Latest news with #CivilLiberties
The Guardian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action to take effect after legal challenge fails
Being a member of, or showing support for, Palestine Action will be a criminal offence from Saturday after a last-minute legal challenge to suspend the group's proscription under anti-terrorism laws failed. A ban on Palestine Action, which uses direct action to mainly target Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chain, was voted through by parliament this week but lawyers acting for its co-founder Huda Ammori had sought to prevent it taking effect. After a hearing at the high court on Friday, however, Mr Justice Chamberlain declined to grant her application for interim relief. It means Palestine Action will become the first direct action protest group to be banned under the Terrorism Act, placing it in the same category as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the far-right group National Action. UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the ban as draconian and said it sets a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism. Another hearing is scheduled for 21 July when Palestine Action will apply for permission for a judicial review to quash the order. In the meantime, and unless the judicial review is successful, membership of, or inviting support for, the group will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Gizmodo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Gizmodo
‘We Live in a Surveillance State': Reddit Users Explode Over Reports of ICE's New Face and Fingerprint Scanning App
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reportedly using a new tool called Mobile Fortify, a smartphone-based facial recognition and fingerprint scanning app that allows agents to identify people in real time using only a phone camera. The tool taps into the same biometric system used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at ports of entry. But ICE is now using it inside the U.S., in field operations across the country. According to internal ICE emails reviewed by 404 Media, the app is being deployed by Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), the branch of ICE tasked with arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants. The app, reportedly called 'Mobile Fortify,' gives federal agents the power to use their phones to identify people in the field via facial recognition, a development that many online see as a horrifying leap forward for the surveillance state. The 404 Media report has ignited outrage on Reddit, where users are voicing deep concern about how far this technology could go and what it says about the direction of American governance. 'Surveillance state in full effect,' one user posted bluntly. 'The next step is to label anyone who opposes them a terrorist or criminal, strip you of any rights and probably use unconstitutional surveillance to find any dirt on you,' warned another. Others drew a straight line between mass surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties. 'We live in a surveillance state and anyone who believes otherwise reads too much Fox News,' said one user. 'Everyone mask up like it's COVID! We have already witnessed an attempted arrest and then release,' another user added. Some users offered practical resistance strategies—or at least suggestions for anonymity. 'I wonder if facial ID blocking glasses, like Reflectacles, would work on this. Apparently they block iPhone facial recognition,' said one commenter. 'Definitely wear a mask (preferably ones that hide your whole head, i.e. UV Blocking Balaclava), wear sunglasses and bring an umbrella. Also bring a flashlight, headlamp, flashlight with strobing capabilities,' wrote another. A few users expressed bitter disillusionment with the political divide over surveillance. 'Mass surveillance was something right-wingers always said they would fight against. Now that it's happening they aren't doing shit,' one user said. 'They are doing shit… they are doing the mass surveillance,' another replied, 'which is entirely made of shit.' 'They always figured that when authoritarianism came to the U.S., it would be left-wing. But since it's right-wing, they are fine with it,' added another. The most chilling posts reflected the loss of faith in institutional leadership altogether. 'Creepy. I remember noticing this at the airport a few years ago and how it felt Orwellian. I was right.' 'Wondering how long into the police state our remaining leaders will allow the country to slip before everything burns down,' wrote one user. 'We have been wholly betrayed by everyone who vowed to serve the public besides educators and emergency service workers. I have learned nothing this year that leads me to believe anyone of means gives enough fucks to stop any of this.' The growing backlash taps into long-standing fears that technologies built for border enforcement or national security are now being turned inward, aimed not just at suspects but potentially at anyone. Civil liberties groups have warned for years that biometric surveillance tools, especially those powered by AI and facial recognition, lack proper oversight and accountability and risk targeting marginalized communities. Gizmodo has reached out to ICE for comment on whether Mobile Fortify is currently in use and how the agency justifies deploying such tools in domestic operations. So far, no comment. For now, Reddit is sounding the alarm.
CBC
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?
