# Canada’s little-known spy agency comes out into the open



## GAP (23 Dec 2010)

Canada’s little-known spy agency comes out into the open 
Colin Freeze Globe and Mail Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010 
Article Link

At a time when most government agencies are cutting and slashing, a little-known spy agency led by a Rhodes Scholar is the envy of Ottawa for its planned billion-dollar headquarters.

A rising force in the national-security apparatus, the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is an electronic-eavesdropping agency that gathers intelligence from abroad. Led by 68-year-old military veteran John Adams, the agency keeps its operations quiet, reporting only to Canada’s military and civilian leadership.

For the first time since he took over the agency in 2005, Mr. Adams has discussed CSEC’s mission and future, which includes plans for an $880-million headquarters housing hundreds of mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists by 2015.

News of the planned 72,000 square-metre compound is raising eyebrows around the national capital, given few people outside of government know what CSEC is or what it does.

But “if you were to ask the Canadian Forces if there is anyone that has saved Canadian lives in Afghanistan, they would point to us,” Mr. Adams told The Globe and Mail. He said that well over half of the “actionable intelligence” that soldiers use in Afghanistan comes from his agency.

This work is distinct from that done by a far better known spy agency –the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The difference between the two boils down to tradecraft and jurisdiction.

CSIS – Canada’s human-intelligence, or “HumInt” agency – has its people and agents train their actual eyes and ears on security threats inside the country.

CSEC – the “signals-intelligence” or “SigInt” counterpart – relies almost wholly on technology to hear what people are saying abroad (spying on Canadians is illegal). Since being formed in the 1940s, this agency has rarely told anyone the fruits of its findings, save for its two masters – the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council Office.

On paper, the two agencies’ mandates don’t overlap, but in practise their operations are running together more than ever. That’s why the new CSEC complex is being built next to CSIS’ current headquarters – and why architects are planning to install a glass bridge connecting the two.

As envisioned, the seven-building CSEC complex will be the equivalent of a 90-storey skyscraper turned on its side – a highly secure compound outfitted with the latest high-tech gear. Two nearby electrical generating stations will power the agency’s computers, which suck in millions of conversations from around the world each day and scour them for intelligence information.
More on link


----------



## 57Chevy (23 Dec 2010)

Quote:
"millions of conversations from around the world each day"

but that doesn't include any Canadians........ yeah right


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Dec 2010)

It doesn't... listening to Canadians foreign or domestically without a wiretap warrant is extremely illegal. They have 500 page documents outlining what you can and can't do.


----------



## 57Chevy (23 Dec 2010)

I agree that specifically wiring someone is illegal.
But how would they distinguish a Canadian conversation from the millions that are scoured each day ?


----------



## garb811 (23 Dec 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> But how would they distinguish a Canadian conversation from the millions that are scoured each day ?


As soon as you hit the first, "Eh?".

I seem to recall a similar article in the Citizen about 20 years ago that "shone the light onto CSE for the first time" as well, so I don't think this is a first.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Dec 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I agree that specifically wiring someone is illegal.
> But how would they distinguish a Canadian conversation from the millions that are scoured each day ?



PM inbound


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Dec 2010)

"Little-known" my...Our journalists just cannot resist mouldy clichés--and know almost nothing about more specialized subjects.

A 1993 Library of Parliament paper:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp343-e.htm

A 1996 Auditor General report (see 27.21 down):
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199611_27_e_5058.html#0.2.Q3O5J2.O25UY6.UDTLQE.GT

Then just flipping Google.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wildman0101 (24 Dec 2010)

CSEC
Monitor's intel abroad. I:E
Communication reporting to
the Canadian military,,, thru
channels up to cds,,, Min of 
national defense,,, possibly
the Prime Minister.
mandate intel gathered abroad..
CSIS (Mandate/Intel/National i:e
Canada.
Intel overlap CSEC/CSIS/RCMP
Sometime's it happen's.
We can only trust that the Intel
gathered  will reflect our good in-
tension's,,, be it here in Canada
and abroad. I can only assume
that the intel gathered is to our 
good. Puck PVT PM those 500 page's
please. Thank's.
Scoty B


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Dec 2010)

I hear CSE are looking to hire anyone that can translate the language in the post above my own...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Dec 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "Little-known" my...Our journalists just cannot resist mouldy clichés--and know almost nothing about more specialized subjects.
> 
> A 1993 Library of Parliament paper:
> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp343-e.htm
> ...



So true.. Type in "Canadian Security Establishment " into Google and you get 15+ pages of hits.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Dec 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> So true.. Type in "Canadian Security Establishment " into Google and you get 15+ pages of hits.




True enough, I suppose, but if you type the correct name - *Communications Security Establishment Canada* - into Google you will get 50+ pages pages of results.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> True enough, I suppose, but if you type the correct name - *Communications Security Establishment Canada* - into Google you will get 50+ pages pages of results.



As I slowly bang my head against the wall!!


----------



## Greymatters (26 Dec 2010)

I find it quite surprising that in all this talk about intelligence organizations, no one mentions our own Int Branch and/or other CF members from other trades also contributing - apparently none of our people do anything except read CSE dispatches.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Dec 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I find it quite surprising that in all this talk about intelligence organizations, no one mentions our own Int Branch and/or other CF members from other trades also contributing - apparently none of our people do anything except read CSE dispatches.



There's always people trying to take credit for the work of others, specifically in the SigInt community. Since the sources are always classified, its hard to call them out on it.


----------



## wildman0101 (26 Dec 2010)

Hope this clarifiy's  :stirpot:
This paper is about the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), one of a galaxy of agencies in Canada that fit most, if not all, the elements of these definitions of an intelligence organization with responsibility for foreign intelligence. The CSE is one of the most secret and secretive organizations in Canada. What is known about it - for example, what appears in this paper - must be pieced together from disparate sources. Unlike the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP, the CSE has no governing statute setting out its mandate, powers and control/accountability mechanisms. In general terms, the CSE has a dual mandate; one, Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), is offensive in nature; the other, Information or Communications Security (INFOSEC or COMSEC), is defensive. 

The Communications Security Establishment advises on, and provides the means of ensuring the security of federal government communications. It also provides, with the support of the Canadian Forces Supplementary Radio System, a service of signals intelligence in support of Canada's foreign and defence policies. I should explain that "signals intelligence" is the term given to information gathered about foreign countries by intercepting and studying their radio, radar, and other electronic transmissions.(10)



One of those is sometimes known as the COMSEC role, which deals with the security of the communications of the Government of Canada. The second responsibility is the collection of signals intelligence, which is intended to provide the government with foreign intelligence on the diplomatic, military, economic, security, and commercial activities, intentions, and capabilities of foreign governments, individuals and corporations.

