the upvote counters going up 100 in a minute was the first sign they had been compromised about a year ago and nothing has been done. So that says the CBC doesn't care or they can't do anything about it. Think about it, what would a hacker or a group of hackers like to get control of. A National News org would be handy.

Kelly Kovach

@robert williams I have noticed too ... crazy ... and I don't think it was even the "trolls" whether Lib or Con ... I least I don't hope so ...

Joseph Swonsin

@robert williams

Your example is not "hacking". There was no process of discovery or improvement involved. Hacking is not changing a +/- counter or accessing a user's account on a system you already control.

Mike Trout

All the better for the Trudeau/Liberal Regime™ to keep an eye on its "subjects".

ABL 2019

Gil Jenkins

@Roger Reed CBC does not control the comment moderation or likes. My guess would be that the above poster downloaded a generic " like bot " and either it's flawed or not being set up properly and can't be removed.. I had adware on my PC that kept reinstalling itself every time I rebooted. The hidden file that re installed the adware was difficult to find but once removed, solved the problem.

David Raymond Amos 

@Gil Jenkins Actually months ago I called the CBC legal dept and asked them who moderated their comment sections. Even though the lawyers tried to play dumb they did allude to some outside company that I was sniffing around already. So I called that company as well. That company did not admit it rt deny it and tried hard to play even dumber than the CBC lawyers if that is possible. The aforementioned company and the CBC lawyers would not answer my emails with my questions on the topic either. Hence I guess I will find out I byway of the Crown Counsel i am already arguing in Federal Court because he sent me a wickedly funny letter recently claiming that he does not appreciate my talking to other Crown counsels. Too too funny indeed.

Ray Slin

@David Raymond Amos

Cool story bro

Robert Alan

Murray, Murray, Murray. Russia didn't annex Ukraine. The people of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia as the majority of the population are ethnic Russians - thus saving themselves from being part of the US inspired overthrow of an elected government and the resulting violence.

Richard Sharp

@Robert Alan

It is shocking how sloppy CBC gets, both live and online. Demonizing Russia in seeming perpetuity regardless of circumstances is Exhibit One.

David Raymond Amos

@Robert Alan True

David Raymond Amos

@Richard Sharp I agree I must add that it is getting rather embarrassing knowing that my meager tax dollars are supporting such obvious malicious nonsense.

 
Cyrus Manz

!!!!.....And just as important, it is a must for the federal government to define "what the cyber weapon will do [and] under what circumstances.....!!!!!

and THERE lies the problem, especially when Trudeau Liberals are incapable of clearly DEFINING their own bills, let alone DEFINE what constitutes a THREAT to Canada's sovereignty.

David Raymond Amos

@Cyrus Manz methinks that the liberal can define at least one thing quite well because they are the perfect example of it. Guess what that is. Survey Says?

 
Bob roberts

HAPPY TAKE FATHERS FOR GRANTED DAY

David Raymond Amos

@Bob roberts I resemble that remark so thanks
  


JohnColford

Save millions and just release the Phoenix Payroll System on aggressors

David Raymond Amos

@JohnColford Now that is funny

 http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/37-3/NDVA/meeting-8/evidence

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

 The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): We can begin.

    Let me call to order the eighth meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. My apologies to our witnesses for the slight delay. We had voting duties in the House of Commons--members on both sides, of course. That's why we were a little bit held up.
    It's my pleasure to welcome today the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, and Joanne Weeks, executive director of the same organization.
    Welcome to you. We'd be pleased to hear your opening remarks.

