,
16 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Bill #C59 is back in front of @SenateCA National Security and Defence committee #SECD today, from 11am to 6pm. Watch live here: senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/Pow…
Today's agenda: 
First up is @PrivacyPrivee commissioner Daniel Therrien. Says he is overall satisfied with the amendments made to information sharing/disclosure rules at the House of Commons. #cdnpoli #C59
(I'm actually at home sick today, so won't be live-tweeting everything, but hope to follow between naps!)
.@SenMarilou asks whether changes to the definition of "publicly available information" is now strong enough, and would exclude hacked or unlawfully obtained information. Therrien responds that he would have liked to see this explicitly included...
...but could be covered by the exclusion of information that has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Says it is fluid & contextual and difficult to apply in the field.
(Important to note that this definition of "publicly available information" is included in the new CSE Act, but there is *no definiton* in the CSIS Act.) #c59
Therrien says this question of "reasonable expectation of privacy" will raise particular questions regarding social media. Ex: would information shared publicly on Facebook be considered fair game for collection by security agencies? #C59
.@CCLA is now up, raising important questions about publicly available information, ongoing problems with information laws, issues with the No Fly List and the Terrorist Entities List #C59
Also call for improvements to the proposed National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (esp. on transparency) and Intelligence Commissioner (esp. on authorization of active and defensive cyber operations) #C59
.@leahwest_nsl now up. Speaking specifically about the new @cse_cst Act. Raising concerns about CSE's proposed new active cyber operations. #C59
@leahwest_nsl @cse_cst Explains that how the bill is now written, CSE's acts could violate international law. #C59
Recommends granting CSE active powers, "despite any other law," so would not violate international law. Recognizes that this would open up the powers too broadly #C59
Suggests also adding limitations, ie: that CSE actions do not amount to armed conflict (trying to keep up, hope I'm getting the nuance here). #C59