Social Sharing Conservatives and New Democrats don't agree on much, but it appears both have issues with provisions tucked into Bill C-2, the Carney government's Strong Borders Act. The 140-page bill would modify many existing laws, from the Criminal Code to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Oceans Act. Much of it is about the border and the movement of people and goods, licit and illicit, across that border, as its full name suggests: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. But some MPs are having difficulty seeing how everything in the bill is at all "related" to the border. WATCH | Privacy concerns over Liberal border bill: Strong Borders Act raises concern about police access to personal data 1 day ago Duration 2:28 Civil liberties groups are concerned that the federal government's proposed Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will give law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, like making it easier for police to search your internet activity and data without your knowledge or a warrant. "I think the title of the act is for show for the Trump administration," said New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan. "A lot of the components in the bill target Canada's own processes that have nothing to do with the U.S." Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said C-2 includes "snooping provisions" that are "a massive poison pill." A long fight over 'lawful access' Perhaps the most controversial parts of the bill relate to police powers and "lawful access," the ability for police to demand subscriber information from internet providers and other online companies. Police have been seeking such powers for two decades in Canada, and there have been several attempts to pass legislation. The last determined effort to expand police powers over the internet was made by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, when it was packaged as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It fell apart after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews challenged critics to either "stand with us or stand with the child pornographers." The Carney government also turned to the spectre of child pornography to make the case for their bill. And indeed, those who work in child protection have long advocated for a version of lawful access that would compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement. Wait times for warrants "There are pieces of information that are only in the possession of [internet] companies," said Monique St. Germain, a lawyer with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. She said it can take months to obtain authorizations to link a computer's IP address to a suspect, and sometimes that means important evidence is lost. WATCH | Critics worry about alignment with U.S.: Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 7 days ago Duration 2:43 And Thomas Carrique of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says communications and encryption technology used by criminals have raced ahead of existing legislation. "We are certainly not advocating to have unfettered access," he said. "[C-2] lays out in law what the police would have access to based on reasonable suspicion. And in a modern technical society, this is bare-minimum information." Reasonable expectations of privacy But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled its landmark 2014 decision R v. Spencer that the information police hope to gain through the border bill is within the bounds of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. "I frankly thought that the prospect of government going back to legislation without a warrant, without court oversight, was simply gone," said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He says it now feels like there's an effort to "sneak" old provisions from failed legislation into this bill — "about which there's very little to do with lawful access." He expects Canadians will "feel that they've been duped" as they learn that a bill "designed to deal with the border and border safety" has elements that "have nothing to do with the border." Content off limits The data at issue would not include the actual content of messages exchanged over the internet. In order to listen to conversations or read emails, police would still need a warrant. Rather it is biographical information about the sender that is at issue, and there is a debate about how significant the privacy interest in that is. "I think what's being asked is relatively limited, but I acknowledge that's not a universally shared view," said Richard Fadden, former director of Canada's intelligence agency, CSIS. "If you go back 20 or 30 years you had telephone books which allowed the police to do more or less the same." But Geist said police could obtain a lot more through C-2 than they ever could through an old phone book. He said law enforcement could ask an internet company what kind of things a customer has been doing online, when they were doing them and where. Geist says providers would also have to disclose what communications services the subscriber users, such as a Gmail account. WATCH | Public safety minister says C-2 is in line with Charter: Public safety minister says border bill is in line with Charter 9 days ago Duration 0:54 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, strikes the right balance between expanding the powers of border agents and police officers, while also protecting the individual rights of Canadians. Shakir Rahim, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said such information provides "a trove of background about our lives" and that his group has "serious concerns that this bill is not compliant with the Charter." Rahim says the requirement to get a warrant offers "some level of protection" that such access is being sought in a targeted way. "But this legislation changes that. It takes away that protection," he said. That problem is compounded, says Geist, by the very low bar set to allow police to demand such information — "any violation of any act of Parliament" — giving the example of camping without a permit. Opposition parties concerned about snooping Rempel Garner raised those concerns in the House of Commons. "Whether or not I use an online service, where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, if I start an online service, how long I use an online service, everything that C-2 says it would do — that is my personal information," she said. "That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here." WATCH | Conservatives express privacy concerns: Conservatives express privacy concerns over border bill 7 days ago Duration 1:57 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who has a background in asylum and human rights law, said he would never advance a bill that threatens civil liberties. "It needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said the day the bill was tabled. "I fundamentally believe that we can strike a balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place like protecting individual freedoms or rights." The NDP's Kwan isn't convinced. "I know the minister says this and believes it," she said. "But in reality, if you look at the bill, the minister is creating a situation where your personal info is being disclosed without your consent." A need for 'careful review' Even some who broadly support the lawful access provisions in C-2 wish they had been presented in a separate bill. Fadden says CSIS is too busy to waste time on fishing expeditions, and he would expect the agency to set its own protocols that agents would have to comply with before contacting internet providers. He doesn't dismiss the risk of abuse and overreach, but argues that those risks also exist under the present system of warrants. Still, he wishes the changes hadn't been buried in an omnibus bill ostensibly about the border. "I understand the desire to do it that way, but I don't think it allows for people to understand what's being proposed," Fadden said. "I'm not sure when parliamentary committees look at the bill in the aggregate, particularly given its focus on borders, that this will get the attention that it deserves … people from the civil liberties side are raising concerns that merit discussion."
