March 31 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The CIA chief, Michael Hayden, has reportedly told NBC that terrorists are using “operatives that…wouldn’t attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles  with you.” In other words, the new terrorist will look as Western as any citizen of North America. This should have been expected, particularly after the U.S. began using racial profiling as a border security measure; the next logical step in facilitating the crossing of potential terrorists at borders would be to use people who would never cause a red flag to be raised.

As with previous statements by CIA representatives regarding the vulnerability of power grids in North America, I’m left wondering at the quality of intelligence that they choose to share with the public. It’s as if the organization has been stockpiling the most obvious vulnerabilities or threat adaptations to security measures for release some 4 to 5  years after the bit of ‘intelligence,’ (if something so elementary can even be called that,) should have been news. Is the CIA trying to give the illusion that it is informing the public? Any thinking person should have been able to surmise this change in tactic for moving operatives across borders years ago.

It all comes back to the fundamental problem of using identity as the basis for security measures. Sure, keeping track of law abiding citizens is facilitated by identity management on a national scale; to such people the idea of abusing the system is outside their realm of contemplation. Preventing threats, such as terrorists, from crossing borders with identity based security measures isn’t so likely. In order to stop such a person from passing through a border check point, one would have to be aware that the target in fact poses a threat. Thus, only if the person is known to have committed a crime and can be firmly linked to the identity under which that crime was committed will such a suspect be apprehended.

Of course, an alert and well-trained border guard could detect slight peculiarities in a subject’s behaviour that might tip the agent off, thus escalating the case in the required 60-seconds or less. Our growing penchant for throwing technology at security problems, however, is making this scenario less and less likely all the time as we opt for automated kiosks to scan passports, manned by travellers far from the prying eyes of such adept officials.

Terrorists, and indeed organized criminals, understand how the system works.  In fact, it is generally accepted that such threats are already steps ahead of the security industry - particularly in the use of technology. Organized crime rings have readily adopted advanced technology, just as any other business has, greatly improving the efficiency of their operations. College ICT students have become prime candidates for working with such criminal organizations, particularly in regions where legitimate jobs  in the field are few or compensation is poor. If there is a way to forge hi-tech identity documents, I’m pretty sure that organized crime rings have already figured it out.

It isn’t the technological nature of enhanced identity-based national security measures which presents terrorists and mobsters with an opportunity to breach the walls of Fortress America, however; it’s the inherent flaws of the traditional system. Knowing that the system is designed to detect identifiable threats, i.e. known criminals or people who fit set profiles - for which there is none available for a terrorist - why would any well-organized crime ring send anyone across a border that would raise alarm? They wouldn’t. As a result, look for middle-class, Caucasian North Americans disgruntled by a lack of options, crumbling economy and perhaps with the scars of some distant war to bear as a far more likely candidate for terrorism in the coming years.

All of this, of course, is to say nothing of the other ways in which identity-based border security measures can be breached, which advanced technological solutions have failed to address. Such tactics include bribing a corrupt official to issue a legitimate albeit false identity, establishing an official identity using supporting documents issued to a target but linked to a deceased citizen, and operating under a legitimate identity issued by another state for the purposes of espionage or terrorism.

It makes me wonder what the point of the Chief’s statement are. On one hand, if reading between the lines, Mr. Hayden has admitted that our current identity-based approaches won’t be sufficient for the changing tactics of terrorists. On the other hand, taking his statements at face value, the fact that we know terrorists understand how the system can be breached easily will likely only result in ever-more enhanced traditional security measures; measures that although already evidently not effective for preventive purposes, will undoubtedly come into more widespread use. Indeed, the middle class Caucasian might just have been given a new reason to be screened and monitored, even more than before. 

