February 29, 2020
Privacy And Civil Rights Groups Ask The US Government To End Its Use Of Facial Recognition Tech On The Public
“There’s a reason your local police department doesn’t have access to missiles and carpet bombs. [Congress] should act now to ban this dangerous surveillance weapon.”
Government Privacy Violations since 9 11 2001 are a direct result of illegal legislation ignoring an indigenous individual’s right to total privacy and allowing for the unconstitutionally treasonous police state all of Canada is now under. Police forces have become militarized.
For the cops to do whatever they want to protect the Canadian people from possible outside threats by racketeers and terrorist has only created the same internal problem in country with tyranny that comes from our own government instead.
update February 21, 2020
Privacy watchdogs to probe Clearview AI's facial-recognition technology
Regulators examining whether organization's practices comply with Canadian privacy laws
The Canadian Press · Posted: Feb 21, 2020
Toronto police admit using secretive facial recognition technology Clearview AI
Chief orders officers to stop using the technology, external review is requested.
CBC News · Posted: Feb 13, 2020 1:54 PM ET |
Clearview AI can turn up search results, including a person's name and other information such as their phone number, address or occupation, based on nothing more than a photo. It is not available for public use. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)
Toronto police have admitted some of their officers have used Clearview AI — a powerful and controversial facial recognition tool that works by scraping billions of images from the internet — one month after denying using it. If the police had nothing to hide...?
Spokesperson Meaghan Gray said in an email that some members of the force began using the technology in October 2019. She did not say what for or how many times it had been used.
Apparently, the police state just does as it pleased without any regard to our privacy rights - "Chief Mark Saunders directed those officers to stop using the technology when he became aware of its use on Feb. 5, she said. Gray did not say who originally approved the use to the app". Big surprise to anyone that no one original approve the use?
Concerns began mounting about the software earlier this year after a New York Times investigation revealed the software had extracted more than three billion photos of your family and friends from public websites like Facebook and Instagram and used them to create a database used by more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere.
Here is the topper to this BS "Toronto police have now asked Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Crown Attorney's office to review whether Clearview AI is an appropriate investigative tool, she said."
Clearly it is not because any surveillance software violates my indigenous right to privacy and that doesn't a fictitious review to find out!
Ontario privacy commissioner
"The indiscriminate scraping of the internet to collect images of people's faces for law enforcement purposes has significant privacy implications for all Ontarians. We have made it clear in the past that my office should be consulted before this type of technology is used," the statement said.
If other law enforcement agencies are continuing to use Clearview AI technology we need them to contact us.
— Brian Beamish, Ontario privacy commissioner
Beamish went on to say his office will be consulting with the force to examine its use of facial recognition technology.
"We question whether there are any circumstances where it would be acceptable to use Clearview AI," Beamish said.
Former Ontario privacy commissioner
Former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian told CBC News she was "dismayed" to learn that Toronto police were using the technology.
"Clearview AI has scrapped 3.9 billion facial images off of public social media … No consent, no notice, nothing," Cavoukian said.
One of the biggest dangers with facial recognition tools, she says, is low accuracy — they can wrongly identify an innocent citizen as a suspect or person of interest.
"Can you imagine trying to clear your name when that happens? It's a nightmare."
Why We Need A Ban on Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition software Now! 'It fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between citizens and law enforcement'
Aberta's privacy commissioner [Feb 05, 2020 ] is urging the Edmonton Police Service to seek oversight as it explores the use of facial recognition technology. In a statement Monday, the commissioner's office strongly encouraged EPS to submit a privacy review to ensure any future facial recognition program complies with privacy law.
"Analytic technologies, such as facial recognition, raise significant concerns regarding privacy and security of personal information," said spokesperson Scott Sibbald
Facial recognition has been banned in several jurisdictions in the United States including San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Calif., and Texas.
Every heard of the right to privacy?
Real concerns, not dystopian speculation
While police forces say facial recognition can help solve crimes and save resources, some privacy lawyers and experts are alarmed by the potential abuse.
"It fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between citizens and law enforcement because it takes away even the possibility of anonymity in public spaces," said Brenda McPhail, director of the privacy, surveillance and technology project at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
McPhail gave the example of police obtaining footage during an investigation of a retail store robbery.
While police may be looking for one suspect, all the people captured on the store's camera could be catalogued by a police database using facial recognition technology.
"It's not wild speculation or dystopian theory that these kinds of images could end up being subject to a police database. They could be legally obtained and they could be used," McPhail said.
