News from ICLMG

Party leaders urged to vote against the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act

March 14, 2023

TO:
The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Opposition
Yves-François Blanchet M.P., Bloc Quebecois Leader
Jagmeet Singh M.P., NDP Leader
Elizabeth May M.P., Green Party Parliamentary Leader

RE: Letter to party leaders urging vote against AIDA at second reading

Dear Party Leaders, 

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our concerns regarding the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), part of Bill C-27: An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts (Digital Charter Implementation Act 2022).

As illustrated by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics (ETHI) report on Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence, regulation is urgently needed to safeguard against the devastating impact to the privacy and human rights of Canadians. The application of AI systems have a highly significant and potentially negative impact in sensitive areas, most notably healthcare, employment, immigration, border security, and education.

However, we do not believe that AIDA, in its current iteration, will address these challenges. While regulation is urgent, AIDA offers an inadequate response and would cause more harm than good. It is important that we get it right. 

The Speaker of the House of Commons has already ruled that AIDA is sufficiently different from the rest of C-27 to deserve its own vote. We believe it should not only be studied separately, but re-thought completely. As a result, we are urging your parties to vote against AIDA at second reading, allowing the rest of C-27 to move forward. A few key reasons:

  • The clear absence of public consultations has made it hard for civil society groups, researchers and historically marginalized communities to significantly contribute to the legislation.1 
  • Many important pieces of the Act are left to regulation, and will be decided on only after it is passed. This will result in less scrutiny and transparency.2 
  • The proposed oversight is arbitrary and the enforcement mechanism is fragile.3
  • The Act fails to apply to government institutions, including national security agencies. This opens the door to abuses by law enforcement agencies like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) unlawful use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition technology. While we recognize that it is common for separate legislation to regulate the private and public sectors, we believe this should be reconsidered in light of blurring boundaries when it comes to AI.4 
  • The Act does not address the significant human rights implications of algorithmic systems.5 

While aspects of these problems could be addressed during committee study, we would be concerned about three issues:

  • That, as part of a larger study of C-27, AIDA will not receive the necessary degree of scrutiny that it requires.
  • That the committee cannot engage in the level of public consultation that is necessary to address the flaws in this bill and which the government should have undertaken before tabling legislation.
  • That key amendments necessary for addressing the flaws in the Act would be deemed to go beyond what is possible at committee, for example applying the Act to government institutions or establishing an adequate, independent oversight body.

Sincerely, 

Organizations:
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
OpenMedia
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Tech Reset Canada
Digital Public
Ligue des droits et libertés
Public Interest Advocacy Centre 

Individuals:
Christelle Tessono, Tech Policy Researcher
Yuan Stevens, Legal and Policy Advisor
Renée Sieber, Associate Professor at McGill University
Ana Brandusescu, Artificial Intelligence Governance Researcher
Blair Attard-Frost, PhD Candidate at University of Toronto Faculty of Information
Thomas Linder, OpenNorth
Maurice Jones, Concordia University
Fenwick McKelvey, Communication Studies, Concordia University
Luke Stark, Western University

  1. Wylie, Bianca. “ISED’s Bill C-27 + Aida. Part 1: Tech, Human Rights, and the Year 2000.” Medium. Medium, October 9, 2022. And Tessono, Christelle, Yuan Stevens, Momin M. Malik, Sonja Solomun, Supriya Dwivedi & Sam Andrey. AI Oversight, Accountability and Protecting Human Rights: Comments on Canada’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. Cybersecure Policy Exchange. November, 2022.
  2. Scassa, Teresa. “Statutory Madlibs – Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.” Teresa Scassa – Blog, July 20, 2022.
  3. “Not Fit For Purpose: Canada Deserves Much Better,” Center for Digital Rights October 28, 2022.
  4. “Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology in Canada and the Way Forward.” Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, June 10, 2021.
  5. As discussed in the Cybersecure Policy Exchange and Center for Digital Rights reports.

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

ICLMG response to Criminal Code amendments on counterterrorism and international assistance

On March 9, the federal government introduced long-awaited amendments to the Criminal Code to allow Canadian organizations to carry out their vital international assistance work in Afghanistan and other regions under de facto control of an entity deemed by the government to be a terrorist group. As an initial reaction, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group stated:

“We welcome the government’s action on this urgent issue, and want to congratulate the dedication and hard work of humanitarian organizations and other stakeholders who for nearly two years have been advocating for Canadian organizations to be able to resume their important work in Afghanistan, in particular the Aid for Afghanistan coalition.

The proposed Bill C-41 would create a new exemption regime allowing Canadian organizations to apply to operate in areas under de facto control of an entity deemed by the government to be a terrorist group where the organization’s activities risk providing financial support to the controlling entity.

