Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jennifer Stoddart

GET UPDATES FROM Jennifer Stoddart
 

Co-operating on Security Shouldn't Sacrifice Privacy

Posted: 11/14/11 03:14 PM ET

Two countries negotiating a perimeter security agreement can easily be compared to two individuals drastically redefining their relationship.

Without question, Canada and the United States are certainly neighbours. To some, a perimeter agreement means removing a fence; to others, it's tantamount to a sort of marriage.

Regardless, before we take the plunge, we have to think about what we share and where we differ.

Without question, we have a lot in common. We're both democracies with enshrined respect for human rights. Canadians and Americans both strongly value their privacy and realize its importance to the vitality of our democracies.

As things stand today however, some key legislative differences on privacy protection exist between our countries.

I want to explain these and show why, rather than jumping into a newly defined relationship with both feet, we should only do so with both eyes wide-open.

First of all, both of our countries have enacted legislation to protect citizens' privacy from their governments.

The U.S. Privacy Act of 1974 fulfils this function for the federal government south of the border, while Canada's Privacy Act of 1983 does so for Canadians.

The U.S. law includes safeguards to secure Americans' personal information in the hands of the federal government, but these extend only to citizens and permanent residents.

Conversely, personal information held in Canada is subject to the protection of Canadian privacy law. That said, Canada's Privacy Act is far from perfect and in need of modernization (as I've noted in the past).

Secondly, when it comes to protecting personal information in the private sector, there are American laws specific to certain sectors and the Federal Trade Commission's consumer protection law provides some protection with regard to issues of fairness and deception.

Unlike Canada however, there is no overarching national legislation applying to the private sector as a whole.

In the Unites States a lack of private sector-wide coverage provides opportunities for commercial data brokers to assemble data bases.

Such databases are made available to subscribers, which include U.S. federal agencies. There are already several dozen fusion centres across the country doing precisely this sort of search and analysis every day.

Consequently, government authorities can access information from privately-held databases with no strings attached.

It's also worth noting that the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted weeks after the 9/11 attacks, has the ability to circumvent sector-specific privacy protections to facilitate national security investigations. National security can be, and has been, defined quite broadly.

Thirdly, there is a vast difference when it comes to privacy oversight between our two countries. Law enforcement and national security authorities in the US simply do not operate under the privacy oversight structure that exists in Canada.

In Canada, my office reports directly to Parliament and not the government, allowing autonomy in holding the government to account.

In the United States there is no equivalent independent authority mandated to investigate privacy issues with regard to government data-handling.

While the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board could theoretically fulfill this function, it remains inoperative.

Finally, Canada's approach to privacy centers on protecting individuals' right to control their personal information except where limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This is an approach which should not be compromised or watered-down in order to reach a perimeter security agreement.

This isn't to say that Americans value privacy any less than Canadians. It's just that our respective legislative frameworks to protect it are very different.

This all goes to say that if we compare a security perimeter agreement to a marriage and Canadian negotiators wish to enable Canadians to keep control of their personal information, a clear line on privacy needs to be written into a strong "pre-nup."

This piece first appeared online at blog.privcom.gc.ca

 
Two countries negotiating a perimeter security agreement can easily be compared to two individuals drastically redefining their relationship. Without question, Canada and the United States are cert...
Two countries negotiating a perimeter security agreement can easily be compared to two individuals drastically redefining their relationship. Without question, Canada and the United States are cert...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:41 PM on 11/15/2011
Advocacy Organization: Indian Defense League of America Annual Border Crossing Celebration

The Indian Defense League of America was established on December 1, 1926 to resist colonial ignorance and abuse of the rights of Indians in North America. The IDLA was established as a political organization with the sole purpose of protecting the Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to guarantee unrestricted passage on the continent of North America for our People.

Please visit our myspace page www.myspace.com/indiandefenceleague frequently to look up our history, facts and reflections on the history of the IDLA, our mandate and any other events the IDLA may be putting on or attending.