    The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer (Commissioner, Office of the Communication Security Establishment Commissioner): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before your committee today. I appreciate this expression of interest in my office by your committee.
    This is the first time that a commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment has appeared before this committee. I am accompanied by Joanne Weeks, the executive director in my office, who was invited to accompany me. I would have brought her along anyway.
    I am aware of the valuable work this committee has undertaken, including your study of the important Canada-U.S. defence relationship. In my capacity as commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment, I now report to the Minister of National Defence. I have some familiarity with National Defence. You may know, for example, that I conducted a review last year for Minister McCallum on the military justice provisions of the National Defence Act.
[Translation]
    During my 20 years on the Supreme Court of Canada, 10 of them as Chief Justice, I witnessed and participated in the evolution of human rights and freedoms in this country, as we grappled with the application and impact of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This experience dovetails very well with my duties as CSE Commissioner, because safeguarding the rights of Canadians, including particularly the right to privacy, is an important element of my office's activity.
    In accepting the order-in-council appointment last June, therefore, I was both honoured and pleased to have the opportunity of continuing to serve my country in a meaningful way.
    Today, Mr. Chairman, I will familiarize your committee with my role as CSE Commissioner.
[English]
Let me start, though, by briefly describing the object of my mandate, the CSE itself. I say briefly because it is more appropriate that you hear any detailed description of CSE's activities from its own officials. I know you met recently with the chief, Mr. Keith Coulter, and some of his officials. Nonetheless, it is important for context to recall the basics.
    The CSE is a civilian agency of the Department of National Defence. It is a highly complex organization, with a threefold mandate: first, to acquire and provide the government with foreign signals intelligence; second, to provide advice, guidance, and services to help ensure the protection of the Government of Canada's electronic information and information infrastructures; and third, to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies.
    Unlike my office, the CSE has a relatively long history as an agency of the Government of Canada. In fact, 2006 will mark the 60th anniversary of the creation of its predecessor organization, the Communications Branch of the National Research Council.
    The Communications Branch was renamed the Communications Security Establishment and transferred to the Department of National Defence in 1975. It was a very secret organization. In fact, the government did not even acknowledge its existence until 1983, during the debate about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
    During the Cold War, the CSE evolved as a result of the close relationships Canada enjoyed with the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The CSE's relationships with similar agencies in these countries continue today, and these agencies routinely exchange intelligence, technology, and technical knowledge.
    The CSE employs a wide range of skilled individuals, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, linguists, and analysts. Collectively, in my view, their knowledge, experience, and work are very impressive.
    After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the CSE received additional funding and has employed additional personnel to meet the government's objectives. The organization also received a legislated mandate as a result of the introduction of amendments to the National Defence Act, which were made in the omnibus Anti-terrorism Act passed in December 2001.
¹  (1545)
[Translation]
    Now I would like to turn to my position and mandate, Mr. Chairman.
    The commissioner's job itself is a part-time appointment. I devote about two days per week on average to the work. As an aside, I would say that this is a little bit uneven. Sometimes a week will go by without me being there and, on other weeks, I am there three or four days. Everything depends on what's happening. It is not about me being there every Monday or Tuesday, for example.
    My core mandate, as set out in the National Defence Act, is to review the activities of CSE to ensure they are in compliance with the law and to report to the Minister of National Defence. I would emphasize the fact that I am there to ensure that their activities are in compliance with the law.
    In addition, my other primary duties as commissioner are: to undertake any investigation I consider necessary, in response to a complaint about CSE, and to inform the Minister of National Defence and the Attorney General of Canada of any activity of CSE that I believe may not be in compliance with the law.
    I am required to submit an annual report on my activities and findings to the Minister of National Defence within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year, which is March 31. The Minister tables my report before Parliament. I also submit classified reports to the minister. These reports are based on the results of reviews of CSE's activities conducted by my office.
    CSE is prohibited by law from targeting Canadians or persons in Canada. Its focus must be on foreign entities, outside Canada. This is a very important aspect of CSE.
    However, in certain circumstances, the minister may authorize CSE to intercept private communications for the purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence and protecting the computer systems or networks of the government from mischief, unauthorized use or interference. I emphasize again, the interception must always first result from targeting a foreign communication. CSE may use and retain a private communication so long as the target is the foreign end of the communication and only if it is essential to international affairs, defence or security.
    The act mandates me to review CSE's activities under these ministerial authorizations and to report annually to the minister.
¹  (1550)
[English]
    The CSE is also mandated to assist law enforcement and security agencies. In this context, the CSE may be involved in the interception of private communications under judicial warrant. In reviewing all these activities, I have a duty to ensure that the CSE fulfills that part of its legislated mandate requiring it “to protect the privacy of Canadians in the use or retention of that [intercepted] information.”
    Finally, I have a role under the Security of Information Act, which you may know replaced the Official Secrets Act in December 2001, as a result of the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act. The Security of Information Act prohibits people who are “permanently bound to secrecy”, such as CSE employees, from disclosing “special operational information”. If an individual is charged with disclosing such information, a judge or court can consider what is called a “public interest defence” for that person—but only if he or she has followed a series of steps, set out in the legislation, before disclosing the information. In this case, of course, we are talking about the person having a concern regarding an offence being committed by an employee of the CSE.
    The first step is for the person to bring their concern to their deputy head or the Deputy Attorney General. If there is not a response in a reasonable time, the individual must then bring those concerns to me and allow a reasonable time for a response.
    I must say that, as of yet, no one has approached me, or my predecessor, I'm told, in this context.
¹  (1555)
[Translation]
    Now, Mr. Chairman, what have I have been doing since my appointment last spring? During the first few months after my appointment, I received many briefings from officials at CSE, including meetings with the chief and with his executive team. I have also received briefings from my own, well-experienced staff.
    I have met with the minister and also his predecessor. I have also met with the Security Intelligence Review Committee as well as the security and intelligence coordinator, who is also the national security advisor to the prime minister, and to whom the chief of CSE reports on matters of operations and policy.
[English]
    I have also submitted five classified reports to the minister, two of which were commenced under my predecessor's mandate and concluded under mine. These reports contain recommendations for the minister's consideration. I have approved recently a three-year work plan for my office, which will be reviewed annually.
    With this brief explanation of my mandate and recent activities, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude these remarks by telling you a bit about the background, origins, and evolution of the role of the commissioner.
    In 1990, a special committee charged with reviewing the CSIS Act recommended that Parliament established CSE by statute and provide for a review of CSE's activities. Although the government chose not to adopt that particular recommendation at the time, it did indicate that it was “considering providing the Minister of National Defence with some additional capacity for a review of CSE”. In due course, it decided to establish the position of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
    The order in council appointing the first commissioner was passed in June 1996. It was, and is, as I stated earlier, a part-time function. The first commissioner served three terms over seven years. In December 2001, the omnibus Anti-terrorism Act introduced amendments to the National Defence Act that provided a statutory basis for the mandate for CSE, as well as the responsibilities of the commissioner.
    The commissioner's office is separate and independent from CSE. I have a staff of five full-time employees. In addition, I engage the services of several subject-matter experts, as and when required. My annual budget is approximately $900,000.
[Translation]
    That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. I trust this very brief description of my role and the environment in which I operate has been helpful to the committee. It will be my pleasure, as that of Ms. Weeks, to answer any question that you may have.
    Thank you.
[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lamer.
    I think both sides of the table on this committee would agree, following your very distinguished career, including in the Supreme Court, that you're an excellent choice for this kind of position. We appreciate your being here and giving us this overview, and now I'm sure there will be questions from my colleagues.
    Before we start that, maybe we can congratulate Mr. Hill on the second-reading passage of his bill in the House of Commons, widely supported on both sides of the chamber, I might note. Well done, Jay.
    Let me start with the official opposition. Mr. Hill, you have seven minutes.
º  (1600)