Positively, this new regime would address not only the prohibition of international assistance in Afghanistan, but also other regions facing conflict or politically complex situations where the payment of fees and taxes to a governing entity could place Canadians at risk of criminal prosecution. 

Importantly, the exemption covers a broad array of activities, including humanitarian aid, education, human rights defense and more. This will allow Canadian organizations to provide not just crisis relief, but to engage with local communities on crucial, ongoing projects to support their well-being and livelihoods.

However, the new exemption regime will also require deep scrutiny, particularly in regards to a possibly onerous process to apply for an exemption; the creation of new information-sharing protocols between government agencies; and broad criteria that can justify the denial of an application based on undefined “links” to terrorism. Further, organizations whose applications are denied may not be privy to the reasons for or to the information used in the denial of their application.

Finally, the ICLMG coalition also expresses concern that an exemption regime does not address the central problem at the heart of this issue: that Canada’s overly-broad counter-terrorism laws allowed for this situation to occur in the first place. The ICLMG, among others, has long raised concerns that the inherent vagueness and political nature of “terrorism” will continue to have unintended consequences, including on Canada’s international human rights and humanitarian obligations, evidenced by the current restrictions on the provision of aid. While an exemption regime may provide a route forward, it avoids how counter-terrorism laws create areas and entities that are considered ‘no go,’ and continue to primarily, and unjustly, impact majority-Muslim countries and regions. We renew our call for the government to fundamentally revisit its approach on counter-terrorism laws and their enforcement.”

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, founded in 2002, is a non-partisan coalition of 45 Canadian civil society organizations from a broad range of sectors that works to defend civil liberties in the context of national security and the so-called “War on Terror.”

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

Feds must immediately suspend CSIS threat reduction powers following latest watchdog report

The latest National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) report on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s threat reduction activities shows once again that the spy agency cannot be trusted to follow the law or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they are granted secret powers to disrupt the lives of Canadians.

“We have said from the beginning that we cannot trust a spy agency that operates in secret with tangible threat reduction measures, especially if they get to decide what amounts to needing a warrant or not, and with what we know of CSIS’ troubling internal culture around the warrant process. NSIRA’s report is proof that our concerns are valid,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.

It is completely unacceptable that CSIS believes it can ask third parties, like private companies, to take action against individuals based on a secret risk assessment without taking responsibility for the possible impacts. It shows they cannot be trusted with these powers.

The fact that CSIS also disagrees with NSIRA’s recommendation that it take the actions of these third parties into account when deciding to seek out a warrant proves that the service continues to skirt the law and should no longer be trusted with these powers.

NSIRA’s findings were released publicly on February 16 in a redacted report entitled, “Review of CSIS threat reduction activities: A Focus on Information Disclosure to External Parties.”

“We’ve been told over and over that we should not be concerned with CSIS’ threat reduction powers, because they have not reached the point of being so invasive that they require a warrant. It is now clear that CSIS is farming out threat reduction measures to third parties, and using that as a reason to avoid considering whether they need a warrant in the first place,” said McSorley.

The NSIRA report’s findings demonstrate the significant dangers to the rights of people in Canada posed by granting spy agencies like CSIS real world, tangible threat reduction powers.

Given all this, it is imperative that the federal government intervene by suspending CSIS’ use of threat reduction measures and referring this issue to the Federal Court. ICLMG also reiterates its call that CSIS’ threat reduction powers should be abolished.

Other troubling revelations in NSIRA’s report include:

  • A lack of clarity and specificity in the information disclosed to third parties that CSIS was leveraging to take a threat disruption action
  • Concerns that CSIS is not appropriately taking into account the impact of threat disruption measures on the individuals targeted as well as their families
  • That NSIRA was unable to properly assess the outcome of threat reduction measures carried out by third parties, because CSIS’ “reporting system was inadequate or that these reports were improperly filed or non-existent”
  • That CSIS is employing threat reduction measures outside of Canada that may violate Charter Rights, but that this was beyond the scope of this NSIRA report
  • The government continues to censor the number of threat reduction measures requested by CSIS and those carried out. This information poses no threat to national security and should not be redacted from NSIRA reports (while this is not an NSIRA finding, the government censorship is revealed through what is redacted from the report).

The ICLMG has opposed CSIS, an intelligence agency, being granted threat reduction powers since they were first introduced in 2015. The reforms implemented by the federal government in 2019 did not solve the severe threat to fundamental rights that come about when an agency that operates in nearly complete secrecy can carry out real world, tangible actions against individuals. This was true when the McDonald Commission found in 1981 that there must be a division between intelligence services and law enforcement services, and it remains true today.

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button
Page 18 of 105« First...10...1617181920...304050...Last »