Illustration by Matt Daley

Why the Canadian government needs to hit refresh on its digital strategies

When former Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stood in the House of Commons and proclaimed that anyone who didn’t support the government’s new Lawful Access legislation was standing with the child pornographers, the Internet collectively decided he was being ridiculous. When MP Dean Del Mastro compared ripping a CD to buying socks and then stealing shoes (because, you know, feet), the Internet collectively decided he was being profoundly stupid.

The Internet wasn’t wrong.

And it’s not that Toews is a ridiculous guy or that Del Mastro is actually stupid, but there’s a disconnect between the digital policies they’re advocating and the way people actually use digital technology. Wanting privacy doesn’t mean you support molesting children and converting your music collection doesn’t make you a thief. Obviously.

This isn’t strictly an attack on the current Conservative government. Previous governments didn’t really have to deal with these issues. Consider how far we’ve come since Stephen Harper first came to power in 2006, before the iPhone was a thing or the words “big” and “data” had collided in a sentence. But newness doesn’t excuse the tenuous grasp elected officials like Toews and Del Mastro have on both the technical and cultural aspects of modern technology. Either they aren’t the right people to be working on these policies or, more frightening, it’s a problem that permeates the entire House of Commons—a group whose average age is 53, with only a handful of millennials (the only generation with the opportunity to have internalized so many digital issues) who all belong to the minority opposition.

Whether it’s age or politics, the sitting government has already repeatedly whiffed on digital policy. Most disappointing was when Industry Minister James Moore introduced Digital Canada 150 in April, a strategy document designed to put digital priorities front and centre, but was  panned for lacking any sort of real vision or concrete plans (Michael Geist called it a strategy document lacking much in way of actual strategy). It was a document that took a staggering four years to produce, which means much of the data used pre-dates the iPad and Netflix streaming and a lot of other things we take for granted today.

The shortcomings of Digital Canada 150 became apparent with subsequent legislation. Bill C-13, officially the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, was supposed to be a huge step toward combatting cyberbullying. Unfortunately, it also includes a pile of provisions that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, and has been strongly criticized for allowing investigative overreach without judicial oversight, while stripping away the privacy protections many Canadians assume they have. It’s a wide-reaching bill that was heavily scrutinized by a small group of people who enjoy heavily scrutinizing these things, but was largely sold to the general public as something that would save our kids from the scourge of bullies on the Internet. In short, C-13 has never received the public discussion it deserves and, while not straight out of 1984, does have an Orwellian feel to it.

More curious than sinister was Bill C-23, the much discussed Fair Elections Act. In a world where we can pay bills, buy groceries, and file taxes online, C-23 offers substantial electoral reform without ever broaching the subject of online voting. In fact, the infrastructure needed to make online voting a reality isn’t really on anyone’s roadmap, which is crazy if you really think about it. (This isn’t just a Canadian problem and, oddly, it’s Estonia that leads the way with a comprehensive digital identification program that’s required at every level of government.)

Technology touches everything—justice, privacy, resources, copyright, access to information, entertainment, democracy itself—so robust and complex digital policies are necessary. It’s not just enough that our politicians understand this stuff, which they mostly don’t (if you don’t believe me, you haven’t listened to an MP try to clearly and accurately define “metadata” or “net neutrality”), they need to ensure we understand it, too. Balance on these issues is important: balance between companies and consumers, law enforcement and citizens, government and taxpayers. But keep in mind that half of all of those equations is people—we are the consumers and citizens and taxpayers. And, generally speaking, when an issue isn’t being widely discussed and properly understood, it’s the people that are getting screwed.

The Force Four Entertainment-produced series, called “Border Security: Canada’s Front Line” is currently on season two and has not yet been cancelled. Thankfully, though, the common sense of others won out in regards to one particularly exploitative episode.

The filming of a March 13 Vancouver construction site raid and the arrests of eight migrant workers will not air as part of the series. Also, there are now restrictions on where cameras are allowed. Filming is done away from the border and kept on the inland enforcement of those with “serious criminality.”