The government described the CSE's two-part mandate as follows in its 1991 Response to the 1990 Report of the House of Commons Special CSIS Review Committee:

The Establishment is responsible for two programs:

information technology security (INFOSEC); and

signals intelligence (SIGINT).

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp343-e.htm (more info here)

E R Thank's for the website.. Very informative.
All-disregard previous post.
Best Regard's,,
Scoty B


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It doesn't... listening to Canadians foreign or domestically without a wiretap warrant is extremely illegal. They have 500 page documents outlining what you can and can't do.



It wouldn't be illegal for Yanks to do it though. We can do the same for the USA. That is how I would get around all the red tape to keep people safe and I'm a closet libertarian. I would be happy with this for intelligence purposes. But once the infrastructure is in place and law enforcement gets a hold of it that is police state territory. This type of power needs serious behind the scenes oversight. I would guess that the new site will be filled with fancy US gear and well paid Canadian jobs.  Salute to the heroes whose names no one has ever heard  




> Re: 'Taj Mahal' being built for DND spy agency, Dec. 18
> John Adams,
> 
> Orleans, Chief, CSEC
> ...




Maybe some decent paying jobs coming for Vets. Would CSE be part of the Federal Civil Service?


----------



## wildman0101 (26 Dec 2010)

Spectrum,,, Clarified????
For futher int into my 
specialization's PVT PM
me in that regard. Or we 
can go to different mean's
as i would so prefer... Your 
call mate.
Scoty B


----------



## PanaEng (29 Dec 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be illegal for Yanks to do it though. We can do the same for the USA. That is how I would get around all the red tape to keep people safe and I'm a closet libertarian. I would be happy with this for intelligence purposes. But once the infrastructure is in place and law enforcement gets a hold of it that is police state territory. This type of power needs serious behind the scenes oversight. I would guess that the new site will be filled with fancy US gear and well paid Canadian jobs.  Salute to the heroes whose names no one has ever heard
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some decent paying jobs coming for Vets. Would CSE be part of the Federal Civil Service?


Unfortunately, for CSE you usually need to have at least a degree or a diploma and good experience in computers and communications/electronics or math and physics (post grad). Sure, there are other jobs but these are the ones with most demand. But, you never know until you research it and apply.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Dec 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ...
> Maybe some decent paying jobs coming for Vets. Would CSE be part of the Federal Civil Service?




You can see a bit about who CSEC hires here and by following the link to Current Opportunities. CSEC does, or at least did, like people with military experience but, as PanaEng said, that will be a help IF, and only IF, you meet all the other requirements - degree(s)/skills/knowledge and, above all _"must be a Canadian citizen, and be eligible for a TOP SECRET security clearance conforming to CSEC standards."_ CSEC standards for a security clearance might be different (higher) than the CF standards - there are many, many clearances above SECRET, most with unique requirements.


----------



## easy2use22 (30 Dec 2010)

The legal logical course is that they listen to 'all' conversations (given that they cannot help it). They sort them out. Once they listen to 'illegal chatter' (terrorist talking to another terrorist), that is the time they give notice to CSIS. CSIS then takes hold of the responsibility to file warrant of surveillance. Once the judge approves of the warrant, that is the time that the 'conspiraccy or crime' commences. All past conversatons before the approval of the warrant are deemed inadmissible as evidence. That is how the law works....


----------



## GAP (30 Dec 2010)

But not necessarily how intelligence works....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It doesn't... listening to Canadians foreign or domestically without a wiretap warrant is extremely illegal. They have 500 page documents outlining what you can and can't do.



Not quite: Its "private communications" only that are protected. And Section 183 of the Criminal code defines it (for radio signals) as follows: "... and includes any radio-based telephone communication that is treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it."

And wiretapping is for a single - specific - phone number to get all of its conversations, not for listening at random to all the radio signals out there in the aether.

Your cell-phones are all radio-based but the frequency lock on them - to prevent overlapping conversations - is not an "electronic treatment to prevent intelligible reception". Same applies BTW to short-wave and satellite transmission for long distance calls. In all these cases, unless you encrypt your signal, the communication is fair game.

Do we all remember our (supposed) first response to a work related call: "This is not a secure line!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2010)

I suspect that CSE, like CSIS, is pretty scrupulous about obeying at least the letter of the law. But there are ways to _stretch_ the spirit of the law just a bit by using, _inter alia_, allied networks like Echelon (and yes, I think the _Wikipedia_ is an OK source for this).


----------



## George Wallace (30 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It doesn't... listening to Canadians foreign or domestically without a wiretap warrant is extremely illegal. They have 500 page documents outlining what you can and can't do.



Actually, listening is NOT the part that is illegal.  It is what you do with what you listened to that could become illegal.  It is illegal to produce any "intelligence product" (ie. files, reports, etc.) on any material gathered through these means on Canadians domestically.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2010)

*I am NOT a lawyer* but I did pick up a couple of bits of legalistic _ufi_ over the years: see OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS, specifically Section 9 (Prohibitions) in the Radiocommunications Act. Generally, _listening_, for no purpose other than private interest, to any *unencrypted* signal is OK - _sharing_ what one hears, for whatever purpose, no matter how noble, is less than OK.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *I am NOT a lawyer* but I did pick up a couple of bits of legalistic _ufi_ over the years: see OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS, specifically Section 9 (Prohibitions) in the Radiocommunications Act. Generally, _listening_, for no purpose other than private interest, to any *unencrypted* signal is OK - _sharing_ what one hears, for whatever purpose, no matter how noble, is less than OK.


Good point - even reporters who hear something on a police scanner (technically) cannot just write the story from that content and broadcast the story.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point - even reporters who hear something on a police scanner (technically) cannot just write the story from that content and broadcast the story.


 
Is is not true that reporters don't have to disclose anything
as to where and by whom or by what means they obtain their information.

Good stories are usually filled with information from a number of sources.
Some of which may be considered a trade secret  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (30 Dec 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Is is not true that reporters don't have to disclose anything
> as to where and by whom or by what means they obtain their information.
> 
> Good stories are usually filled with information from a number of sources.
> Some of which may be considered a trade secret  ;D



Why sure, of course, etc.  They can also face jail time if they are subpoenaed by the Court to provide that information and they refuse.   >


----------



## easy2use22 (30 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's always people trying to take credit for the work of others, specifically in the SigInt community. Since the sources are always classified, its hard to call them out on it.