Posted in Wiretapping & Surveillance, Identity Management, Security Measures, North America, Middle East, Central Asia | No Comments »

March 27 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Serbia’s foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, has announced plans to demand a partitioning of Kosovo along ethnic lines. Why such a request should not be granted is beyond me; if Albanians in Kosovo feel that they need to be independent for fear of another nation, then the situation should be no different for the Serbs now trapped on the wrong side of yet another unilaterally staked border. In fact, the declaration of an independent Kosovo with the old Tito-drawn borders in tact is just another sign that international supporters of Kosovo have not learned anything from the wars that ravaged the Balkans in the 1990s.

Although many Western countries are eager to prevent atrocities, particularly given the legacy of the Second World War, there is a dangerous precipitousness that is common in our approaches to intervention. This is not to say that we should sit around and wait. Indeed, following a newly reunified Germany’s initial support of Croatian and Slovenian independence much of the world did just that and the horrors of what followed continue to scar the Balkans today. I would argue, however, that it was that readiness to take sides with no real strategic insight into the consequences of such partiality that led to the conflicts being as horrible as they were.

The Western world on one hand seems to recognize its own global importance and on the other fails to tread lightly as the giant that it is. Impulsively we react to some claims of human rights abuses, not bothering to consider the validity of those charges (Kosovo); while other allegations are ignored until the fruition of those threats is unbearably manifested (Rwanda). We have no real formulated approach, no objective method for conflict intervention; as a result, we have failed miserably, time and time again. When we realize that blood is on our hands we quietly wash it away under the guise of history or permanently ingrained ethnic tensions that we could not have done anything about. The question is, if history plays such a big part in these conflicts why wasn’t it thoroughly analysed from the outset? If we are so well-educated and -informed there is no excuse for not having acted from our initial involvement in a more rational, objective fashion.

An independent Kosovo with old provincial borders in tact is just another example of our irrational approach to conflict intervention. Having studied the history and travelled in the region it is quite apparent to me: should those Serbs be left in Kosovo more strife will follow. Be wary of those who have been presented the status of victim; they so very often soon become the oppressor. If the West is truly interested in peace in the Balkans this is one request that they cannot deny Serbia.

Posted in Europe, Politics | No Comments »

March 26 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

As a follow up to a statement in yesterday’s piece regarding the sort of political staff hired in Ottawa, I wanted to share the following article from The Hill Times:

No minimum salaries for political Hill staffers, with some making $25,000

For staffers working in NDP MPs’ offices there is a 37.5-hour workweek and the starting salary is $44,000, as of April 1, 2008, while the base salary for someone with six years of experience or more is $56,250.

Although Parliament Hill staffers say they’re not in it for the money, most parties do not have a minimum salary level and one staffer says they’re “abused” by not being remunerated enough.

“I personally know of staffers who are making $25,000 a year as a full-time person, and I just find that really sad, considering that we are working on Parliament Hill,” said one Liberal staffer, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired. “The qualifications that are really required to do this job are pretty high in the sense that there is a lot of expertise, a lot of work, a lot of stress. From my understanding, we are covered by very minimal employment laws…

So there is really a lot that you are expected to put up with.”

I don’t think too many experts or experienced professionals would be signing up at these pay rates. In fact, unless you are at the top of that pay grade, it’s barely enough off of which to live - particularly considering the hours required. No one should fault a minister or MP for espousing misguided approaches. After all, what sort of expert advice can they buy for $40,000??

Don’t look to the other predominate sources for analysis and information for any better pay, think tanks are notoriously poor remunerators. The average salary in a non-profit must sit around $35,000 - particularly if you discount the disproportionately higher wages of the head of those organizations.

The only people supplying politicians with insights and guidance who are comfortable are the bureaucrats. And they have a job for life… 

Posted in North America, Politics | No Comments »

March 26 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The International Herald Tribune has published the following article:

Efforts to contain bird flu are failing in Indonesia, increasing the possibility that the virus may mutate into a deadlier form, the leading U.N. veterinary health body warned.

The H5N1 bird flu virus is entrenched in 31 of the country’s 33 provinces and will cause more human deaths, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said in a statement released late Tuesday.