AI moving faster than law
Lawmakers and the courts are also failing to keep pace with artificial intelligence, said Calgary-based technology lawyer James Swanson. And without specific regulation, police could push the limits of existing privacy law and how it applies to facial recognition technology.
"I can tell you the technology is evolving extremely rapidly. Far faster than the law can keep up with," Swanson said. "We'll have a large scale social experiment in how it all comes to task."
Edmonton police said they would only use facial recognition software to search legally-obtained images, but Canadian courts continue to grapple with what that means.
In 2018, an Ontario court ruled police lawfully used facial-recognition technology to search a database of drivers' licences without a warrant.
Months later, a man successfully argued in B.C. court that police violated his privacy by getting a copy of his passport photo from border services without a warrant.
"It's definitely a grey area," Swanson said. "The possibility for significant abuse is there
How about the statute’s you cops are operating under are not universally applicable!
How about, cops are no longer part of any solution they have become the problem!
How about - Rogue NYPD cops are using facial recognition app on their personal phone! - https://nypost.com/2020/01/23/rogue-nypd-cops-are-using-sketchy-facial-recognition-app-clearview/
How about “this type of surveillance exists to help law enforcement agencies solve the toughest cases.” But recent reporting shows just how quickly that argument slides down its slippery slope. when Clifton, New Jersey officers used Clearview to identify “shoplifters.
We need laws that ban law enforcement use of face recognition software now!
This new technology doesn’t appear to be limited to static photos but can also scan for faces in videos on social media sites.
Police abuse of facial recognition technology is not theoretical: it’s happening today. Law enforcement has already used “live” face recognition on public streets and at political protests.
Police in the UK continue to use real-time face recognition to identify people they’ve added to questionable “watchlists,” despite high error rates, serious flaws, and significant public outcry.
During the protests surrounding the death of Freddie Gray in 2015, Baltimore Police ran social media photos against a face recognition database to identify protesters and arrest them.
Agencies in Florida have used face recognition thousands of times to try to identify unknown suspects without ever informing those suspects or their defense attorneys about the practice.
NYPD officers appear to have been using Clearview on their personal devices without department approval and after the agency’s official face recognition unit rejected the technology. And even Clearview itself seems to have used its technology to monitor a journalist working on a story about its product.
Law enforcement agencies often argue they must have access to new technology—no matter how privacy invasive—to help them solve the most heinous of crimes like shoplifting and to identify protesters for later address.
Facebook loses facial recognition technology appeal, must face class-action lawsuit
Thomson Reuters · Posted: Aug 08, 2019 2:30 PM ET
Facebook agreed to pay a record $5 billion fine to settle a Federal Trade Commission data privacy probe
RCMP's use of Clearview AI facial recognition technology
February 29, 2020
RCMP's use of Clearview AI facial recognition technology under investigation
Mounties acknowledge using facial recognition technology, but won't say where!
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 28, 2020
One day after the RCMP admitted to using controversial facial recognition technology, the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner is opening an investigation into whether its use violates federal privacy law.
"In light of the RCMP's acknowledgement of its use of Clearview's technology, the OPC is launching an investigation under the Privacy Act," said a statement issued Friday by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
House of Commons committee looking into AI
Fraser said he hopes Therrien's findings prompt a larger political discussion.
"I'm hopeful that not only will there be a verbal smackdown [from Therrien], and I certainly expect that there will be. I hope that that actually prompts policymakers and lawmakers to engage in an actual conversation about the processes that lead to the adoption of technology like this," he said.
NDP MP Charlie Angus has pushed for members of the House of Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics to scrutinize the effects facial recognition tools could have on society.
Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, said strict parameters and a chain of command should be in place for facial recognition tools to prevent their abuse — and it's not clear if that's happening in Canada.
"You can imagine, for example, somebody who sees an attractive woman in a bar at a party. doesn't know who she is, snaps a photo and runs it through the system at work where there are no checks and balances, to find out who she is," she said.
Privacy Rights Violations created Problems
The concepts of "safety", "security" "order" and "necessity" are the most common excuses used to deny freedom. Almost invariably when those things are promised, all that is delivered is a reduction in freedom and an increase in institutional control and exploitation of indigenous individuals without any particular benefit to society. Government causes and promotes fear to empower itself as the "solution" to the "problem" of thier making.