I have extreme admiration for CF IntelBranch. You'd be surprised, they're much more secretive than SIGNT, no kidding and swear to God.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Dec 2010)

easy2use22 said:
			
		

> .....no kidding and swear to God.


Well that makes it all the more official. I think the Global Warming thread could benefit from this sort of credible insight.   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2010)

easy2use22 said:
			
		

> I have extreme admiration for CF IntelBranch. You'd be surprised, they're much more secretive than *SIGNT*, no kidding and swear to God.



If you want to talk SIGINT, it is not the responsability of the CF Int branch.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Dec 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If you want to talk SIGINT, it is not the responsability of the CF Int branch.



Which explains why it's useful, timely and trusted.


----------



## Franko (30 Dec 2010)

easy2use22 said:
			
		

> I have extreme admiration for CF IntelBranch. You'd be surprised, they're much more secretive than SIGNT, *no kidding and swear to God*.



Well now that cements it. From now on if anyone uses that to end their argument then it has to be true. Maybe we should put that in the Guidelines as well.

Are you for real?


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, listening is NOT the part that is illegal.  It is what you do with what you listened to that could become illegal.  It is illegal to produce any "intelligence product" (ie. files, reports, etc.) on any material gathered through these means on Canadians domestically.



And this of course is nothing new. If memory serves correctly, Military EW assets were present during the Oka crisis, and intercepted quite a bit, but could not legally pass a lot of the information on to other organisations for criminal prosecution.


----------



## Mike5 (31 Dec 2010)

Re: the original topic of the thread -- growth at CSE and jobs:
- In his Letter to the Editor of the Ottawa Citizen, December 21, 2010, John Adams states that "the consortium, led by Plenary and PCL, will create 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the Ottawa area... "  I gather this refers to temporary jobs created during the construction phase?
- Would anyone have any insight as to whether there would be a role for PRes personnel to work directly with CSE?

Thanks in advance for any informed comment,


----------



## PanaEng (31 Dec 2010)

Mike5 said:
			
		

> Re: the original topic of the thread -- growth at CSE and jobs:
> - In his Letter to the Editor of the Ottawa Citizen, December 21, 2010, John Adams states that "the consortium, led by Plenary and PCL, will create 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the Ottawa area... "  I gather this refers to temporary jobs created during the construction phase?
> - Would anyone have any insight as to whether there would be a role for PRes personnel to work directly with CSE?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any informed comment,


yes, those would be construction jobs only - maybe some maintenance.

PRes working for CSE: Highly unlikely.
 Although, there may be CF positions that work closely with CSE and some of those may be Class B. 
You may, however, be an employee of CSE and be in the PRes.
(if you can be posted to CFS Leitrim, you may work with CSE some times - but I know very little about it, total supposition there)
(someone with more direct knowledge may or may not add to this   ;D )

And Happy New Year! everyone.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Dec 2010)

> Is is not true that reporters don't have to disclose anything as to where and by whom or by what means they obtain their information.


Depends on the lawyer you talk to.  I'm guessing it would be difficult to prove the ONLY source of info for a particular story was a scanner transmission.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Good stories are usually filled with information from a number of sources.  Some of which may be considered a trade secret  ;D


Not much trade secret there - most such stories would initially be sourced via 1)  a call to the agency dispatching the person making the transmission, 2)  a call to a neighbour of the address, asking "Hey, I'm from ABCD News - are there cop cars near your place?  What's up?", or 3)  a visit by a reporter to the scene.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2012)

Bumped with the latest....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the following changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service:
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> ...


Biographies here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2013)

Bump with the latest fracas ....


> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff demanded on Monday that Canada explain a media report that said it spied on the Brazilian mines and energy ministry, and she called on the United States and its allies to stop spying over the Internet.
> 
> A Brazilian television report on Sunday said Canada's electronic eavesdropping agency targeted the ministry that manages the South American nation's vast mineral and oil resources. The report was based on documents leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
> 
> ...


----------



## V_I_Lenin (7 Oct 2013)

Bill Robinson's blog Lux Ex Umbra on the CSE is always worth a read...

http://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That China spies on other countries and steals technology is undeniable and, at least in my opinion, unremarkable because America, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Honduras and India and so on down to Zimbabwe do it too.
> 
> The Chinese are, perhaps, a bit more brazen.




I'm sorry but, despite the media attention, this isn't a story. Canada spies on _friendly_ nations ... <yawn> ... so does Brazil, but their "best friends" may take a little better care about how they safeguard their secrets than do we (Remember Jeffrey Delisle?) and our "best friend" the USA's NSA. There is no need to comment, publicly or privately, on this. Everyone ~ the President of Brazil and a pack of journalists is pretending to be surprised and outraged (OK, I'll concede that some journalists are so bloody stupid that they actually are surprised) ~ but almost everyone understands that this is part of doing "business."


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but, despite the media attention, this isn't a story. Canada spies on _friendly_ nations ... <yawn> ... so does Brazil, but their "best friends" may take a little better care about how they safeguard their secrets than do we (Remember Jeffrey Delisle?) and our "best friend" the USA's NSA. There is no need to comment, publicly or privately, on this. Everyone ~ the President of Brazil and a pack of journalists is pretending to be surprised and outraged (OK, I'll concede that some journalists are so bloody stupid that they actually are surprised) ~ but almost everyone understands that this is part of doing "business."



Some countries of technical means use SIGINT. Some countries, are of course, kind of broke, and use the third oldest profession, HUMINT. But all countries collect intelligence.

I have a book kicking around somewhere that details the massive intelligence failures of the Falklands War (on both sides) -- and one of the key conclusions of why the UK had little to no notice of the Argentinian invasion was that the main guy that was relied upon to collect intelligence on Argentina (the UK defence attache in Buenos Aires) was overwhelmed by demands from back home to spend all his time trying to do his best to find out what capabilities the Argentines were lacking, in order to promote the sale of UK defence material to the Argentinians, rather than worry about the threat they posed. Jobs back home were much more important.

(Totally off topic, but both the Royal Navy and Argentina employed made-in-England Type 42 destroyers during the war.)