“I am deeply concerned that the high level of virus circulation in birds in the country could create conditions for the virus to mutate and to finally cause a human influenza pandemic,” FAO Chief Veterinary Officer Joseph Domenech said.

Indonesia “has not succeeded in containing the spread of avian influenza,” Domenech said, adding that there must be “major human and financial resources, stronger political commitment and strengthened coordination.”

The H5N1 virus has killed at least 236 people in a dozen countries worldwide since it began ravaging poultry stocks across Asia in 2003. It has been found in birds in more than 60 countries, but Indonesia has recorded 105 deaths, almost half the global tally, according to the World Health Organization.

FAO’s sharp warning comes amid a flurry of bird flu outbreaks across the region. Chinese officials earlier this week announced the H5N1 virus was responsible for killing birds in poultry markets in the southern city of Guangzhou. Meanwhile, India last week confirmed a fresh poultry outbreak near Calcutta. The country has been battling the virus since January, resulting in the death or slaughter of some 4 million birds.

In addition, Vietnamese health officials on Monday announced that the virus had killed an 11-year-old boy in the north, marking the country’s 52 human death. The virus has resurfaced in several provinces, including the capital Hanoi, prompting the prime minister to put the entire country on alert. Two children in Egypt also were recently diagnosed with the disease.

We’re due for another pandemic. It’s unfortunate that thanks to modern mass media we are desensitized so easily. The threat of a pandemic hasn’t decreased by any means, but already our interest in the subject matter has waned.

What’s perhaps more disconcerting are the continued “promises” by our health care system that it’s ready for anything. I have one simple question in response to those shaking vows: when was the last time you visited the emergency room?

Posted in Health Preparedness, Asia | No Comments »

March 25 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The RCMP decision to publicly release even less information around the use of tasers should come as no surprise. Just ask the simple question, to whom is the RCMP accountable?

Citing privacy concerns and on-going investigations, the RCMP has chosen to begin omitting the following information in public releases on the use of tasers:

• Whether the target was armed;
• The reason for firing the taser;
• What other tactics were employed before firing;
• The dates of firings;
• Related injuries as a result of the firing, including head traumas; and
• The duration of the shock sustained.

Although none of the above appears to be a real breach of privacy, should there be pending law suits there is an argument for the repression of some of the details as they relate to ongoing investigations only.

Such selective releasing of information will do little to help the beleaguered reputation of the RCMP. At a time when the public seems to be demanding ever more accountability from the boys in red, one would think that now, while the organization is being politically pinned up for reforms, that the RCMP would be disclosing more information, not less. Of course, such thinking relies upon the premise that the RCMP is a highly accountable organization with simple processes by which members of the public can ask questions, be answered and see changes to the system as a result. Naturally, not all public demands or requests can be reasonably accommodated given security, judicial or ‘greater good’ situations. However, in such cases a genuine attempt must be made to consider all matters and a viable explanation provided. Unfortunately, despite the very public announcements surrounding moves to reform the RCMP, the measures introduced so far smack of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and, as it has been the case across the board in governmental reforms, will do nothing in the end.

Just try to understand the measures enacted to reform the RCMP and your head will start spinning: A new reform council created as a result of a separate task force, applauded by a new commissioner (who to outsiders appears not to be part of the law enforcement establishment) all announced by, quite likely, an unsuspecting minister. It’s like a Canadian episode of “Yes, Minster!” but without the humour.

Let’s begin with the force’s reporting structure. The RCMP, as per the official website ”is headed by the Commissioner, who, under the direction of the Minister of Public Safety Canada, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.” You might recall, that in July of 2007, a new commissioner was appointed; a man hailed as being the first person to take on the role with a background from outside of the RCMP. While that might be true, the image promoted of the career bureaucrat, William Elliott, is slightly misleading to those who don’t understand how Canada’s permanent bureaucracy works.