Our group is interested in Indigenous Treaties, Inherent Rights and Freedom; empowering youth and encouraging them to join IDLA, or any other organization of the sort to gain knowledge of our presitigious past and find where we can best put our efforts in saving those Rights for our future.

Contact Info

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13902305963

Email:
idla@live.com

Website:
http://www.idloa.org

Location:
PO Box 305, 14302, Niagara Falls, NY

CONTACT US AT:
Beverly Hill (President) (716)297-5297

Indian Defence League of America
PO Box 305
Niagara Falls NY, 14302

*******************************

In Strength & Unity
Donna Meness
Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg Community
Algonquin Nation
born member: www.idloa.org
3rd generation Indian civil rights activist

former AFN staff( Education, switchboard, Treaty & Aboriginal Rights Library)
former NCC staff (Aboriginal Childcare Commission & Aboriginal Justice Consulate )
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:23 PM on 11/15/2011
The Indian Defense League of America was established on December 1, 1926 to resist further erosion of the rights of Indians in North America. The IDLA was established to guarantee unrestricted passage on the continent of North America for Indian people. Unrestricted passage is considered an inherent right for indigenous people.

SOVEREIGNTY UNDERMINED BY FORCED CITIZENSHIP AND RESTRICTED PASSAGE LEADS TO FORMATION OF THE IDLA

The Canadian government does not recognize these inherent rights, or the Jay Treaty and in the early part of this century moved to dissolve the traditional Iroquois government by an "Order in Council of September 17, 1923. " Additionally, the Canadian Indian Office tried to force Canadian citizenship or "enfranchisement."

Similarly, the U.S. government enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, which under section 13(c) was an exclusionary measure against Asians and North American Indians. Citizenship was also imposed by the U.S. government on Indian people in 1924 and was understood as a violation of our sovereignty. Chief Clinton Rickard asked the question, "how can you be a sovereign nation and be force to be a citizen in a foreign government?" Needless to say, citizenship is rejected by the Haudenosaunee.

Deskaheh, or Levi General, a Cayuga sachem from Six Nations territories on the Grand River, in 1924 resisted this encroachment of our sovereign rights. Deskaheh became ill after an appeal for justice to the League of Nations in Switzerland, and was forced to stay at the home of Chief Clinton Rickard.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:11 PM on 11/15/2011
We can look after our own security, and if paranoid Americans who still insist the 9/11 terrorists entered the US from Canada despite all the evidence to the contrary want to spend billions of their dollars so they feel safer at night, that is their problem, not ours.

I've little doubt somebody has already posted this, but I'm posting it just in case people haven't seen it already. It's a copy of the Wikileaks cable, released in the waning hours of the election, confirming the government's intention to introduce a North American Union by incremental stealth.

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html

And, the article in which it was first referenced:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/7336-wikileaks-exposes-north-american-integration-plot
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:11 PM on 11/15/2011
CANADA WAKE UP.

This government has openly shown its contempt of the Canadian parliamentary system. Now it is headed down a road to trade off our Sovereignty. Any Canadian who wants to stay Canadian and not be morphed into an American citizen, MUST read this article from May 12, 2011 (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/handle+traffic+remote+border+crossing+officials/4774491/story.html), and then move on to the documents presented by Wikileaks about the North American Integration proposal (http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl3/north-american-integration-plot.html).

Recipe to cook a live frog: if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The heat will have been moved up several notches if the present government is allowed to proceed with this North American security perimeter agreement.

Ask the producers of softwood and steel how fair the US administrations are with bilateral issues which favour Canadian actions over the American wishes. With softwood we won the court case in front of the NAFTA board, AND at the WTO, and still only got back 80% of the fees extorted by the US. Steel was even worse as an industry in Canada was decimated.

