The Maxime Bernier ‘bug in the bed’ brouhaha beautifully illustrates the fact that good intelligence is focused on what might happen in the future.

The issue that would have faced intelligence agents would turn not on what rules applied to his breach of security but whether or not he might advertantly or inadvertently disclose vital information to a potential intelligence source.

Senior politicians under the illusion of absolute power have and always will be monitored by intelligence/security agents. Like it or not, even heads of state, royalty and other VIPS privy to classified information are monitored by intelligence services around the world. If CSIS indeed had the former Foreign Minister’s relationship with Ms. Couillard under watch, it would have been doing its job well.

We Canadians are historically an inoffensive bunch and since the demise of the Cold War have perhaps become complacent in our intelligence awareness. I certainly am told often enough by business folk, when mentioning the possibility of wire/internet monitoring that “This is Canada…you are paranoid…”  We forget that Canada was an ideal venue (and indeed complicit in) for spying at the height of the East/West conflict. We have at our disposal perhaps one of the most sophisticated intelligence capacites in the world.

We in business would do well to remember that forearmed is forewarned…In our own operations how many of us/our team let critical information walk out the door everyday. So much valuable information can be gathered by those aware of this very human fallibility. How often do we not carelessly leave work related documents unattended or even talk about stuff that would best be kept under wraps? To err is human…yet others profit by it…Only enhanced awareness and mistake management will improve our security rating.

Canadian society prides itself on pretending not to look at/listen to strangers. So, in public, we continue to talk on cell phones, work on computers and carry on conversations, blissfully unaware that interested parties might be lurking…purposely or by chance!

ISP Spying on Customers: Shades of the HP Scandal?

Nestor Arellano’s interesting article this week in itbusiness.ca outlines the legal issues surrounding the Legal Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of complaints about “Bell Canada's alleged 'Big Brother' conduct. Bell, Rogers and other large ISPs could be using "deep packet inspection" techniques to dip into private Internet data and e-mail contents of their clients, says the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).”

Much like the Hewlett-Packard scandal that revolved around spying on Board members and journalists a few years back, it appears that the use of technology legally deployed for one use might well be used for other purposes that are not quite so legal. Simply put, the question arises whether it is reasonable or not to expect spying to take place if it is well within individual/organizational capacity to do so. Again the facts of the ISP spying issue involve a discussion as to whether or not spying is legal if due warning is given to those spied upon!

Deep packet inspection it would appear is akin to “opening a letter and reading its contents” while shallow packet inspection technology allows ISPs to read the headers of data packets being transmitted on the Internet. The technology is apparently used for “network efficiency purposes” and "Internet traffic management"   

No matter the legal outcome of this investigation, all organizations would do well to sustain constant awareness of evolving technology and the inherent/corresponding threat to privacy. We should perhaps work from the underlying assumption that there is no such thing as internet privacy! Just because we morally believe we are entitled to privacy does not mean that is what we will recieve. The greatest danger facing any organization in this regard is to allow the thinking process to fly out the door once technology is deployed. The daunting task of raising this awareness requires buy-in from every member of staff. This is not something that can be legislated, delegated, outsourced or even prescribed.

Read the full story: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=48366

The recent scandal involving Timothy Goeglien, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, serves to illustrate the frightening prevalence of professional recycling of information rather than creation/writing of original content. 
 

Goeglien, who presented a Dartmouth College publication as his own work in an article about education is, according to newspaper reports, a habitual plagiarist. How different is this from so many of us today who run to Google as the first point of reference in the search for information? So busy are we that the first few hits just have to do. I am quite sure that this is considered valid research by many...In haste for ready answers, is much thought given to who wrote the material or even by whom it was posted?  Most professionals lead such fast paced lives that they have no time to agonize over issues, let alone think out original angles and viewpoints. The situation is compounded by the unfailing quest our society has for certainty – There is no room for error! Rather than a wonderful tool-kit, the overwhelming array of modern Information Technology available today is seen as a panacea that delivers information without effort. I cannot help but repeat Marshall McLuhan’s notion that technology extends, rather than replaces, human capacity!