Mr. Elliott first began working in the government at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Joining the Department of Justice in 1992, he worked there until being appointed as Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, at Transport Canada in 2000. In 2003, Mr. Elliott was made Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, in which role he supported the National Security Advisor (NSA) to the Prime Minister, until he was himself appointed as the NSA from 2005-2006.

The NSA, interestingly, is guided by the Advisory Council on National Security (ACNS), which in turn is comprised of a series of experts. For example, the current Council, which is chaired by Norman Inkster a former RCMP commissioner and president of Interpol, includes four former high-ranking police officers, four academics, two career bureaucrats and a few private sector representatives.

Thus, the current RCMP commissioner, who was once closely advised by former top-level law enforcement officers, is responsible for the “control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.” Mr. Elliott does report publicly to the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, who as a result is politically held accountable for the RCMP.

Mr. Day, like most of our representatives, is a career politician. As such, he relies on advice and guidance to make decisions on security measures. First among those advisers is a small group of political staff, which works for the minister. Unlike the ministerial offices of the Liberals, the Conservatives employee considerably fewer staff. Often, such advisors might not have experience in the subject matter they are covering and, as the adjective “political” implies, are focused on communications and public affairs.  As a result, these advisors rely upon information put forward by interested parties (read: interest groups), a smattering of concerned citizens and the permanent bureaucracy.

The only other source of information stems from the analysis put forward by non-profit organizations, such as think tanks, associations and universities, all of which receive considerable funding from the various departments and agencies asking for submissions. Furthermore, the new measures that were implemented to make the government more accountable limit those experts, which can be commissioned to conduct analysis and other studies, eliminating any private-sector individuals or organizations from partaking.

There is a propensity within bureaucracy to simply follow the status-quo. Thus, a culture of doing things in certain ways develops which continues unchallenged as all employed by the system are swept along with the bureaucratic tide. It would  also be interesting to see how many bureaucrats employed by the department of Public Safety are former law enforcement, intelligence or military personnel. Having had dealings with the department there appears to be a high rate of turn over between the security establishment and the bureaucracy, which could account for the often law enforcement-oriented security bills that are pushed forward by the permanent bureaucracy. 

The dominance by the law enforcement and intelligence establishment in all matters relating to security is evident in the appointments for the myriad of reform-focused bodies announced by Mr. Day following a series of RCMP scandals.

The Task Force (so called because a costly group of experts is assigned a task with a somewhat predetermined outcome, and thus host consultations to hear what concerns select, invited members of the public have on issues only to ignore what isn’t complementary to their goals in the final report of recommendations) on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP was created in July of 2007. Consisting of several former bureaucrats including Norman Inkster (who also advises the NSA, see above), the “Task Force” recommended the creation of yet another body, the RCMP Reform Implementation Council.

Trusting the recommendations put forward by the “Task Force,” Mr. Day recently announced the creation of the new reform council, which members include two private sector representatives, a career bureaucrat, and two former police officers, one being Beverley Busson, former RCMP commissioner and a member of the Advisory Council to the NSA (again see above).

It could be argued that in order to truly understand the issues at hand, these various bodies, boards and departments should have representatives from the law enforcement, intelligence and military communities. Such close ties between those communities and the people responsible for oversight should raise concerns as to how accountable organizations, such as the RCMP, actually are. Is it reasonable to assume that former law enforcement officers are the best source for creating, driving and overseeing security measures?

Of course, many on the inside will point to the oversight bodies that exist to ensure accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, as Insp. Troy Lightfoot, who helps oversee RCMP Taser use, said to the press recently “I can tell you that there are many accountability systems in place with regards to police actions. You have the courts, you have coroners’ inquests, you have a multitude of oversight bodies. There is a complaints process that can be followed.”