We are easily made afraid by disorder like 9 11. We forget our need for freedom, but we never forget our need for "order". That is human nature. Tyrants may therefore easily enslave us by causing chaos and fear, then offering us contracts promising order at the expense of our freedom. That way they do not have to force our compliance, we simply volunteer for slavery. Our willingness to trade freedom for order is a low-level primal impulse easily exploited by narcissists, psychopaths and aggressive personalities. This is well understood by power hoarders. They know, to maintain power and control, they must continually create fear and chaos and they must continually offer themselves and their programs as offering hope of a solution to the chaos they create, although solutions rarely materialize. This pattern and tactic of social manipulation, sometimes referred to as the "Hegelian Dialectic", is common and consistent throughout recorded human history.
Farming family warning others after bank accounts emptied in port-out scam January 28, 2020 https://wPrivacy Rights Violations created Problems ww.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/family-farm-port-out-scam-1.5443580
Clearview AI's entire client list stolen in data breach
The breach affected all of the facial recognition company's customers, many of which are law enforcement agencies.
February 26, 2020 12:03 PM PST
Notice to all enforcement officers
March 2, 2020
NOTICE TO ALL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND ABOVE
Legal maxim - No one is bound to arm his adversary.
1. “My counsel [not lawyer] said not to answer any questions until I am in court”
2. I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all rights afforded me by the Canadian Constitution and the Constitution of any Government or territory in which any incident of statute enforcement against this indigenous individual may occur.
These rights extend to privacy and trespass for example!
3. I hereby invoke and refuse to waive my right to self determination and will remain silent and not be a witness against myself by speech or by action until we are all sworn in, in court.
4. I hereby invoke and refuse to waive my Charter right “s10” to have assistance of counsel. Do not ask me questions without my counsel present, not even who that counsel is. Counsel is not limited to lawyers!
5. I hereby invoke and refuse any and all legal counsel appointments without my written consent.
6. I hereby invoke and refuse to waive my right to be free of unwarranted (non court-ordered) search and seizure. Your personal suspicions are not legal grounds for search, seizure or arrest unless supported by a court order from a court with authority and jurisdiction or tangible evidence of an imminent and known crime (misdemeanor or felony) of which I as an indigenous individual am a likely perpetrator that falls under your jurisdiction ("Probable Cause").
7. I hereby deny consent for my detention and I hereby request to be immediately released from custody, arrest and detention, [Charter right “s10” by way of habeas corpus ]free to continue my private travels and business as is my right.
8. Any failure or refusal by you or your associates to affirmatively, actively and expressly honor any of the above reservations of rights may be criminal violations and/or may cause unjust damage or duress to me and my interests in which case, by your commission of unauthorized possibly armed actions, you will and do agree to major personal damages debt and obligation to me for both remedy of, and penalty for, your violations and misconduct and you agree to pay all monetary claims on demand.
9. If you do not release me immediately upon reading this notice I will presume you to be under the impression that you have authority and jurisdiction for my arrest for a statute crime (infractions are not crimes and consent must be obtained from the accused for any detention for an alleged infraction). If it should be shown at any time that you do not have cause, full jurisdiction and authority in bijural Canada for my arrest you will be subject to civil and criminal penalty and obligated to major remedy to me. You agree to those terms by committing any unlawful or unauthorized force, command, detention or arrest against me.
10. If you fail to release me upon presentation of this notice you will be required at a time in the future to show cause for any non-consensual detention (arrest). Your failure to show cause and jurisdiction upon demand will cause major debt and obligation of you to me for all damages, losses, harm, injuries and violations of rights, in addition to possible civil and criminal actions, allegations and reports against you personally.
11. Under arrest and threat of violence by you and your armed enforcement associates I will, under protest, be compliant and not resist any command you may issue unless I find it necessary to act in defense of my health and safety or the health and safety of others present as is allowed by law. I am competent to determine when acts of self defense are, and are not, necessary and justified. Unless you unjustly and/or unlawfully assault or commit battery upon me I pose no threat or danger to you or your associates.
12. I have no intention to interfere with any enforcement activity or objective and I have no intention to become “belligerent” or “agitated” or to cause any difficulty or hindrance to your authorized and legally statute compliant enforcement activity. I will not be "provoked" unless you are provoking me with hostile threats and actions. I am not in protest or opposition against your office, your profession or any of your lawful actions. I am in protest only of your violations of my rights, if there are any, and of your misconduct, if there is any.