Some countries have defence interests, some have industrial interests, but all of them have national interests. Of course Canada cares about Brazil, just as I am sure Brazil cares about Canada. Cares enough to ask questions.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> (OK, I'll concede that some journalists are so bloody stupid that they actually are surprised)


    :cheers:    (sadly)


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Oct 2013)

For all  those journalists, who for the last thirty years or so, keep referring to the "little known"  etc. CSE --just do some flipping research rather than repeating ignorant stock lines.  I.e. grow up and get professional,  Hah!
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/canadas-spy-agency-from-the-inside
http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/home-accueil/history-histoire/index-eng.html
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp343-e.htm
http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/communications_security_establishment_unofficial_webpage_020623.html
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/rockex.html  [Canadian stuff towards end]

Lazy bleeding beggars, those who commit journalism in  Canada.  Too lazy and uninformed even to Google with intelligent intent.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but, despite the media attention, this isn't a story.


It may be a story, but it sounds like it's not NEWS (root word:  "new").



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Lazy bleeding beggars, those who commit journalism in  Canada.  Too lazy and uninformed even to Google with intelligent intent.


You've gotta come out of your shell and tell us what you mean, man  ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Oct 2013)

If Brazilians were eavesdropping on MNR here in Ottawa I would want the individuals responsible in jail. 75% of the world's mines are headquartered in Canada. This _looks like_ industrial espionage for the economic gain of those transnational corporations. 

We look rather like third world corporate criminals. Perhaps that is our new international image? If that is not a story I am very sad for what my country has become. "Everybody does it is," not an excuse I accept from my 8 year old let alone my elected officials. Can _everybody_ cheat on thier taxes now?


----------



## Monsoon (8 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If Brazilians were eavesdropping on MNR here in Ottawa I would want the individuals responsible in jail. 75% of the world's mines are headquartered in Canada. This _looks like_ industrial espionage for the economic gain of those transnational corporations.
> 
> We look rather like third world corporate criminals. Perhaps that is our new international image? If that is not a story I am very sad for what my country has become. "Everybody does it is," not an excuse I accept from my 8 year old let alone my elected officials. Can _everybody_ cheat on thier taxes now?


Sounds like you've carefully analyzed the original news report (available only in Portuguese) and all of it's source documentation (not available to the public) and are in a position to draw conclusions from it.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Oct 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Sounds like you've ......


It's a recurring theme; and whatever the topic, it's written in the most shocked/distraught/offended terms possible.
     :boring:

Once again, I thank the site owner for the <ignore> function.   :nod:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Oct 2013)

A link to the actual slides that everyone is talking about, courtesy of the original wikileaks. 

http://cryptome.org/2013/10/cse-br/cse-br.htm


----------



## Monsoon (9 Oct 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A link to the actual slides that everyone is talking about, courtesy of the original wikileaks.
> 
> http://cryptome.org/2013/10/cse-br/cse-br.htm


So... "spying on the Brazilian Ministry of Mines" was a theoretical example chosen to discuss the features of some programme? Weak.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A link to the actual slides that everyone is talking about, courtesy of the original wikileaks.
> 
> http://cryptome.org/2013/10/cse-br/cse-br.htm



To tell you the truth, those slides look more like an exercise designed to train analysts.   If one delved into the real-life activities of Governments and their Defence and Security agencies, they would find that it is common practice to exercise their people on a multitude of scenarios and often think outside of the box.  This really is not news.  It is political posturing by Brazil.  Let's get real.  Brazil is not exempt from the spy game.  No country is. 

One thing that this does demonstrate, though, is the damage that people like Snowden and others at wikileaks do to our nation's security.   Their innocent thoughts are actually quite distructive.  In their innocence, they are creating more harm than good.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2013)

That's what I'm thinking.

Someone took what was supposed to be a theoretical exercise and extrapolated it into an actual operation.

I'm not cognizant of the inner workings of this org, but I'm pretty damn sure that if they were going to mount and materialize an actual op, it would consist of a little more that 3 ppt slides.

People, once again, including the CBC & Opposition, appear to be trying to make political hay out of nothing more than the smell of a dewy field of grass.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To tell you the truth, those slides look more like an exercise designed to train analysts.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Someone took what was supposed to be a theoretical exercise and extrapolated it into an actual operation.


Or a post-mortem/best practice?  Hard to tell with only 3-4 slides ....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> One thing that this does demonstrate, though, is the damage that people like Snowden and others at wikileaks do to our nation's security.   Their innocent thoughts are actually quite distructive.  In their innocence, they are creating more harm than good.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not cognizant of the inner workings of this org, but I'm pretty damn sure that if they were going to mount and materialize an actual op, it would consist of a little more that 3 ppt slides.


Or, if the journalists really believe the viewer/reader can judge things on their own, if we don't see more than just snippets/bits/parts of documents they base their stories on.  Some are getting better, but it would be interesting to see what else is in the slide deck - or was THAT not shared because it didn't fit the journalist's storyline?

So far, the only public comment from a former CSIS type (_not with CSEC_) is "not bloody likely"....


> “There’s no smoking gun here. It’s again more little snippets and snapshots from the Snowden revelations; they actually mislead more than they inform,” says Ray Boisvert, until last year a deputy director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
> 
> “I don’t believe it’s likely Brazil was targeted.”
> 
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is *political posturing* by Brazil.  Let's get real.  Brazil is not exempt from the spy game.  No country is.


True on both counts, especially given some of Brazil's positions/statements in the past on other issues.

Also, I'd like to think that if the slides were a training aid, _someone_ official would have said, "CSE is too busy hunting down real enemies to do the mining industry's homework for them," not that this was a "concern".


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> Also, I'd like to think that if the slides were a training aid, _someone_ official would have said, ...




The best thing would be that _no one_ official says anything, at all, publicly. Privately we can make nice soothing sounds towards the Brazilians ~ reminding them, as we do, that they were trying to steal aerospace secrets from us just a few years ago.

Another "best" thing  would be for people to get security conscious again. That was a TS brief that _might_ have been usefully circulated in numbered paper copies, but should never have been 'filed,' on a US system. I recognize that no one uses _vu-graph_ (hard copy) presentations any more, but the laptop on which the _PowerPoint_ presentation was housed should have been a Canadian TS repository and should have been treated as such. We don't, or at least we shouldn't _dump_ our paper files into other nation's registries - electronic files should not be different just because they are so easy to share.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...electronic files should not be different just because they are so easy to share.



I have to disagree. They should be different precisely because they are easy to share. They require a greater sense of security than paper files if for no other reasons than their ephemeral nature and the ease by which they are reproduced and difficult to track.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2013)

Next you're going to say our computers shouldn't be festooned with USB ports to let folks copy everything and walk away, or that DVD drives should be read-only, not read write.