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Thank you for the congratulatory message, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the support my bill had on both sides of the House.
    I'd also like to offer my congratulations to the Right Honourable Tony Lamer on his appointment, but I'm going to pass to my colleague, who has some questions she'd like to pose. Thanks.

    The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you very much, and welcome. We're very pleased to see both of you here.
    Here's my first question. The 2002-03 annual report of the CSE Commissioner noted that recommendations were made concerning the support provided by the CSE to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in order to address weaknesses in policy and practice that could lead to errors in handling sensitive information and to an inconsistent application of policy and law. Has the CSE indicated to the commissioner what actions are being taken to address these concerns?

    Right Hon. Antonio Lamer: Of course, when you bring me to a period prior to my appointment, I have to throw myself in the arms of Ms. Weeks. She informs me that these concerns have since been addressed.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: They have.

    Right Hon. Antonio Lamer: She might want to add something to that.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.


No doubt Rob Moore his old boss Stevey Boy Harper, the Ghost of Elsie Wayne and her former assistant the fat dumb happy lawyer Chucky Murray  now of Fat Fred City remember this email exchange N'esy Pas?

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/06/cbc-leblanc-boys-and-duncan-matheson.html

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Goldring.P@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:39 AM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: agarden@nb.sympatico.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:58 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: leblad@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:03 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: scotta@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: castoj@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: hubbac@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: bradsc@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: savoya@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: info@paulzed.com
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: megan@lutz.nb.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:05 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Brison.S@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Bachand.A@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: jim.prentice@shaw.ca
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: rosent@math.toronto.edu
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:30 PM
Subject: Fw: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: davidorchard@sasktel.net
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: Here is some proof that Harper knows I coming home

Just so ya know David I am forwarding these emails to other
politicians as well. But I didn't bother to call them because they
are lawyers as well. Therefore I see no need to explain my actions to
them. Plus the smart one's have a bad habit of trying to ignore me
anyway. I t appears that standard operating procedure for them is to
ignore. delay, deny and then try to settle. They are confused by
someone that wants to argue law rather than go away with the gold.
What should be interesting to both of us is whether or not they have a
sudden fit of ethical behavior after they discover that an honest
western farmer and wild but ethical maritime biker have been talking
about them. Please notice that I am more than willing to help such a
man as Byron Prior anyway I can. I just wish there were more men like
him on this planet. Trust me the US Attorney backtracking in the
Martha Stewart matter and prosecuting a Secret Service Agent is too
funny to relate in this email.
Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: <robmoore@atrueconservative.ca>
To: <davidamos@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Regarding your e-mail