This is not a partisan issue about whether you like the Conservatives or Liberals. This is about our future as Canadians.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:08 PM on 11/15/2011
Contact Prime Minister Stephen Harper today and tell him he shouldn't sign away Canada's sovereignty by making backroom deals without public debate or scrutiny. The security perimeter deal was signed by Prime Minster Harper without permission from the Canadian public and without approval from Parliament even though it could result in major changes to how our borders are monitored, unfair immigration policies, and the sharing of Canadians' personal information with U.S. Homeland Security.

http://www.canadians.org/publications/subscribe/enews/2011/feb8.html
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:07 PM on 11/15/2011
If you're interested in signing a petition against the Perimeter Security Agreement, you can find one started by the Facebook group, Canadians Against the Perimeter Agreement: https://www.facebook.com/CanadiansAgainstThePerimeterAgreement

Please Like the page if you sign the petition, since it is being submitted to government as our Page submission.

The petition can be found at: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ps2a5419

There is also a story about the page and this petition on Luiza Savage's website,

The Bilateralist: http://www.bilateralist.com

TYPE IN :Perimeter Security Agreement & FOLLOW THE LINKS

Public input on the Perimeter Security Agreement can be made here: http://www.borderactionplan-plandactionfrontalier.gc.ca/psec-scep/index.aspx?lang=eng
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:03 PM on 11/15/2011
The end of the SPP in name was predictable. In a May interview, American Consul General Phillip Chicola stated that President Obama would likely want to rebrand the Bush era Security and Prosperity Partnership but the process of deep integration would continue. When President Obama was in Ottawa on February 19th 2009, ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/04/declaration-president-obama-and-prime-minister-harper-canada-beyond-bord

&

International Trade Minister Van Loan and Minister of State Lebel Launch Public Consultation on Shared Vision for Canada-U.S. Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness

(No. 99 – March 13, 2011 – 11:30 a.m. ET) The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of International Trade, and the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), acting on behalf of the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today announced the launch of a public consultation on the shared vision for Canada-U.S. perimeter security and economic competitiveness enunciated February 4, 2011, in a joint declaration by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama.

“The Government of Canada is focusing on creating jobs and expanding economic growth through free, open and secure trade with the United States,” said Minister Van Loan, speaking at the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

read the rest:

http://politicsrespun.org/2011/03/the-ugly-return-of-the-security-and-prosperity-partnership-spp/
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:01 PM on 11/15/2011
On August 12th 2009 a new post on the www.spp.gov page stated that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is no longer an active initiative of the US government.

A Victory! …yes?

Not so fast!

While the Security and Prosperity Partnership is no longer an active initiative of the three NAFTA countries, many of the components have already been implemented or are still moving forward. This neoliberal agenda for continental integration will continue. The corporate giants and think tanks behind the SPP are in the process of rebranding this agenda.

The SPP was driven by a group of thirty CEO’s, ten each from some of the largest corporations of the three NAFTA countries, which made up an organization called the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The NACC is composed of a who’s who of the military industrial complex, big pharma, big banks, big oil and retail giants including Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Merck, Scotiabank, Chevron, Ford, Walmart and Home Depot.

The NACC was the only non-government organization to take part in the ‘Three Amigos’ summits held each year since 2005. It would bring forward recommendations on how to implement deeper integration between the three countries through a process of harmonization and regulatory reform that was favorable to the corporate giants but detrimental to working people, consumers and the environment.

read the rest

http://www.youmespp.com/2009/09/spp-dead-youre-dreaming-in-technicolor/
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
05:00 PM on 11/15/2011
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative and as such this website will act as an archive for SPP documents. There will not be any updates to this site.”

– Disclaimer from the U.S. government’s official SPP website, www.spp.gov.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:59 PM on 11/15/2011
http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/timeline.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Competitiveness_Council
(lists Canadian reps as noted below)

Canadian Representatives:

Dominic D'Alessandro, Manulife Financial
Paul Desmarais, Jr., Power Corporation of Canada
David Ganong, Ganong Bros. Limited
Richard George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Hunter Harrison, CN
Linda Hasenfratz, Linamar Corporation (NACC chairperson)
Michael Sabia, Bell Canada Enterprises
Jim Shepherd, Canfor Corporation
Annette Verschuren, The Home Depot
Rick Waugh, Scotiabank
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:57 PM on 11/15/2011
Don't understand why the Cons have such a problem with the census.

