There are a few issues and they all relate to the CBC articles. I do not think that the CBC is doing anything wrong. They merely report on a point of view I disagree with and we all have that at times. It started earlier, but what set me off was the article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-security-canada-military-defence-ward-elcock-1.6963391) where we see ‘Canada needs to ditch the complacency and get serious about national security, experts say’. My initial question is ‘Who are these so called experts?’ I know I am not one, but I think these claiming to be could be seen as Monday morning quarterbacks. We are then pushed onto “something unexpected happened last week when the Business Council of Canada issued an urgent call for the federal government to develop a national security strategy with economic security as one of its pillars”. So who exactly are the members of the Business Council of America? It gets worse from here. You see, when we go back several weeks we get (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/foreign-interference-china-russia-csis-business-council-canada-1.6958627) ‘Business council says CSIS should start warning private companies of foreign interference’. This sounds nice, but we have two issues at this point.
- The validity of Business Intelligence
- The issue of American linked businesses.
The CSIS (aka the Client Server Integrity Society). If the NSA is allowed its ‘different’ version (No Such Agency) then the CSIS is allowed the same thing. My larger issue is “One of the country’s leading business voices warned Thursday that Canada’s economic security faces external threats — and called on Ottawa to give its spies the power to share intelligence with private firms being targeted for foreign interference.” The direct linked question becomes “Who exactly is that leading business voice?” And which idiot yahoo decided to throw sharing intel with places that have leaks larger than any sif into the mix? You see, there is a larger station here. ‘Targeted for foreign interference’ is a large setting. We tend to think China and what the reality is, is that Wall Street is also a source of foreign interference. Those people do not play nice. In addition too many Canadian businesses would have to up their cyber security by a lot. I merely showed one aspect earlier this week, one of close to half a dozen. Microsoft cannot stop emails leaking, what gives you the idea that Canada is any different?
So when we get to “The group — which has a long, influential history of pushing for policies like free trade, fiscal responsibility and tax reform — said it believes Canada is deeply vulnerable in this era of renewed great power competition.” We get to the larger disagreement. Canada is not more vulnerable, it is less interesting to a lot of power players. It is roughly 10% of the US and merely 50% of the United Kingdom and is spread over a whole area. In all this the larger station is not merely foreign interference, it is the danger of American interference for its own need for greed and that takes a different approach and until the Business Council of Canada gets its members to up their Cyber Security by a lot, any action is a wasted one and the CSIS keeping its actions secret is the best course of action at present. This might not be the right view, but it is my view.
Then we get to the interesting quote “CSIS jealously guards its sources and methods of collecting information. In one espionage case, it even kept the RCMP in the dark about a former sailor who was stealing classified information for the Russians.” The CSIS is confronted with too may leaks. There is no factual evidence that it amounts to corruption, but that word was mentioned more than once in sources I looked at. The important question was whether that traitor was caught in time. How long was that person active and how was that person (in the end) caught? It was not jealousy, that is the word of a reporter out for flames. The larger station becomes that Canada has vulnerability issues and not all of them are from China or Russia. American businesses are ready to expand and get the Canadian corporations as well, some politicians seem to cater to that need and the CSIS for sure does not. As such whatever the CSIS is doing now, it is seemingly doing right. From here we get to the dangerous statement “Neiman said Canada’s allies have found ways to strike that balance between secrecy and disclosure.” I believe it to be dangerous, because Canada’s allies are all catering to big business. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, IBM and Meta. You name it, it has a stakeholder trying to find a balance of intelligence at their exposure and risks they can mitigate and Intelligence at the expense to mitigate risk is not sharing Intel, it is giving nations options away to greed driven people and the CSIS, in particular that person with grey hairs (aka David Vigneault) needs to cater to the need of Canada and its citizens, not the needs of a Business Council and its friends.
That is how I see it and I might be wrong, but so far in history whenever a business person wanted intel to be shared, we were confronted by a leak the size of the Grand Canyon right behind it. So before we rinse, shave, grate and repeat Trevor Neiman and optionally these non mentioned friends of his, we should be told who they were EXACTLY. In that the CBC missed the plank by a fair bit.
Enjoy the weekend.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 