> David,
>
> Thanks for the e-mails. I will read them all and hear what you have to say.
>
> All the best.
>
> Rob
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Amos
> > To: Wayne, Elsie - M.P.
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 5:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > Elsie, I like you more and more. If anyone understands about
> > being forced to be away from his family its me. Give my mom a
> > call. Her laugh alone will make your day. To hell with the
> > smiling bastards in Ottawa their grins ain't genuine. Maritimers
> > can still find some fun in a long hard day :) Come to think of
> > it, maybe thats why the Upper Canadians think we are crazy. By
> > the way I have managed to get a rather famous lawyer to speak on
> > my wife's behalf down here while I run for Parliament uphome. But
> > before I go I have been invited to go fishing with Martha
> > Stewart's brother Frank in the Gulf of Mexico. My matters are
> > about to bust wide open down here. That is why I have chosen this
> > time to make appearance uphome. Once I make the news down here I
> > will step on the stump uphome.
> > Best Regards
> > Dave
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wayne, Elsie - M.P.
> > To: David Amos
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:42 PM
> > Subject: RE: Regarding your e-mail
> >  
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > I try to respond to as many people as I can. We do get a lot of email
> > around here.... I decided to retire because I truly miss my family.
> > It's hard being on the road back and forth by yourself. It gets very
> > lonely.
> >
> > God Bless,
> > Elsie
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Amos [mailto:davidamos@comcast.net]
> > Sent: March 22, 2004 3:28 PM
> > To: Wayne, Elsie - M.P.
> > Subject: Re: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > No problem, Elsie. By the way my mom is a fan of yours. She told
> > me you were quitting. Too bad if it is true.You are the first
> > politician to respond to me. That fact alone wins my respect. Ask
> > around Saint John about me in certain circles I am fairly well
> > known. You may even know my sister, Nancy and her husband, Reid
> > Chedore. Perhaps you crossed paths with my dad C. Max Amos he was
> > a tax Supervisor for the Province years ago. And maybe even my
> > mom's second husband, Lloyd Nickerson, from Fredericton. He was
> > somewhat of a political person whereas my dad was not. (Lloyd was
> > chief electoral officer for about twelve years and did run as a
> > Conservative) If you wish to warm my mom's heart please give her
> > a call and simply say that you appreciate her good words about
> > you to her wild child Dalevid. She will get the joke. She is
> > always confusing me with another brother. Her name is Anna and
> > her number is 506 455 3600. Do with it what you will. Trust me I
> > would love to see another out spoken Maritimer step up to the
> > plate and speak of rights and wrongs. The sooner that I can go
> > back to being just Papa the happier my little Clan will be. I
> > would truly appreciate if someone would let my mom know that they
> > are at least aware of my concerns whether they agree with me or not.
> > Best Regards
> > Dave
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wayne, Elsie - M.P.
> > To: David Amos
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:15 PM
> > Subject: RE: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > Thank you for the notice.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Amos [mailto:davidamos@comcast.net]
> > Sent: March 16, 2004 2:07 PM
> > To: Wayne, Elsie - M.P.
> > Subject: Fw: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Amos
> > To: ethics@harvard.edu
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:06 PM
> > Subject: Fw: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Amos
> > To: tedcardwell@mail.gov.nf.ca
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Fw: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Amos
> > To: alltrue@roadrunner.nf.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:03 PM
> > Subject: Fw: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Amos
> > To: Correspondance Deputy Prime Minister/Vice premier ministre
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > I already received Anne's response. Can't you people read what
> > you wrote to me? Why else would I be so pissed off?
> > I am who I say I am and that is as follows:
> > David R. Amos
> > 153 Alvin Ave,
> > Milton, MA. 02186
> > Phone 617 240-6698
> >
> > Now just exactly who are you Mr. Correspondence Deputy Prime
> > Minister and are you a lawyer?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Correspondance Deputy Prime Minister/Vice premier
> > ministre" <dpm@pm.gc.ca> To: <davidamos@comcast.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:34 PM
> > Subject: Regarding your e-mail
> >
> > > If you wish to receive a response to your comments addressed
> > to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and
> > Emergency Preparedness, please include your return mailing
> > address along with your original e-mail message. All official
> > responses will be sent by regular mail.
> > >
> > > If you wish to send correspondence addressed to the Minister
> > through the regular mail, please use the following mailing
> > address:
> > >
> > > The Honourable A. Anne McLellan
> > > Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety
> > > and Emergency Preparedness
> > > 340 Laurier Avenue West
> > > Ottawa, Ontario
> > > K1A 0P8
> > >
> > > From: David Amos davidamos@comcast.net>
> > > To: dwatch@web.net
> > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:32 PM
> > > Subject: Read real slow then forget what is politically correct.
> > >
> > > Deal with your own conscience. After that try to think of  a good
> > > reason why I should not run for Parliament and at least speak
> > my mind about the sad state of our affairs. You know who I am.
> > If you don't, trust me, you are way behind the eight ball.
> > > Once I make my mark in the American Justice System and  political
> > > process, I am coming home to stress test the ethics of many a
> > lawyer/politician in my nativeland during the course of the
> > next federal election. My question to all of you will be why
> > did you wait for me to say something? Am I the only one paying
> > any attention. Even Jesus got mad a time or two and tore up a
> > temple when he saw all the money changing hands in a place
> > that should not be concerned about such things. But forget
> > about the money for a minute. What did he have to say about
> > anyone that harmed a child? Rest assured I will remind you.
> > Although I ain't religious, I must say that Jesus had more of
> > sand than most men and he made some very good points about
> > what is right and what is wrong. Can any of you even hold a
> > candle to Byron? He has at least one friend that will back him
> > up all the way down the line. I don't mind dying it is what I
> > didn't do while I was living that will haunt me in in my
> > grave. What is the golden rule these days? Is it truly a fact
> > that he with the gold makes the rules. Do you think voters
> > agree with that fact? What say you?
> > > Canadian Corruption
> > >
> > > Sexual Abuse & Political & Legal Conspiracy.
> > >
> > > RCMP Incompetence & Cover up.
> > >
> > > Priors Of Grand Bank NFLD Canada
> > >
> > > How do I get a corrupt legal system to investigate, charge and
> > convict itself? After years of asking the Canadian Legal
> > System to do its job, it's long past time to inform the public
> > myself about this lack of action or justice.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csec-watchdog-muzzled-defanged-greg-weston-1.2462279