Perhaps the real solution lies in only classifying what is absoultely critical and protecting it as such, instead of lazily slapping "SECRET" on documents that should be more properly labelled "EVIDENCE OF STUPIDITY - IT'S GONNA SUCK WHEN THIS HITS THE GLOBE AND MAIL".


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Next you're going to say our computers shouldn't be festooned with USB ports to let folks copy everything and walk away, or that DVD drives should be read-only, not read write.
> 
> Perhaps the real solution lies in only classifying what is absoultely critical and protecting it as such, instead of lazily slapping "SECRET" on documents that should be more properly labelled "EVIDENCE OF STUPIDITY - IT'S GONNA SUCK WHEN THIS HITS THE GLOBE AND MAIL".




Bingo! Give that man the prize; he got the right answer!

The presentation, at least the bits published, is (was) legitimately very highly classified. But one reason (just one of many) we get careless is that too much dross is classified and everyone loses interest in protecting the real SECRETs (and above) because of that.

Using security to prevent (often political, including uniformed political) embarrassment is an abuse of the system and those who do it are endangering the security of their country and are, therefore, unacceptably bad officers and officials.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2013)

In other CSEC news ....


> The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of National Defence, today announced the appointment of the Honourable Jean-Pierre Plouffe, as the new Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment.
> 
> "I am pleased to announce Jean-Pierre Plouffe’s appointment as Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment," said Minister Nicholson. "Mr. Plouffe brings extensive legal knowledge to the position, including experience in the Military Justice system.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2013)

Remember, please that the Commissioner is the person who _reviews_ the legality of CSEC's operations; see here.

The person who _runs_ CSEC is the Chief; see here.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Oct 2013)

Canadian spies met with energy firms, documents reveal

Government agency that allegedly spied on Brazil had secret meetings with energy companies


    Martin Lukacs and Tim Groves	
    theguardian.com, Wednesday 9 October 2013 12.08 BST	

The Canadian government agency that allegedly hacked into the Brazilian mining and energy ministry has participated in secret meetings in Ottawa where Canadian security agencies briefed energy corporations, it has emerged.

Claims of spying on the ministry by Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) come amid the Canadian government's increasingly aggressive promotion of resource corporations at home and abroad, including unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.

According to freedom of information documents obtained by the Guardian, the meetings – conducted twice a year since 2005 – involved federal ministries, spy and police agencies, and representatives from scores of companies who obtained high-level security clearance.

Meetings were officially billed to discuss "threats" to energy infrastructure but also covered "challenges to energy projects from environmental groups", "cyber security initiatives" and "economic and corporate espionage".

The documents – heavily redacted agendas – do not indicate that any international espionage was shared by CSEC officials, but the meetings were an opportunity for government agencies and companies to develop "ongoing trusting relations" that would help them exchange information "off the record", wrote an official from the Natural Resources ministry in 2010.

At the most recent meeting in May 2013, which focused on "security of energy resources development", meals were sponsored by Enbridge, a Canadian oil company trying to win approval for controversial tar sands pipelines.

Since coming to power, Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has used his government apparatus to serve a natural resources development agenda, while creating sweeping domestic surveillance programs that have kept close tabs on indigenous and environmental opposition and shared intelligence with companies.

Harper has transformed Canada's foreign policy to offer full diplomatic backing to foreign mining and oil projects, tying aid pledges to their advancement and jointly funding ventures with companies throughout Africa, South America and Asia.

Keith Stewart, an energy policy analyst with Greenpeace Canada, said: "There seems to be no limit to what the Harper government will do to help their friends in the oil and mining industries. They've muzzled scientists, gutted environmental laws, reneged on our international climate commitments, labelled environmental critics as criminals and traitors, and have now been caught engaging in economic espionage in a friendly country. Canadians, and our allies, have a right to ask who exactly is receiving the gathered intelligence and whose interests are being served."

Observers have suggested that Canadian spying on Brazil is related to the country's auctioning of massive offshore oil finds, potential competition to Canada's tar sands, and Canada's desire to gain competitive advantage for more than 40 Canadian companies involved in Brazil's mining sector.

"There is very substantial evidence that the spying Canada was doing for economic reasons aimed at Brazil is far from an aberration," Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald told Canadian media on Tuesday. Greenwald hinted that he will be publishing further documents on CSEC.

"We've already seen how Canadian embassies around the world essentially act as agents for Canadian companies – even when they're implicated in serious human rights abuses," said Jamie Kneen of MiningWatch Canada, an NGO watchdog. "We just had no idea how far they were willing to go."


----------



## Lightguns (11 Oct 2013)

Honestly, this whole news story is,"Yawn....we are spying on other nations."   :facepalm:  It is like,"OMG, the army has bullets in their guns!"


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Oct 2013)

The spying is not the issue. It is spying for transnational resource extraction corporations. A perhaps legal but truly unethical practice that is very prone to third world corruption. What if those transnational corporations start donating heavily to  a particular party and attempt to influence Canadian elections. Not to mention our international business reputation.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Honestly, this whole news story is,"Yawn....we are spying on other nations."   :facepalm:  It is like,"OMG, the army has bullets in their guns!"



Next we will see soldiers in the streets......with guns.....  :

Nemo888

Do you say it is OK for Brazil to spy on us, but us not to spy on them?  Surely you have a few more clues than that.


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2013)

was there not some quip about two hands and a flashlight?..... :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (11 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The documents – heavily redacted agendas – *do not indicate that any international espionage was shared by CSEC officials*


But I guess that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ...but the meetings were an opportunity for government agencies and companies to develop "ongoing trusting relations" that would help them exchange information "off the record", wrote an official from the Natural Resources ministry in 2010.


It's much more likely that the intelligence community/business contacts were made so that information could be passed from Canadian businesses operating in various countries TO the intelligence community, not the other way around.  After all, it's their job to collect information, from all sources.





			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Keith Stewart, an energy policy analyst with Greenpeace Canada....
> 
> Greenwald hinted that he will be publishing further documents on CSEC. [and is therefore chumming the waters]
> 
> ..... said Jamie Kneen of MiningWatch Canada, an NGO watchdog.


   Oh, nevermind.   :   Back to  <ignore>




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Surely you have a few more clues than that.


    :not-again:


----------



## Robert0288 (11 Oct 2013)

Junk article.


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Oct 2013)

I want a strong CSE with almost unlimited powers. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need an ethical compass to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against. The problem is not spying. That is what spies do obviously. The problems is that the link between corporations and the state are blurring. 