CTV News
05-06-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Immigration minister defends border bill's restrictions on asylum claims
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab participates in a family photo following a cabinet swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby OTTAWA — Safeguards have been written into the government's border bill to ensure civil rights and due process are upheld in proposed immigration regulations, Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday. Critics and advocacy groups are calling the wide-ranging border security legislation a threat to civil liberties in the immigration and asylum system. One proposed change in the legislation would prevent people from making asylum claims if they've been in Canada for more than a year. That change would not affect applications that have been submitted already but would be retroactive to June 3, assuming the bill becomes law. Diab said there would still be opportunities for asylum seekers who have been in Canada for more than a year to make their case through measures like pre-removal risk assessments. 'There's a lot of applications in the system and so this is will streamline it to ensure that those newcomers, or those people that really need our protection and use the asylum system, are processed faster,' she said. The 127-page bill, unveiled Tuesday, would give authorities new powers to search mail and expand the Canadian Coast Guard's role to include security activities. There are several other immigration measures are in the bill. They include giving authorities the power to cancel or suspend immigration documents for health or national security reasons, closing a loophole that allows people to make an asylum claim 14 days after crossing the U.S. land border, and allowing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share the personal information of immigrants and refugees with provincial and territorial governments. Immigration lawyer Zool Suleman said the information-sharing proposal poses a threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. 'Everybody thinks they have nothing to hide. You'd be amazed at how much we do want to hide in terms of the personal lives that we lead in this country and that we have a right to lead in the country,' he said. 'The real issue is that the government should not be delving into your private life unless they have cause. And so what this bill is really doing is threatening the civil liberties of everybody in Canada.' Diab said the legislation includes a number of safeguards to protect personal information. She said the goal is to streamline information-sharing between branches of government that process immigration, citizenship and passport applications. 'These programs cannot share information together. So this at least will give us that ability to do that, but also share information with the provinces and territories where the need arises,' she said. Diab said information-sharing arrangements with provincial and territorial bodies would be outlined in agreements stating which information can be shared and when. 'Most Canadians probably think this is the sensible thing to do and in fact most probably think it exists already. Well, it does not,' Diab said. Diab said the final decision on cancelling or suspending immigration documents in the event of a health or public safety emergency would be made by cabinet. 'I think people, Canadians, should feel safe that we are putting all these safeguards in. But again, as I said, it's all part of protecting our country and protecting our system,' Diab said. Suleman said he has worried about a government giving itself this kind of power since the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act became law. 'People had predicted that this is the direction in which the government would go when it was passing this framework legislation. And what we find more than two decades later is it's exactly where the government has gone,' he said. 'They've taken on more and more authority for themselves with less and less safeguards for refugees and immigrants.' The legislation says that some asylum cases -- such as those of migrants crossing by land from the U.S. -- will no longer be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for review. 'You will be subjected to a much lower level of review and much lower levels of safeguards. Essentially, what the government is trying to do for many, many refugee claimants is move to a paper review basis, not an oral review basis to determine their claims,' Suleman said. The government has been trying to cut the backlog in immigration and refugee applications and is reducing the number of permanent and temporary residents being admitted to Canada. Roxham Road in Quebec became a focal point for the immigration debate during the first Donald Trump presidency, with thousands of people claiming asylum after crossing the Canadian border onto the small rural road, about 50 kilometres south of Montreal. More recently, the government has reported an increase in the number of international students making asylum claims when their visas expire. Diab said the asylum system can't be used as a shortcut to immigration. 'If you want to immigrate to Canada, we have rules. We have processes. Please use them,' she said. David Baxter, The Canadian Press With files from Jim Bronskill This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2025.
Fox News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Federal judge blocks Trump admin from firing 2 Dem members of privacy oversight board
A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's administration from firing two Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on Wednesday. Trump fired all three Democratic members of the five-person board in February, resulting in two of them filing a lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found that allowing unilateral firings would prevent the board from carrying out its purpose. Walton wrote that allowing at-will removals would make the board "beholden to the very authority it is supposed to oversee on behalf of Congress and the American people." The oversight board was initially created by Congress to ensure that federal counterterrorism policies were in line with privacy and civil liberties law. "To hold otherwise would be to bless the President's obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution and shield the Executive Branch's counterterrorism actions from independent oversight, public scrutiny, and bipartisan congressional insight regarding those actions," Walton wrote. Trump's firings left just one Republican on the board. The third Democratic member had just two days left in her term when she was removed, and she did not sue the administration. The two plaintiffs, Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, argued in their lawsuit that members of the board cannot be fired without cause. Meanwhile, lawyers for Trump's administration argued that members of other congressionally created boards do have explicit job protections, and it would therefore be wrong for Walton to create such protections where they are absent. "The Constitution gives President Trump the power to remove personnel who exercise his executive authority," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told the Associated Press. "The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue." The plaintiffs also argued that their firings left just one member on the board, a Republican, and that falls short of the quorum required for the board to function.