What has this to do with Intelligence?  

Intelligence deals with foreknowledge – What might or might not happen in the future! This requires thinking, analysis, research, distillation of material and the formulation of a theory – All involving risk! Logically if there is neither time nor inclination for an exploration of original content, then information will, of necessity, be sought, risk free, at the trough of the tried, tested and proven. Without good intelligence - What we know that others don't - Will we seriously be able to talk about future predictions? 
 

That our culture favours second-handing and recycling known information bears some scrutiny: Take a look at most media reports today – Despite diverse political leanings we see the same generic material and photographs all clearly downloaded at the same point. So much easier tapping into someone else’s source! Countless articles, seminars, speeches and talks all quote extensively the words of others. How often do we hear the words: "I think/believe..." followed by a truly original statement?

I am often chided for not providing seminar material electronically. Recently, one dear soul actually had the gall to tell me: “It saves me having to scan your work...that way I can just cut and paste the useful diagrams and paragraphs I need for my own presentations”. Clearly not ashamed to admit pilfering the work of others for her own profit!   

I have noticed that most publishers and book-reviewers are loath to risk giving an opinion of entirely new or original content. They openly state preference for an extensive bibliography that enables a quick assessment of the materials provenance and proven worth. Similarly academic institutions are notorious for hobbling student thinking from the outset. How many masters’ degrees /doctorates are only awarded if content is kept within the known confines of professorial dictate?

In the corporate world those able to paraphrase the thinking of the latest gurus, bestsellers and the bosses in recognizable clichéd office speak, are heralded as ‘creative’, ‘brilliant’ and those who ‘get it’ , while more often than not, the truly creative and visionary are dismissed as ‘out there’ ‘negative’, or at best ‘eccentric’

Politicians from Tony Blair to Barack Obama have been accused of plagiarism in recent years. People of this stature obviously don't generate their own material...Instead young interns do their research (and by default, their thinking) for them. How often dont we see a breathless twenty-something thrusting a cue card with the obligatory 6 points into VIP hands at the last moment before a press conference/interview begins? Much of their input is reactive in nature...frantically
responding to the latest opinion polls rather than making a do or die stand over specific issues. 

I guess my point is that oftentimes people are not encouraged to think. Without thinking and taking risk they cannot create. That this happens in the supposedly highest political office in the world should give us pause...if it hasn’t already!  Small wonder the Bush administration's intelligence gathering record of late reflects the same lamentable mediocrity!  

Spying on employees and organizational associates made headlines in the now infamous HP scandal in 2006. Have employees learned anything? Have legislation loopholes been filled.

We live in an era when invasive spying technologies are deployed for reasons that make perfect sense, but with time are increasingly used for diverse purposes that fall outside of their original design.

Canadian technology daily, itbusiness.ca makes the interesting observation that the category of applications aimed at controlling employee web surfing currently reflects the top enterprise software sales growth.

The article entitled Use employee monitoring tools with caution, say Canadian experts

http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=47032, states that while the Canadian PIPEDA laws protect employee information from external use, all information gathered from equipment owned by the company is fair game. Originally designed to give managers a big picture idea of employee activity, the most basic monitoring software allows them to spy on any employer at any time.  

In another article entitled Lawsuit filed over electronic searches, digital device inspections at border crossings U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection has on occasion copied the contents of traveller laptop/memory stick files and cell phone directories without providing any reason for doing so. The post 9/11 surveillance requirements, as well as the anti child pornography campaign are for some perfectly acceptable motivation for this practice. However, is it legal or ethical to appropriate random information belonging to innocent travellers with impunity?

Read the full article: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=47090&bSearch=True

Coporate Intelligence Awareness demands that we be constantly vigilant as to the vulnerability of our information!