Canada has become a very welcoming place for resource extraction companies. 75% of the world's mines are now headquartered here due to lax regulations, low corporate taxes and a  reliable banking system. A few of these companies are very unethical and take advantage of our lack of regulation. Resource extraction companies pay the maximum amount allowable in donations to political parties. Most chose one particular party. The friendly politicians can also expect multiple directorships on the boards of these companies after retiring from politics. So when in power the bulk of their election financing comes from corporations and after retirement the majority of their income comes from these directorships and not their MP pension. So in many respects it is not voters but transnational corporations that dictate public policy. In some ridings one candidate can outspend the other parties combined to get 44% of the vote and stay in power for a decade. If they could not outspend their opponents they would lose. When an important issue for their benefactors comes across their desk they are clearly in a conflict of interest and will usually side with the corporation over the electorate. The outcome of this is that voting can have very little effect on policy. This is an overwhelming problem in most of the world and that rot is setting in here now.

So when it turns out the CSE is working in conjunction with these transnational corporations who are already bypassing our democracy being worried is a good thing. When voting has little effect on policy political unrest will be the likely long term outcome. If the CSE and it's accomplices in other countries are collecting all electronic communications this could get ugly in the future. I will give an example.

A small town in BC has a coal seam too dirty to burn in Canada. So the government relaxes foreign ownership restrictions and leases the mineral rights to the Chinese. The corporation then puts fluent Mandarin as a job requirement and hires all Chinese miners to save money.(This has already happened BTW) So we have a Chinese mine in a BC town. Let's say the mine wants to save money and starts polluting the place and making people sick. The Mayor and local MP are on the payroll, use their influence and MNR is so cut back that they won't investigate. So the locals start organizing and making trouble. The CSE investigates and has a meeting with the Mayor,the mine owners and local law enforcement and identifies all those sympathetic with the antimining activists. 

That is not the Canada I grew up in or want to live in.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Oct 2013)

You have claimed mining companies are financing political parties to the maximum extent possible. As you have no doubt researched this extensively, could you please tell us what the maximum extent possible is in each province and territory as well as federally and provide examples? Thanks.


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2013)

There are several "leaps" in your argument.  

Firstly, since 2007 reforms corporations are not allowed to make political contributions.  That means then that companies wishing to influence a party or candidate would then have to do it through contributions by individual people.  Individual contributions are capped at $1200 per year so I guess you could get a whole bunch of the executives from a company to each make the maximum individual contributions and gain influence that way.  A major hitch in that is every individual contribution over $200 is a matter of public record and can be easily be found on the Elections Canada website (http://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/CC/SelectCandidates?act=C2&eventid=34&returntype=2&option=2).  There are people and groups (including the media) that DO check this information and report on things that appear "fishy" (as when Liberal MP Joe Volpe was found to have received significant contributions from senior executives - and their family members - from the pharmaceutical company Apotex.  Note that this was in 2006 before the individual contribution limits were dropped from $5400 to $1200).

It would be difficult for a company to exert influence over a sitting parliamentarian in the way you suggest.  Not impossible, but there is considerable transparency in the process which would make it difficult to escape the spotlight, especially for a member that appears to be doing something that is contrary to the wishes of the people he/she represents.

Secondly you suggest that politicians are bought off with directorships which exceed their MPs pensions.  While I'm certain that a great many former politicians do not "retire" when they leave politics, I'd like to see some kind of back-up to your claims that they receive directorship payments that exceed their pensions and that these directorships can be tied in anyway to their voting record while active in politics.  Those are some pretty serious allegations of corruption and I'd hope that you have some hard information to back up such a claim.

Lastly you take this whole thing into the realm of grand conspiracy.  The whole of government...parliamentarians from across the country as well as senior bureaucrats from a ministry all collude to change foreign ownership restrictions to benefit a specific mining interest in a small BC community.  Another whole group of people from municipal, provincial and federal politicians and civil servants then collude to allow a foreign company to not only ignore legal health and environmental requirements but to also actively cover up the fact that they are doing so to prevent an investigation.  The national intelligence agencies then work together with local law enforcement to illegally supress those individuals that are trying to bring to light all of this unlawful behaviour.  

Wow...and I thought the Kennedy assassination plot was hard to keep quiet!  Perhaps Netflix should stop showing episodes of the X-Files.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2013)

WOW! 

You really have made some wildass claims here.  Like Old Sweat, I am curious as to where you came up with all these claims.

Just a few points though:



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I want a strong CSE with almost unlimited powers. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need an ethical compass to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against. The problem is not spying. That is what spies do obviously. The problems is that the link between corporations and the state are blurring.



CSEC is bound by the Law.  They do not operate outside of the Law.  (Nor does CSIS.)  
  


			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Canada has become a very welcoming place for resource extraction companies. 75% of the world's mines are now headquartered here due to lax regulations, low corporate taxes and a  reliable banking system. A few of these companies are very unethical and take advantage of our lack of regulation. Resource extraction companies pay the maximum amount allowable in donations to political parties. Most chose one particular party. The friendly politicians can also expect multiple directorships on the boards of these companies after retiring from politics. So when in power the bulk of their election financing comes from corporations and after retirement the majority of their income comes from these directorships and not their MP pension. So in many respects it is not voters but transnational corporations that dictate public policy. In some ridings one candidate can outspend the other parties combined to get 44% of the vote and stay in power for a decade. If they could not outspend their opponents they would lose. When an important issue for their benefactors comes across their desk they are clearly in a conflict of interest and will usually side with the corporation over the electorate. The outcome of this is that voting can have very little effect on policy. This is an overwhelming problem in most of the world and that rot is setting in here now.



Some pretty wildass claims there.  Old Sweat as already asked for some enlightenment as to your research, so I will await your reply to his questions.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> So when it turns out the CSE is working in conjunction with these transnational corporations who are already bypassing our democracy being worried is a good thing. When voting has little effect on policy political unrest will be the likely long term outcome. If the CSE and it's accomplices in other countries are collecting all electronic communications this could get ugly in the future. I will give an example.
> 
> A small town in BC has a coal seam too dirty to burn in Canada. So the government relaxes foreign ownership restrictions and leases the mineral rights to the Chinese. The corporation then puts fluent Mandarin as a job requirement and hires all Chinese miners to save money.(This has already happened BTW) So we have a Chinese mine in a BC town. Let's say the mine wants to save money and starts polluting the place and making people sick. The Mayor and local MP are on the payroll, use their influence and MNR is so cut back that they won't investigate. So the locals start organizing and making trouble. The CSE investigates and has a meeting with the Mayor,the mine owners and local law enforcement and identifies all those sympathetic with the antimining activists.