CSEC watchdog muzzled, defanged: Greg Weston

The wish and 'a prayer' of keeping tabs on CSEC

By Greg Weston', CBC News Posted: Dec 13, 2013 5:00 AM ET

One-quarter of CSEC's analysts have an advanced degree -- half in technical subjects, especially computer science, software engineering or digital cartography. On the oversight side, there are 11 investigators to keep tabs on over 2,000 people. (iStock) 

The revelation that a little-known Canadian intelligence operation has been electronically spying on trading partners and other nations around the world, at the request of the U.S. National Security Agency, has critics wondering who's keeping an eye on our spies.

The answer is a watchdog, mostly muzzled and defanged, whose reports to Parliament are first censored by the intelligence agency he is watching, then cleared by the minister politically responsible for any problems in the first place.

By the time the reports reach the public, they are rarely newsworthy.

The Harper government recently appointed a new oversight commissioner for Canada's electronic spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment Canada. But he will be only part-time until next April.

Even then, Senator Hugh Segal, the chief of staff to former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney and someone with a long involvement in security intelligence issues, says any notion of effective public oversight of Canada's electronic spying agency is "more like a prayer" than fact.

The debate over who's keeping tabs on our spies has heightened in recent days following a CBC News report detailing a top secret document retrieved by American whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The document shows that the agency known as CSEC set up covert spying posts around the world at the request of the giant NSA.

• Snowden document shows Canada set up spy posts for NSA

Both agencies gather intelligence by intercepting mostly foreign phone calls and hacking into computer systems around the world.

Whistleblower or government leaker, Edward Snowden and his revelations this past year have rocked the spy world on at least five continents. (Associated Press)

U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered a widespread investigation of the NSA after leaked Snowden documents revealed the agency was gathering massive amounts of information on millions of American citizens.

In this country, the Harper government simply keeps pointing to CSEC's oversight commissioner as proof that Canadians have nothing to worry about.

As Defence Minister Rob Nicholson told the Commons this week: "There is a commissioner that looks into CSEC [and] every year for 16 years has confirmed that they've acted within lawful activities."

Well, not exactly.

'Contrary to law'

Only months ago, the recently retired CSEC commissioner, Justice Robert Decary, stated in his final report that he had uncovered records suggesting some of CSEC's spying activities "may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law."

The retired justice said the CSEC records were so unclear or incomplete that he was unable to determine whether the agency had been operating legally.

