OVER THE EDGE September 12-26, 2007 On the Digital Front “The right of the people to be se- cure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup- ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” — The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution I must confess, the NSA (Na- tional Security Association) War- rentless Wiretapping story has been probably one of the few cases that really grabbed me lately — and it is not happening on Canadian soil. I personally find this case deeply disturbing, particularly with how things developed in the case. I will try to cover as much material as I can in this short space I have been given to describe the situation. Jeremy Johnson - Staff Writer The NSA Warrentless Wiretapping Story — Say Goodbye to Privacy Officially? Several months back, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) had been approached by someone, a former worker for AT&T I be- lieve. This person approached the EFF with several sealed documents with regards to a ‘secret room’ used to re-rout internet traffic through to the NSA. Naturally, as an ad- vocacy group of privacy online as well as free speech, the EFF wanted to publicly release the documents to spread the word. Unfortunately, they were not legally permitted to, so they had to get court approval first. Naturally, the Bush adminis- tration didn’t want this and used the legal excuse of ‘State Secrets’ to keep the documents. For months, the case was tied up in the courts to releasé the documents. Finally, the EFF was able to release them. The documents, of course, detailed very specific details of how the NSA can get a direct feed of internet traffic to simply spy on, not only American citizens, but spy on the activities of millions of people around the world through phones, faxes and e-mail to name a few forms of communica- tion. When I talk to people about this case, some say that this is nothing new and this has been going on for years. Well, yes, apparently war- rentless wiretapping has been oc- curring, but the key point in this was that it was illegal under US law for AT&T to do so because they needed a warrant. For quite some time, the government needed to go to a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court to get a warrant — a court often described as the “secret court” While the EFF has been releasing the documents, an underplayed de- velopment had also occurred, FISA rejected one of the Bush administra- tions call to wiretap someone. Fearing for an unfavourable pre- cedent, the Bush administration introduced the “Protect America ‘Act’ which allowed for wiretaps to be placed on people without the need of a warrant. The administra- tion said that anyone who opposed the act was “soft on terrorism” Clearly it worked on some Demo- crats and the bill was passed with support from both parties, but not unanimously. Despite this, the EFF forged on to sue AT&T for breaking the law. The NSA is continuing to use the “state secret” excuse, but so far, it hasn’t worked in the US courts during the appeal process. Two now famous quotes courtesy of Wired’s Threat Hevel show the following during the court process: “The government has said that whatever AT&T is doing with the government is a state secret,” Kel- logg (AT&T’s Attourney) says. He adds, “As a consequence, no evi- dence can come in whether the indi- viduals’ communications were ever accepted or whether we played any role in it.” And this: Judge McKeown: “J feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland.” Eisenberg: “I feel like I’m in Alice in Wonderland, too.” EFF has launched a campaign at www.stopthespying.org for US cit- izens to fight this. While this seems like a case strictly for US citizens, bear in mind that a majority of backbone servers that keep the internet connected go through the US which would mean that if a Canadian’s internet traffic is routed through the US, it would also be subject to Bush’s wiretap- ping program. ~The Rumbling Echo ees Willett - Editor In re So we meet again, UNBC student body. How are you, UNBC student body, besides agitated? As you can see, I assume that a substantial part of my audience is disgruntled emo-esque arts majors. If you’re not, well, you should be. The world is filled with injustice and malice that must be exposed and. railed against. For those of you familiar with the message of my column from last year, you may be wondering where my sardonic optimism has gone. Your curiosity will be rewarded with illuminating discourse on why we should be mad, but more importantly what we should do about it. Today’s issue will focus on the dust-up about the proposed changes to electoral boundaries in the North. « After every second election, it is policy in BC to convene a committee called the Electoral Boundaries Commission (EBC), whose man- date is to explore ways that electoral bound- aries can be refined. As populations shift and grow, it makes sense that Elections BC sets up elections and areas for representation in a fair manner. In broad terms, the formula for deciding the size and composition of electoral boundaries begins by dividing BC’s population of roughly 0.