13. Since I have and do rightfully deny consent for detention (above), by law you must now either release me or place me under arrest with cause, jurisdiction and proper process. In law, there is no such thing as “forced detention”. Detention is voluntary, arrest is forced. I request that you, at this time, clearly state under the above invocations of rights, one of the following as you are required by law: Am I “free to go” or am I “under arrest”. If you seek my lawful detention you must now declare my arrest and show cause jurisdiction and consent without violating my right to privacy in any way.
14. If I am under arrest, I refer you to the invocations of rights above. My cooperation and compliance may not, in any way, be interpreted as waiver of any rights at any time. My actions, while under threat of force and violence by any enforcement officer are under duress and, to avoid the violent potential of your armed presence I will comply with your directives and sustain limited personal disruption in the process to hold you accountable later. In any question of my compliance and cooperation, refer to the declarations and invocations above.
15. Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.
Courtesy of https://www.freedomtaker.com/traffic_stops.html modified for Canadian statutes
Copy and paste into a word document and print. Give a copy to any statute enforcement officer and remain silent. “My counsel [not lawyer] said not to answer any questions until I am in court”
Email an affidavit to the judicial branch both federal and provincial. Do not worry you will not receive an affidavit in response. Hint: only humans can sign an affidavit – fictions can’t!
February 20, 2020
Welcome to your police state!
RCMP has yet to respond to year-old report into alleged abuses of power, complaints commissioner says
2019 report addressed identical issues to those raised over actions in Wet'suwet'en territory: commissioner
CBC News · Posted: Feb 20, 2020
"The RCMP, we see, has continued to engage in the very similar pattern of unlawful policing operations in Wet'suwet'en territories," said Walia. "What is incredibly disturbing is that the RCMP has been aware of these very same issues since March 2019."
- The RCMP had no legal authority to require passengers to produce identification.
- The RCMP had no legal authority to conduct stop checks for the purposes of information gathering.
- Stop checks went beyond the limited purposes for which courts have approved them and were found to be inconsistent with the Charter rights of vehicle occupants.
- Routine searches of vehicles and individuals entering protester camps were not authorized by law.
- The power for police to create buffer zones is not a general power.
- Blocking public and media access to roadways may have been unreasonable.
Harsha Walia, executive director of the BCCLA, said Lahaie's letter is proof the RCMP has been granting itself discretionary and unjustified powers.
The Police Manual
February 22, 2020
Source: The Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation
21. REFUSAL OF CITIZEN TO IDENTIFY SELF - The common law does not require a citizen to identify himself or carry identification Of any sort. Therefore, while it may be the mark of a good citizen to identify himself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify himself when he refuses; otherwise, he will be guilty of criminal assault and be liable to civil damages.'
February 22, 2020
Koechlin v Waugh-refuse ID-1957canlii359 PDF - In this ease the police officers exceeded their powers and infringed the rights of the infant plaintiff without justification. Therefore, the appeal will be allowed with costs. The judgment of the Court below will be set aside and in place thereof there will judgment for the plaintiffs in the amounts assessed, for damages suffered by the infant plaintiff and by the adult plaintiff. The amount of judgment in favour of the infant plaintiff will be paid into Court in accordance with the usual practice. The plaintiffs are also entitled to the cost of the action.
The questions one needs to pursue are:
- What is a regulated activity being acted on?
- How is one proven to be a regulated person within that regulated activity?
- n addition, it would be good to know, how does one become that regulated person?
- Can an indigenous individual - natural person ever be regulated in such a way?
- which office is the officer exercising?
without lawful excuse
February 22, 2020
However, the common law has never considered it an offence of obstruction for a person to refuse to identify oneself and thus prevent a police officer from carrying out his or her general duties to investigate crimes.
Rice v Connolly  "there is no legal duty to that effect [assist police], and indeed the whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place; short, of course, of arrest.
...a willful obstruction required that it not only be intentional but be done without lawful excuse. Unless the officer actually observed the accused committing an offence know to law, there was no right to ask the person to identify herself or a reciprocal duty on the part of the citizen to do so.
Source: The Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation 11th Ed. pg. 126-129
which office is the officer exercising
February 22, 2020
- A peace officer is a common law office, there are no statutes, only principles of law guided generally by "do no harm or threat of harm to person or property" - keeping the peace - honour all contracts!
- A police officer enforces offences under statutes, a policy enforcer - collecting fines/taxes for offending an Act
- An officer is neutral and can be either a peace officer or police officer.
- The first office is a peace officer, the second is a police officer. Always good to know which office is the officer exercising...peace (common law) or police (policy/statutes)