A memo from CBSA cites, “negative public response may continue,” as the reason for the episode’s cancellation. Such negative public response includes: Amnesty International, BC Civil Liberties Association, LeadNow, Council of Canadians, No One Is Illegal and the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), all of which have spoken out against the series, and wish for its cancellation. Thompson’s petition on change.org has over 24,000 signatures and an open letter addressed “To Force Four Entertainment, Shaw Media, Global BC, National Geographic, Canadian Border Services Agency, and all other producers, financiers, and broadcasters of Border Security: Canada’s Front Line,” has garnered 250 signatures from media professionals.

Diana Thompson, wife to Tulio Renan Hernandez , a worker who has been deported to Honduras told the activist group No One is Illegal: “We all feel extremely relieved by the news and are grateful to everyone who spoke out. We want this episode and the whole show cancelled.”

Picture from Diana Thompson's Change.org petition

The show, which follows CBSA, has been criticized for exploiting the confusion and language barriers of people. Or as the Border Security site says, “From confused visitors to phony immigrants.” National Geographic gets more dramatic while describing this trashy TV, “Passengers react in a variety of unpredictable ways—they lie, argue, play the victim, plead ignorance and even threaten legal action.  But they are no match for the investigative tactics of the CBSA officers.  After all, the law is on their side.”

Concerns about the show regard harming not only the dignity of fellow human beings but in some cases putting them further in harm’s way. A letter addressed to Toews from the CBA explains that those seeking refuge for themselves and their family may be endangered further, having their faces filmed for television. The letter also says what many are worried about: “We question whether those foreign nationals participating in the filming can be considered to have provided free and informed consent.”

Though people are asked to sign a waiver, they are filmed first, then asked while they are detained. Language barriers, confusion and fear that not signing will affect their release factor before signing.

Force Four Entertainment released a statement after the raid, saying they were being mis-characterized and that the show was not exploitative tabloid television but a documentary about the CBSA. However the letter originally sent to Toews for approval wasn’t trumpeting education but sensationalism calling the project a, “documentary-style reality television series.” The letter, fit for Tory propaganda continues, “It would be a valuable opportunity to promote important messages about Canada’s commitment to border security to give profile to the agency as a professional and effective law enforcement organization.” And so the show was approved and funded by our federal government.

Josh Patterson, executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association also appealed to Parliament Hill at a Vancouver news conference in March, “The federal government must respect the rights of every person it deals with, regardless of their immigration status.”

The show airs Mondays at 8 and 8:30 on the National Geographic Channel. For now.

Last year on January 18, thousands of websites protested against the major U.S. internet censorship bills, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protest IP Act (PIPA). Wikipedia blacked out its site for a full 24 hours and Reddit took down its services from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Google—still browsable—blacked out its logo for the day and prompted users to get informed on internet freedom.

The bills aimed to punish websites “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” But shutting down these rogue copyright infringers would also mean blocking legitimate websites with loose, inadvertent connections. Companies, big and small, couldn’t afford this. So two days after massive protests on the web and in the streets, congress shelved SOPA and PIPA.

But now internet censorship is back on the table. Haven’t noticed? That’s because web giants have gone silent—not black—on the issue.

Hacktivist group, Anonymous, called for another blackout on Monday, this time to protest Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). But instead of blocking content for internet freedom, major tech companies—like TechNet, whose members include Google and Facebook—are actually supporting the “cyber-security” bill.

In an attempt to protect the U.S. from hackers, CISPA, if passed, will let companies share web users’ information with the government. Essentially, it will override websites’ privacy policies while letting the government have at your info warrant-free.

So why—after all the fuss over SOPA and PIPA—is CISPA so weakly contested?

It’s because the bill is only bad for internet users—not websites or tech companies themselves. It could actually benefit companies by letting them unload responsibility on the government when fishy online activity arises. And since the bill immunizes companies against lawsuits, they risk nothing by breaking privacy contracts and giving it up to The Man.