Decary's predecessor, Justice Charles Gonthier, filed the same complaint about incomplete or missing records in his day, which forced him to report in a similar fashion that he could not determine if CSEC had been breaking the law.

Gonthier also alluded to a CSEC operation in 2006 that he suggested may have been illegal.

The head of CSEC at the time, John Adams, recently told CBC News that, as a result of that discovery, "I shut the place down for a while."

However, intelligence experts have told CBC News that the oversight problems at CSEC are much deeper than poor record-keeping.

They say successive commissioners have simply lacked both the resources and the legal mandate to conduct meaningful oversight.

The current commissioner, Judge Jean-Pierre Plouffe, operates with a staff of 11, about half of whom actually work on investigations, largely to ensure CSEC isn't abusing its powers by spying on Canadians.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal: "The notion that a group of 11 might be able to provide proper oversight is more like a prayer than any kind of constructive statement of fact." (Reuters)

But CSEC employs over 2,000 people who covertly collect masses of information recently described as more data per day than all the country's banking transactions combined.

As Segal says, the result is obvious: "When there are thousands of people at CSEC processing millions of messages every day of all kinds, the notion that a group of 11 might be able to provide proper oversight is more like a prayer than any kind of constructive statement of fact."

Not exactly as written

Of course, even if a commissioner did discover something seriously amiss at the electronic eavesdropping agency, there is a chance Canadians would never know.

Here's how the system works:

Suppose the commissioner's oversight sleuths discover that CSEC is illegally intercepting phone calls and hacking into the computers of certain Canadians.

The oversight commissioner is required to report his discovery in a top secret report to the defence minister.
That happens to be the same minister responsible for CSEC, and from whom the agency gets its government direction.

It is also the minister who would be at the centre of any CSEC scandal if news of this breach leaked out.
If the minister refuses to expose his own agency's wrongdoing, the oversight commissioner can try to use his annual report to Parliament to do that.

But a funny thing happens on the way to Parliament.

First, CSEC gets to censor the entire report. Then it goes back to the same defence minister.
The minister is required to present the sanitized version of the report to Parliament, but has no obligation to mention it is not exactly as originally written.

Former CSEC chief Adams admits the agency is "very, very biased towards the less the public knows the better."

He points out that in the spying business, opening an agency's operations to full public scrutiny "would be kind of like unilateral disarmament, because if Canadians know everything CSEC can and can't do, then everyone else will too."

But as the leaked Snowden documents continue to force back the curtains at CSEC, Adams says it is time to find a better way to reassure Canadians about what they are doing.

"I think a knowledgeable Canadian is going to be much easier to deal with," he says.

If the public reaction to the Snowden revelations is any indication, Canadians are all ears.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowden-document-shows-canada-set-up-spy-posts-for-nsa-1.2456886

Snowden document shows Canada set up spy posts for NSA

CSEC conducted espionage activities for U.S. in 20 countries, according to top-secret briefing note

By Greg Weston, Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher, CBC News Posted: Dec 09, 2013 9:03 PM ET

A top secret document retrieved by American whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals Canada has set up covert spying posts around the world and conducted espionage against trading partners at the request of the U.S. National Security Agency.

The leaked NSA document being reported exclusively by CBC News reveals Canada is involved with the huge American intelligence agency in clandestine surveillance activities in “approximately 20 high-priority countries."

Much of the document contains hyper-sensitive operational details which CBC News has chosen not to make public.

• Read a redacted version of the lastet Snowden NSA doc
• New Snowden docs show U.S. spied during G20 in Toronto
• NSA document raises questions about Canada in G8 spying
• Read Snowden NSA document on G8, G20 surveillance
• Inside Canada's top-secret billion-dollar spy palace

Sections of the document with the highest classification make it clear in some instances why American spymasters are particularly keen about enlisting their Canadian counterparts, the Communications Security Establishment Canada.

"CSEC shares with the NSA their unique geographic access to areas unavailable to the U.S," the document says.

The briefing paper describes a "close co-operative relationship" between the NSA and its Canadian counterpart, the Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSEC — a relationship "both sides would like to see expanded and strengthened.

"The intelligence exchange with CSEC covers worldwide national and transnational targets."

'CSEC offers resources for advanced collection, processing and analysis, and has opened covert sites at the request of NSA' - NSA memo retrieved by Edward Snowden

The four-page missive is stamped “Top Secret” and dated April 3, 2013. That makes it one of the freshest documents Snowden was able to walk away with before he went public in June.

The briefing notes make it clear that Canada plays a very robust role in intelligence-gathering around the world in a way that has won respect from its American equivalents.

