Since 2014, the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has been pushing back against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) through complaints filed with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), the oversight body for CSIS.
BCCLA alleges that CSIS illegally spies on activist and environmental groups that operate in Canada and passes that information on to petroleum companies.
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) supports BCCLA’s pursuit of government transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to question those in power.
In addition, FIPA concurs that spying on people who are exercising their right to protest is an attack on our freedom of expression, an abuse that cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.
We encourage you to support BCCLA, along with the other organizations involved in the complaint (Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, Leadnow.ca, and STAND), by learning more about their challenge to the unconstitutional spying on Canadians.
In this special edition episode of our Data Subjects podcast, we revisit our Policing Info World conference. On May 23, 2019, we co-hosted a conference that explored the data behind crime, law enforcement, and surveillance. Along with department of criminology at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and the BC Civil Liberties Association, we heard from experts in law enforcement, academia, and the legal profession.
As this was a full-day conference, this episode is very long. Please see the show notes below to find the time codes and descriptions for specific panels and panelists.
This conference wouldn’t have been possible without the support of our sponsors: CUPE BC, News Media Canada, and Web exPress.
Panel 1: Data and New Surveillance Modes and Capacities
Moderator: Mike Larsen (Professor and Co-Chair, Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, FIPA President)
Michelle Davey (Superintendent, Investigative Support Services, Vancouver Department)
Dr. Wade Deisman (Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts, Kwantlen Polytechnic University)
Josh Paterson (Executive Director, BC Civil Liberties Association)
Panel 2: Data and Predictive Policing
Moderator: Dr. Carroll Boydell (Instructor,Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University)
Ryan Prox (S/Constable, Crime Analytics Advisory & Development Unit, Vancouver Police Department)
Mike Larsen (Professor, Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University)
Panel 3: Data and Bias-Free Policing
Moderator: Sara Neuert (Executive Director, BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association)
Dylan Mazur (Community Lawyer, BC Civil Liberties Association)
Michelle A. Cameron (Advisor / Investigator, the University of British Columbia)
Panel 4: Data and the Border
Moderator: Mark Hosak (Director of Community Engagement, BC Civil Association)
Peter Edelmann (Immigration Lawyer, Edelmann and Company Law Offices)
Meghan McDermott (Staff Counsel, BC Civil Liberties Association)
We’ve been hearing from a lot of
British Columbians who are concerned about sharing their Social Insurance
Number (SIN) with the Ministry of Finance in the administration of the new
Speculation and Vacancy Tax.
The Social Insurance Number is a sensitive piece of personal information that should only be provided under very specific circumstances. The concern from the public centers around the justification of the provincial government in asking for this information.
In order to provide more information to the public, we’ve reached out to the Ministry of Finance about where they draw the authority to request SINs, why they are necessary in the administration of the new tax, and how this information is going to be kept secure.
What follows is a response from the Ministry of Finance:
Authority to Collect SIN:
Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) are fundamental to British Columbia and Canada’s taxation system. The Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, subsection 64(1) authorizes the administrator to collect information from property owners through the annual declaration in order to administer the act. Requiring personal information, including the SIN, is necessary for the administrator to determine tax liability, identifying whether property owners pay income taxes in Canada and whether an individual may be eligible for a tax exemption or BC tax credit.
Why the SIN is being collected:
The collection of SIN is crucial to identify whether home owners pay tax in Canada and to confirm residency information. This information is relevant to ensure individuals that live in their home, and are eligible, receive the principal residence exemption. In addition, residency information is required to determine the amount of tax an individual is subject to, and, if applicable, the amount of speculation and vacancy tax credit an individual may receive.
How information is kept secure:
The SIN is one piece of personal information that is collected through the online declaration application. eTaxBC is the online secure government application that is used for the declaration process. All information entered into eTaxBC is encrypted at the time of entry. Once a SIN is collected it is masked and the ability for employees to view the number is controlled by security access on a need to know basis. The personal information that is collected under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act is protected in a manner consistent with the BC Government’s Information Security Policy, Federal Security Standards, and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
He then put forward two concepts he deemed to be main pillars of the current state of privacy: Surveillance Capitalism as discussed in Shoshana Zuboff’s new book and Bernard E. Harcourt’s study on the Expository Society.
“Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.”
– Mike Larsen
The two ideas were both entirely unsurprising, yet undeniably unsettling. While the monetization of data has become fairly well-known (and seemingly accepted), Larsen disputed the belief that the collection of our digital footprint is dedicated solely to economic means like marketing and advertising. I heard noticeable gasps from around the audience when he delved into the other side of surveillance, the one we don’t talk about enough: prediction of behaviour, political sentiment, and voting practices – and information such as these can open the possibility for the steering and manipulation of the public.
discussion on the Expository Society veered towards a more academic vernacular,
the subject in its most basic nutshell did hit close to home. It is essentially
a critique on how the digital age and the dawn of social media have changed our
habits, how we have become more incentivized and inclined to share personal
information in public spaces, which in turn builds copious amounts of
about the safety of our data was a sentiment that Vonn echoed in her
discussion, stating that we create more data than most places, but
unfortunately, “we can’t really protect it.” Vonn also delved into sovereignty
and transparency, citing the lack of ability to hold government bodies
accountable, relative to the amount of access government has to our personal
information. As for tips and solutions, Vonn proposed a tactic she admittedly
described as unpopular – go analog. A self-confessed Luddite, Vonn spoke of the
security measures created by simply leaving devices like laptops (and yes, even
phones) at home when travelling or crossing the US-Canada border.
only celebrate Data Privacy Day once a year, the discussion it generates allow
for issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy to permeate our general
discourse. And while the meaningful action that we seek can come so few and far
between, these discussions do represent a small victory. At the end of the day,
we want as many people talking and caring about these issues. After all,
privacy is a collective good.