The House of Representatives passed CISPA on April 18 with 288 to 127 votes. But before taking effect, it has to go to the Senate. This is the second year in a row the Senate will vote on the bill. It was blocked last year, but this time there’s less hope the Senate will be so reasonable.

For one, CISPA promises protection at a time when Americans are sensitive to security breaches. The Senate may take this opportunity to flex some defensive muscle and pass the bill (in part) to repair the vulnerable American psyche.

But more likely, CISPA may succeed where SOPA and PIPA didn’t because it protects corporations and targets individuals. And those in favour are paying good money to see the bill legislated.

According to MapLight, lobbyists who support CISPA donated about $84 million to House members, while opponents donated just $18 million.

“I am not surprised to see corporations spending significant amounts of money lobbying on CISPA,” Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and vocal CISPA opponent, told U.S. News & World Report. “Keep in mind that CISPA has sweeping liability protections for companies, making it a sweetheart deal for companies. That’s no coincidence.”

If the bill does pass, internet users in Canada could be at risk too. Last spring, Harper and Obama signed the “Beyond the Border” declaration, committing to (among other things) harmonizing cyber-security practices and objectives, and “assessing and addressing threats together.”

Sure, these “commitments” aren’t exactly binding, but it wouldn’t be terribly un-Canadian to follow suite with American policy. Plus, renewed support for CISPA may breathe new life into bill C-30—Canada’s own attempt at internet surveillance law, ridiculously spun as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Protest against bill C-30 took off last year when safety minister, Vic Toews declared “You can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Ultimately, we chose the latter.

Now, it’s a year later and the States are in the same awkward dilemma—sacrifice web freedom and privacy, or join the ranks of us child-porn supporters up north. True, the Senate may still strike down the bill or Obama may act on his threat to veto CISPA. But at this point, clinging to the successful SOPA and PIPA protests may just breed false hope, because—let’s face it—corporate interest is what got those bills defeated and corporate interest is what’s helping this new one pass.

Watch out! The terrorists are coming! They’re human smugglers too, all of them. They’re smuggling themselves. And there are many more boats on the horizon, watching and waiting to take advantage of our natural generosity. Xenophobic? Not us. We value immigration. In fact, there are thousands of good immigrants out there waiting patiently to get in, and these bad refugees are trying to jump the line!

If pollster Angus Reid’s projections are accurate, something about this infuriating line of reasoning appeals to half the country. Polling data released on August 20th and confirmed on September 14th suggests that half of Canadians want the 490 passengers and crew from the MV Sun Sea to be deported—even if their refugee claims are legitimate and they have no discernible links with any terrorist organization.

Uzma Shakir, past executive director of the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), warned early on that Canada’s treatment of the people on board the MV Sun Sea would be a defining moment for the country. Damn.

Allegations of “queue-jumping” ignore the difference between asylum seekers and other immigrants. Sharry Aiken, Associate Dean in the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University, explained last week on The Agenda that “Canada has an in-land refugee determination system that is premised on the assumption that it is entirely legitimate for people to self-select and arrive on our shores and claim asylum. That’s what our system is set up to do. We recognize that the refugee resettlement program, which resettles refugees from overseas, doesn’t work for everybody.”

Public Safety Minister (and lead narrator) Vic Toews has acknowledged that this is a case of human smuggling and not human trafficking, but the conflation of the two terms has hardened hearts against the smugglers and the refugees. Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, emphasizes the difference between the exploited and their exploiters.

The CCR has released a statement saying that while it in no way condones the activities of smugglers, “many refugees have no choice but to use irregular means to flee persecution and international law prohibits them being penalized for illegal entry.  Many Canadians would not be alive today if they or their parents had not paid smugglers to help them escape persecution.” Professor Aiken points to security measures adopted internationally after 9/11 which closed the “front door” and forced desperate refugees to look to the black market.