Wesley Wark, a Canadian security and intelligence expert at the University of Ottawa, says the document makes it clear Canada can take advantage of its relatively benign image internationally to covertly amass a vast amount of information abroad.

"I think we still trade on a degree of an international brand as an innocent partner in the international sphere," Wark said. "There's not that much known about Canadian intelligence.

"In that sense, Canadian operations might escape at least the same degree of notice and surveillance that the operations of the U.S. or Britain in foreign states would be bound to attract."

The intimate Canada-U.S. electronic intelligence relationship dates back more than 60 years. Most recently, another Snowden document reported by CBC News showed the two agencies co-operated to allow the NSA to spy on the G20 summit of international leaders in Toronto in 2010.

But what the latest secret document reveals for the first time is just how expansive Canada's international espionage activities have become.

CSEC set up 'covert sites at the request of NSA'

The NSA document depicts CSEC as a sophisticated, capable and highly respected intelligence partner involved in all manner of joint spying missions, including setting up listening posts at the request of the Americans.

"CSEC offers resources for advanced collection, processing and analysis, and has opened covert sites at the request of NSA," the document states.

Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, has leaked top-secret documents into the U.S. spy agency's activities over the past few months. (The Guardian/Associated Press)

Thomas Drake, a former NSA executive turned whistleblower, says it's no surprise Canada would accede to the U.S. agency's requests: "That's been the case for years.

"Just think of certain foreign agreements or relationships that Canada actually enjoys that the United States doesn't, and under the cover of those relationships, guess what you can conduct? These kinds of secret surveillance or collection efforts."

Drake says he worked with CSEC on various projects while he was at the NSA, and the Canadians were "extraordinarily capable."

CSEC conducts much of its foreign cyber-spying operations from its headquarters in Ottawa, using some of the most powerful computing equipment in the country to intercept foreign phone calls and monitor internet communications in nations around the globe.

Its American counterpart does the same, but is itself currently the target of a widespread internal probe by the U.S. administration in the wake of leaked documents from Snowden showing the NSA has been collecting masses of information on millions of ordinary Americans.

Wark reviewed the leaked document at the invitation of CBC News, and says he isn't surprised CSEC would be asked by the NSA to set up covert foreign spying operations.

He says it is not uncommon for embassies and consulates to be used as listening posts when a close proximity to targets is required.

But he also points out it all comes with significant risks to Canada — namely, getting caught "can create huge diplomatic fallout."

High-level approval required

Aside from compromising the actual intelligence operation, Wark says, an exposed spy mission can imperil Canada's other diplomatic operations — "the political contacts, the trade contacts, the generation of goodwill between the countries and any sense of co-operation."

Wark says if a country feels targeted by a Canadian embassy, it can put everyone working there under a cloud of suspicion: “Are they really diplomats or are they spies?”

As a result of those risks, Wark says, approval for CSEC to establish a covert spying post at the request of the NSA would have to come from the ministerial level of the Canadian government — or even from the prime minister himself.

"It's far too politically and diplomatically sensitive, and the consequences of being discovered are far too great, for it to be simply an operational matter for an intelligence agency," he says.

"In the past, it certainly has been and it should be today, a matter of very senior political sign-off."

Canada and the U.S. have long shared security intelligence with sister agencies in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand – the so-called "Five Eyes" partnership.

But the latest secret Snowden missive shows CSEC and the NSA becoming physically intertwined.

"Co-operative efforts include the exchange of liaison officers and integrees," the document reveals, a reference to CSEC operatives working inside the NSA, and vice-versa.

It notes the NSA also supplies much of the computer hardware and software CSEC uses for encryption, decoding and other state-of-the-art essentials of electronic spying needed for "collection, processing and analytic efforts."

In return, the NSA acknowledges that its Canadian counterpart provides the partnership with its own "cryptographic products, cryptanalysis, technology and software."

Finally, the U.S. agency says CSEC has increased its investment in research and development projects "of mutual interest."

CSEC employs about 2,000 people, has an annual budget of roughly $450 million and will soon move into an architecturally spectacular new Ottawa headquarters costing Canadian taxpayers almost $1.2 billion.

By comparison, the NSA employs an estimated 40,000 people plus thousands of private contractors, and spends over $40 billion a year

NSA whistleblower Drake says the problem is that both CSEC and the NSA lack proper oversight, and without it, they have morphed into runaway surveillance.

"There is a clear and compelling danger to democracy in Canada by virtue of how far these secret surveillance operations have gone."

The office of Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, who is responsible for CSEC, issued a written statement saying CSEC’s activities are subject to review by an independent commissioner.

A spokesperson for the U.S. government said: "While we are not going to comment publicly on every specific alleged activity, we have made clear that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations."