I smell a Conspiracy Theorist here.  Are you really sure of your facts and not reading more into something than there really is?  I have some very serious doubts about several of your claims here. 

And yes; this is not the Canada I grew up in either.  It has grown and changed with the times.  Some changes have been for the better and some not.  That is life.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I want a strong CSE with almost *unlimited powers*. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need *an ethical compass* to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against .....


You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have _all_ kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.

Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2013)

CSEC's _powers_ are, actually, quite _limited_, as they should be.

The _ethics_ of its leadership and management are the same as those of the most senior ranks of the Canadian civil service ... which is to say of a high standard. The highest? I don't really know; they, top level civil servants are, after all, human. For every hundred David Dodges or Kevin Lynches we, certainly find an occasional Chuck Guité.*

The business of intelligence gathering is, of necessity, murky ~ it is, or should be, conducted in the shadows.

At some point we must, everywhere, answer the question _"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"_ Our spies, including our SIGINT spies, are _guards_, just as much as our police and soldiers. We must rely upon them and their leaders to guard all of our rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, including our life, liberty, property and privacy. We have a _commissioner_, a judge, to _guard_ them. I *believe* outside commissioners of that sort are a second best solution for oversight ... I would prefer to have a few Members of Parliament, fully and properly security cleared, do that job and report, periodically to Parliament.

I would also like to see an _Official Secrets Act_ with more teeth and greater reach.

Finally: It is my belief that any one of several Western countries can and should assassinate Mr Snowden, while he is cowering in Moscow. 

_____
* M. Guité became famous (infamous, I suppose) during the _sponsorship scandal_ of the late 1990s; his role was exposed during Mr Justice Gomery's inquiry in 2004. He was convicted on five counts of defrauding the Federal Government and was sentenced to 42 months in jail.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have _all_ kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.
> 
> Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.



There's a quote that goes something along the lines of "first they cam for the Jews, but it wasn't me." It ends " then they came for me and there was no one"

Nazi Germany had all kinds of secret police organizations - I don't want that in Canada, thank you.


----------



## Robert0288 (13 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would also like to see an _Official Secrets Act_ with more teeth and greater reach.
> 
> Finally: It is my belief that any one of several Western countries can and should assassinate Mr Snowden, while he is cowering in Moscow.



The official secrets act has been morphed/changed into the security of information act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-1.html)

2)  I'm surprised no one's done that already.  Though to be honest, all the leaks are emerging out of _The Guardian_.  And who knows what kind of information may be released upon his untimely death as a dead man switch.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Oct 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> You have claimed mining companies are financing political parties to the maximum extent possible. As you have no doubt researched this extensively, could you please tell us what the maximum extent possible is in each province and territory as well as federally and provide examples? Thanks.



The easiest loophole is to donate 200$ to each riding association giving you an additional 60,500$(per person).  The way I saw it done at the local and provincial level was for the donor to hire a good campaign manager and volunteers. The candidate has plausible deniability. Some volunteers would also be paid employees of sympathetic businesses. I know of one who would hire extra employees around election time. Most of the corruption I have seen is based on long term relationships. It starts with picking up the tab for lunch and a legal donation. Often this relationship is started before a candidate has ever been elected. That proceeds to sharing political contacts and jobs for family and close friends. After things are cemented  at election time the classic envelope of cash is offered to cover miscellaneous expenses. I have seen this in relation to real estate development(with 100% certainty) and some products bought by DND(80% sure). These guys are powerful so I have no interest in being crushed by naming one. When you go to the city hall cafeteria elected officials call them 'Sir".

As far as directorships lets take the poster boy for envelopes full of cash in hotel rooms for favours, Brian Mulroney. He admitted to revenue Canada receiving 75,000$ in envelopes in NYC hotel rooms from Schreiber. Schrieiber says it ws 300,000$. Let's put this in perspective. Only a single individual was caught and he bribed the PM 300,000$ and a memo records BM being paid an additional million that was offshored. I should mention that Mulroney is on at least one advisory board of an offshore bank. If one individual was caught is it a stretch to say there were probably more envelopes of cash from other interests? If the Prime Minister is bribable that should indicate how deep the corruption has gone.

Mulroney has directorships at _*Barrick Gold*_, Quebecor Inc., Archer Daniels Midland, TrizecHahn Corp., Cendant Corp., AOL Latin America, Inc. and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal). He is a senior counselor to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, a global private equity fund in Dallas, chairman of Forbes Global (New York). He is also chairman of various international advisory boards and councils for many international companies, including Power Corp. (Montreal), Bombardier (Montreal), the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (Beijing), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (New York), Violy, Byorum and Partners (New York), VS&A Communications Partners (New York), Independent Newspapers (Dublin) and General Enterprise Management Services Limited (British Virgin Islands).  

Does that cover how corruption works in Canada well enough?



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have _all_ kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.
> 
> Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.



Bill S-7 became law on May 24, 2013. Indefinite detention on secret evidence no longer expires like in previous bills. *Preventative arrest* is a permanent part of Canada's legal code. This will probably bite us in the ass someday.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2013)

I suggest that all those who are annoyed/scandalized/incensed/upset/dismayed _(delete those not applicable)_ about this non-issue should read Brian Lee Crowley's excellent article in the _Ottawa Citizen_. To quote Mr Crowley, "Even if there is more convincing evidence than this of Canada’s spying to come, so what? I am comforted, not alarmed, that the government of Canada might want to know what our friends, competitors and enemies are doing that might affect our interests."


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The easiest loophole is to donate 200$ to each riding association giving you an additional 60,500$(per person).  The way I saw it done at the local and provincial level was for the donor to hire a good campaign manager and volunteers. The candidate has plausible deniability. Some volunteers would also be paid employees of sympathetic businesses. I know of one who would hire extra employees around election time. Most of the corruption I have seen is based on long term relationships. It starts with picking up the tab for lunch and a legal donation. Often this relationship is started before a candidate has ever been elected. That proceeds to sharing political contacts and jobs for family and close friends. After things are cemented  at election time the classic envelope of cash is offered to cover miscellaneous expenses. I have seen this in relation to real estate development(with 100% certainty) and some products bought by DND(80% sure). These guys are powerful so I have no interest in being crushed by naming one. When you go to the city hall cafeteria elected officials call them 'Sir".
> 
> As far as directorships lets take the poster boy for envelopes full of cash in hotel rooms for favours, Brian Mulroney. He admitted to revenue Canada receiving 75,000$ in envelopes in NYC hotel rooms from Schreiber. Schrieiber says it ws 300,000$. Let's put this in perspective. Only a single individual was caught and he bribed the PM 300,000$ and a memo records BM being paid an additional million that was offshored. I should mention that Mulroney is on at least one advisory board of an offshore bank. If one individual was caught is it a stretch to say there were probably more envelopes of cash from other interests? If the Prime Minister is bribable that should indicate how deep the corruption has gone.
> 
> ...