They "mine" information shamelessly themselves.

Here's a good read: http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=001...

"Former Conservative-turned-Liberal MP Garth Turner revealed that the Conservatives require MPs to input constituency office information into a consolidated political database system called Constituent Information Management System or CIMS.

"This led to controversy over whether the Conservatives breach privacy laws with this practice. Since they are not a business, however, they probably do not.

"Political work is based on list-building ... with consultants and invest heavily in database technology. Turner's charges, however, raise questions about how that work is done by the Conservatives.

"The Conservatives have used their money and .. connections with US Republicans to develop a wide lead over their competitors in the field of "data mining" and voter identification."

---------------

What's the difference between providing census information; and a CIMS database of voters & consituents?

Not much if you think about !!!
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:56 PM on 11/15/2011
Statistics Canada used the services of a U.S. military contractor, Lockheed Martin Canada. (CBC)"

The following is an excerpt from an recent interesting article on Lockheed Martin available at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MA14Ak02...

"Giant weapons maker becomes Big Brother
By William D Hartung ...

... Collecting intelligence on you

If it seems a little creepy to you that the same company making ballistic missiles is also processing your taxes, accessing your fingerprints, scanning your packages, ensuring that it's easier than ever to collect your DNA, and counting you for the census, rest assured: Lockheed Martin's interest in getting inside your private life via intelligence collection and surveillance has remained remarkably undiminished in the 21st century.

Tim Shorrock, author of the seminal book Spies for Hire, has described Lockheed Martin as ..."

( continued at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MA14Ak02... )
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:54 PM on 11/15/2011
Notwithstanding the spirit of cooperation that surrounds the SPP, it is questionable whether any these states are truly committed to, or entirely comfortable with, a perimeter solution to their homeland security and defence dilemma. While all three governments recognize that collaboration is a necessity, the reality is that the three neighbours view the continental security problem from different, at times divergent, perspectives. Above all, the United States, the loudest promoter of a North American security perimeter, is the least inclined to depend on a trilateral regime to protect the American homeland. As Daniel Drache (2004) has pointed out, borders matter, and Washington is bolstering security at every entry point to the United States. In terms of North American security, this means that the American government ...

con't reading the rest:

http://ca.­vlex.com/v­id/suspend­ers-belt-p­erimeter-b­order-rela­tions-6276­6974#ixzz1­NVRT589z
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:53 PM on 11/15/2011
Suspenders and a Belt: Perimeter and Border Security in Canada-Us Relations

"How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants."

INTRODUCTION

On 23 March 2005, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin joined Presidents George W. Bush and Vincente Fox in Waco, Texas, to announce the founding of a North American security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

As part of the SPP, the three countries are to pursue common approaches:

* to emergency preparedness and infrastructure protection;
* improve aviation, border and maritime security; and
* explore ways to enhance economic cooperation in key sectors. (Canada 2005)
These efforts are intended to reaffirm the continental neighbours' shared desire for a closer continental security relationship, one that reduces North American vulnerabilities without unduly slowing cross-border trade. In order to further improve continental security, Canada, the United States and Mexico are forming ministerial working groups to examine additional means of improving North America's economic and security ties. As recently advocated by a Council on Foreign Relations task force, these working groups are likely to discuss the erection of a North American security perimeter, a step that would involve a near complete harmonization of Canadian, American, and Mexican homeland security and defence measures. (Council on Foreign Relations et al 2005)

read the rest:

http://ca.vlex.com/vid/suspenders-belt-perimeter-border-relations-62766974#ixzz1NVRT589z
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
04:50 PM on 11/15/2011
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.

Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East.

http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Martial%20Law/Canada-US%20Relations%20-%20Defence%20Partnership.htm

&

shows a pretty nifty map! CANADA: AMERICA"S BACKYARD!!

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo4/no1/doc/v4n1-p15-22-eng.pdf

Philippe Lagassé holds a Master's degree from the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College, Kingston

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo4/no1/doc/v4n1-p15-22-eng.pdf