Civilian oversight key to offensive cyber operations, says expert

'When you use malware against someone, they can reverse engineer it,' expert says about cyber bombs

 By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Jun 18, 2017 5:00 AM ET

The country's new defence policy gives the Armed Forces the green light to conduct offensive operations against online adversaries, but employing such tactics comes with potential threats not associated with conventional weapons. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters) 

The Canadian military will be compelled to develop — if it has not already — its own disruptive and destructive cyber weapons for deployment into an increasingly volatile online world, says a leading security expert.

And the use of those cyber bombs will demand the strict supervision of the country's civilian leadership, says Rafal Rohozinski of the SecDev Group, an Ottawa based consultancy specializing in cyber threats.

The Liberal government's new defence policy gives the military the green light to "develop active cyber capabilities and employ them against potential adversaries," which means it will be able to conduct offensive operations online.

It is unclear how far along the military is in developing its own "destructive" malware programs, or how much it might be piggy-backing off other allies.

Documents released to CBC News under Access to Information legislation last spring talk about "strengthening" cyber capability.

• Canada, NATO defining boundaries of response to cyberattacks
• Former CSIS head: Canada should have its own cyber-warriors

Rohozinski says the decision to conduct offensive operations came after four years of internal "torturous" debate at National Defence about whether it, or the federal government's secretive electronic eavesdropping agency — the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE) — should have authority over cyber weapons.
The hesitation had as much to do with jurisdictional boundaries as it did the Canadian sensitivity about "not wanting to say the 'offence-thing,'" he said.

Rohozinski said he is certain that what tipped the balance was the use of cyberattacks in Russia's annexation of Ukraine and the increasing number of "destructive" as opposed to "disruptive" online attacks around the world.

Gen. Jonathan Vance says it would be 'irresponsible' not to have the ability to hit back against online adversaries. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

On Friday, the Trudeau government outlined a plan to secure Canada's electoral system for the next campaign, likely in 2019. A CSE report released as part of the government's strategy says the country's democracy is "not immune" to online threats.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, in a recent interview about the defence policy, said it would be "irresponsible" for Canada not to have the ability to hit back against hackers and organizations that already use cyberspace as a battleground.

"It is a domain of conflict right now. We are attacked every day in cyberspace. Every day," said Vance, who went on to use a hockey analogy, saying a team can't play with just a goalie.

"You need to be on the offence to ensure you're not going to get scored on all the time. And you need to be on the offence if you actually want to win something sometimes. You want to win that game."

Non-state threats

The implications of the defence policy, however, are profound in the sense that the federal government is sanctioning attacks using malware that could potentially be released against other nations, or so-called non-state actors.

• Modernized military will put more emphasis on cyberattacks

The policy says those new kinds of operations "will be subject to all applicable domestic and international law."

But cyber weapons have the potential of being turned back on attackers, said Rohozinski.

It is software code and "a weapon that can only be used once before it's copied," he said.

"It's not like a grenade. You throw it. It explodes and disappears. When you use malware against someone, they can reverse engineer it."

The Communications Security Establishment is located in a new complex in Ottawa. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

That makes the decision to use it a political as much as a military decision.

And just as important, it is a must for the federal government to define "what the cyber weapon will do [and] under what circumstances, Rohozinski said.

Canada has prohibitions on using certain real-world weapons and the same kind of consideration needs to take place for this emerging capability.

"For example: Canada doesn't use cluster munitions. Perhaps we won't use the equivalent of cluster munitions in cyberspace," he said.

Cyber reservists

To what extent the Liberal government has thought about that issue and developed policy isn't clear, but Rohozinski said some kind of consultation must have taken place.

"It would be highly surprising if the Canadian government had not participated in both Five Eyes and NATO discussions around this topic prior to announcing a policy that declares an offensive capability in cyberspace," he said.

The new government policy for the military also makes hiring cyber operators a recruiting a priority.
There is a reference to creating a special forces reserve unit, which Rohozinski said would develop offensive cyber capabilities, particularly in the area of information operations.

"That was a bit of a surprise, but uniquely Canadian," he said.

It's important from the point of view of attracting top cyber talent.

There will be a focus on recruiting cyber reservists, who work in the private sector by day, where they earn top dollar, but then also get to put their skills to use with the cachet of being a part-time special forces operator.

"Special operations command has a unique incentive structure and unique selection criteria. And because they are mission-oriented — the pointy end of the spear — their ability to motivate people beyond monetary remuneration is pretty significant," said Rohozinski. "Taking that approach to cyber warriors is pretty unique and a pretty clever thing to do."