You have raised several issues in your first paragraph, some of which may well have occurred at any level of government. It is well established for example that some advertising agenices that had benefited from large contracts gave employees paid leaves of absence to work on campaigns for previous Federal administrations. As for under the table cash, you are probably wise not to name names if you have evidence, unless of course you are talking to the police. And corruption exists and is almost impossible to stamp out. I do not see where common courtesy is an indication of corruption.

As for Mister Mulroney, the accepting the cash was stupid and unethical, but to tie that and your previous allegations to being appointed to various boards, agenices and commissions is constructing a conspiracy out of threads.

Last, have you read the "evidence" that the Guardian used to create the story? I suggest (a) you read it and it is a very short and flimsy construct, and (b) read the piece Edward suggests.

None of the "scandal" is helped by the propensity of the media to see conspiracies under every bed. You may remember the wikileaks uproar over the supposed death of four Canadians on the first day of Op Medusa by a short US bomb and the alleged cover up of the information. The actual facts did not matter to some prominent media members who shouted "cover up" in response to one bit of secondary evidence which contradicted multi primary sources.

I think you are sincere in your claims, but you should be a lot more critical before coming to a conclusion.


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Oct 2013)

Having personally seen the level of corruption in local and provincial politics you can see why I think federal politics is most likely equally as corrupt. I suspect the only real difference is that the bribes are bigger. You think Brian Mulroney is an exception. I think he is just slightly above average. 

If the CSE ever investigated this current and real threat to Canada the number of politicians in jail would completely shut down the goverment. Think of the problems in Montreal being everywhere at once. But unless the Minister or Provincial AG asks their hands are tied. Making the CSE work with the companies that bribe politicians instead of investigating them could be undermining our democratic freedoms.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Having personally seen the level of corruption in local and provincial politics



..and yet you obviously sat back on your hands and did nothing. Friggin' hypocrite.....

And now the warning, unless you have any kind of proof to offer with your accusations, I will personally close down your account here.
We are not in the business of sullying peoples name here.


----------



## Scott (14 Oct 2013)

Proof? That would render all of his posts useless. I wish we could track when Mike's ignore function was used.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and yet you obviously sat back on your hands and did nothing. Friggin' hypocrite.....
> 
> And now the warning, unless you have any kind of proof to offer with your accusations, I will personally close down your account here.
> We are not in the business of sullying peoples name here.




I think you're on the right track. In his post, quoted by Old Sweat, Nemo888 say that Brian Mulroney "has directorships at ... Archer Daniels Midland ... Cendant Corp ...and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal)" I only checked a couple of them, out of idle curiosity; here is ADM's Bard of Directors; Cendant Corp's name was retired several years ago when it broke itself into four separate companies ~ it has no board of directors; Cognicase was bought by CGI about ten years ago, Mr. Mulroney is *not* on CGI's Board.

Our site owner has been threatened with lawsuits before, for allowing false information to be posted. I believe that what Nemo888 has posted is factually wrong.


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Oct 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and yet you obviously sat back on your hands and did nothing. Friggin' hypocrite.....
> 
> And now the warning, unless you have any kind of proof to offer with your accusations, I will personally close down your account here.
> We are not in the business of sullying peoples name here.



Who do you suggest I go to? The local police whose Chief is appointed by the Mayor in the pocket of these individuals? They have millions and "people". They are currently untouchable. The most I can do is be honest about the corruption I have seen without endangering myself or my family. Montreal is not an exception. It is just ever so slightly worse than other municipalities. 

As for the list of Mulroney's appointments it was current as of 2004. The largesse of corporations is not well tracked in the public sphere.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Who do you suggest I go to? The local police whose Chief is appointed by the Mayor in the pocket of these individuals? They have millions and "people". They are currently untouchable.


I don't know where you might live, but in Ontario, Police Chiefs are appointed by Police Services Boards, which are appointed by the Province, not municipalities.  In fact, there's an arm's length relationship between municipalities and police boards to the point where a police board can appeal to the province if it thinks the city/town isn't giving them enough money.  I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing other provinces have similar set ups to keep police forces from being capital P political, as in places where Chiefs/Sherrifs are elected.

If you _really_ do think there's a problem, 
1)  you could go to your province's solicitor general or public safety ministry to air your concerns, or
2)  if you're in Ontario, you can go to the O.P.P.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The most I can do is be honest about the corruption I have seen without endangering myself or my family.


If you're this concerned, I'm surprised you're airing this on a _public_ forum.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Oct 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> I wish we could track when Mike's ignore function was used.


Well, if he _was_ banned in order to avoid potential legal issues, it would remove one person from my ignore list.    :nod:


----------



## Scott (14 Oct 2013)

Don't worry, if Bruce doesn't pull the trigger based on the last hand wringing completely unaccountable post, I might.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Oct 2013)

We are witnessing a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect at work here, as witnessed in the poster's tag line.  His/her conspiracy theories, and perhaps delusions, are having an adverse affect on their credibility and the consequences of that seem to be the spiralling of this thread down that internet drain leading to the eventual relegation of this thread to obscurity.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2013)

By the way lots of public info:

"Five Eyes"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=cse+five+eyes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=rBpcUqDlJoHlyAGk5YHoBA

Echelon:
https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&client=firefox-a&hs=rpR&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=cse+echelon&oq=cse+echelon&gs_l=serp.3...84410.87882.0.88490.9.9.0.0.0.0.207.1212.0j8j1.9.0....0...1c.1.28.serp..3.6.848.H050Bh049yo

1994 Mike Frost (ex-employee) book:
https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&client=firefox-a&hs=JrR&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=cse+book+%22mike+frost%22&oq=cse+book+%22mike+frost%22&gs_l=serp.3...45818.53476.0.53825.24.22.2.0.0.0.183.2379.7j15.22.0....0...1c.1.28.serp..15.9.1169.n0yYrpm7its

Mark Collins


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Oct 2013)

A link to the six additional slides that were on TV in Brazil.

http://luxexumbra.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/csec-olympia-slides.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-highlights-from-the-canada-brazil-spying-revelations/article14721506/
The Globe's take on events.


----------