(1 milion by the desired number of legislative seats (between the current (10 ad a proposed max- imum of []0))The resultant 0 [)-thoumd-odd-people quota per riding is not to be 00 parent more or (10 peeent less than the riding quota. Now that we’re past the mathematical jargon, there is a special provision that allows for ridings to be created with less or more than the (1) pecent deviation in special cir- cumstances. If geographical distance makes ridings too large to effectively represent, small populations in similarly sized rural communities could warrant an exemption from the quota limits, for example. So, with continued urbanization and declining rural and northern populations, the EBC has decided to create 01 new rid- ings on the lower mainland, one new riding in the Okanagan, one less in the Kootenays, one less in the Cariboo Intrior and one less in the North. Thus, the net increase in seats is two, bringing the proposed total number of seats in the provincial legislature to (Locally, this means that Prince Deorge be- comes its own riding (inexplicably excluding the airport and the Hart, both of which are within city limits). This potential loss of one of Prince Dleorge’s three MLA’s has attracted the ire of city council, business leaders, and the MLA’s as well. Therefore, City council organized a rally in advance of the EBC’s first public submission which took place at the Civic Centre on September Oth Mayor of Prince Deorge, Colin Kin- sley, mused that representation by population should be re- placed with representation by contribution. He cited a statistic whereby rural communities supply 10 peeent of BC’s export value, comprise [1] pecent of BC’s land area, but only 00 pe cent of the population. Deorganizing electoral boundaries by the EBC’s proposal is said to ignore the rosy economic future that is sure to bring net immigration to the North. Swelling populations in the wake of regional oil and gas development, the opening of the Port of Prince Qupert, the expansion of the Prince Leorge airport to international travel and further ap- proval of mining operations will frustrate the EBC’s proposed reforms. Compelling stuffU Hif you aren’t looking at the big picture. Yes, the North loses representation to the South. Yes, the old feelings of resentment for getting a raw deal fuels Confederate-like ranting from the usual cadre of Cancouver-haters. The facts are this: the EBC is also mandated to keep Special Circumstances Exemptions as low as possible (like 0 nstead of the 1 Olat would occur if ridings were allowed to stay the same). There have been calls to change the allowable deviation to DO [percent like in On- tario. If that were to happen, a riding with LK DHousand people would have the same voice as a riding made up of 1 OD Hou- sand. Sounds a little stilted to me. Another fact is that if ridings were added to places where populations are up, and none were lost in regions where population has dropped, BC would have OO or Ul@ats. An addition of five or six seats would mean another half a million dollars in MLA wages, plus the costs to tun their offices, which could be another million dollars or so. If the EBC enacts changes every Lyears, ballooning popula- tions in the developing North can be addressed as As it stands, school enrollment continues to drop in the they happen, rather than upon shaky predictions. As it stands, school enrollment continues to drop in the North, so upwards population pressure surely can’t be North, so upwards population pressure surely can’t pushing the upper boundary of riding quotas yet.’ be pushing the upper boundary of riding quotas yet. Finally, by the nature of the economic activity cur- rent MLA’s are bringing to the North, they certainly don’t need more of a say in caucus. Oil and Las de- velopment? Mining expansion? I’m all for economic develop- ment, but these kinds of short-run jobs-for-votes initiatives do not advance BC’s goal of becoming Canada’s greenest econ- omy. Perhaps if there was an exclusively urban Prince Lieorge MLA, the North would have a voice that would be more apt to champion forward-thinking sustainable policies. Those MLA’s in exclusively rural ridings might also be inclined to protect the natural beauty of their ridings from destructive economic development, should they not have the competing pressures of an urban business community bent on development, and a rural agrarian community bent on conservation. I think that at the end of the day, the knee jerk reaction against a loss of one Northern body warming a backbench legislature seat is understandable, but certainly not justified. Change is constant. The EBC consulted many British Columbians from around the province. We should see what they have to say before outright protesting it.