This oversight process, however, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. A 2006 report entitled “Civilian Oversight of the RCMP’s National Security Functions” notes that most complaints must first be filed through the RCMP before reaching the Commission. Furthermore, the commission does not have the power to review the RCMP’s duties and functions or put forward binding recommendations that the RCMP would have to follow. In fact, none of the bodies, which provide oversight to our intelligence agencies, the RCMP, CSIS and CSE, have the power to present binding recommendations.

As with the appointed councils and advisors, there is also the question of who is tasked with the responsibility of oversight and review; what sort of background do they have? The current head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is Paul E. Kennedy. His 25-year bureaucratic career includes “roles as General Counsel for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service” or CSIS, after which he provided “expert advice and support to the Minister in relation to law enforcement and national security matters…In May of 2004, following the creation of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Mr. Kennedy was appointed as Senior Assistant Deputy Minister with responsibility for national security and emergency preparedness.” Undoubtedly, Mr. Kennedy has enjoyed the same sources of advice and insight as other high-ranking officials. That being said, Mr. Kennedy is considered to be somewhat a “thorn in the side” of the RCMP as he has been quite vocal on speaking up against the approaches of the organization.

Mr. Kennedy’s predecessor, Shirley Heafey,  hasn’t had much nice to say about her days as head of the Commission. As the Ottawa Citizen reported

“She had a “dreadful” time due to what she called “direct interference” by the Martin government with her independent role.

In allegations denied by former government officials, Ms. Heafey said she and her office were audited “to death” and there was an effort to forestall a public hearing by her commission into allegations that the Mounties covered up sexual abuse by an RCMP staff sergeant at the now-defunct Kingsclear youth training centre in New Brunswick.”

The political climate, and the high-level executives in the public service, really made my life extremely difficult,” she says in an exclusive interview with The Lawyers Weekly.”

The deputy prime minister’s office and the people in the Privy Council Office were quite concerned about the fact that I had to say what I had to say.”

Ms. Heafey contended “they made a lot of requests to me about the work I was doing (and) you know you don’t challenge the RCMP without accepting that you may have to pay a price. They are a national icon … and the government, in the last two years under Mr. (then-prime minister Paul) Martin, was very touchy about some of the things I did. They were trying to remind me to shut up.”

The Executive Director of the Security and Intelligence Review committee or SIRC leads all review of CSIS activities. The current Executive Director,Susan Pollak, began her career with another intelligence agency, CSE, moving to the Privy Council in 1984 and becoming the Principal advisor to the Deputy Clerk on Security and Intelligence in 1987.

The only current Commissioner responsible for any oversight of our intelligence and security agencies who doesn’t appear to have any direct background with the law enforcement or intelligence communities is Charles D. Gonthier. The current CSE Commissioner is an 80-year old lawyer from Quebec.

I suppose that at least some review is better than none. The Canada Border Services Agency, which will be increasingly collecting information on Canadian citizens as we move towards hi-tech identity documents, has no review mechanism according to the report.

And so there it is. The RCMP decides to release less information at the very time they are supposedly being pressed to be more transparent. Only, the people appointed to the unending layers of bureaucracy that are the commissions, task forces, councils, boards, departments and offices responsible for such reforms are often experts with a distinguished career inside law enforcement or intelligence agencies or are informed and advised by such people. Thus, instead of acting the part and appearing to be a changing organization coping with its issues, the RCMP behaves as it increasingly has – we are the law, if you’re not with us, you’re against us.

This isn’t a RCMP-specific problem, either. It’s more an endemic problem we are facing with a growing bureaucracy in this country. Until we begin to look at issues in security from a systemic perspective, which must include an assessment of the role of bureaucracy in developing, implementing and overseeing security measures, we will continue to have serious issues.  

As I mentioned in an article last week, the tradition of keeping the security profession a closed-in, insular looking field will negatively impact our state of security long-term. A stale bureaucratic outlook will only further complicate the matter. Furthermore, the reform of any single security organization cannot occur without a simultaneous revision of how both government and average Canadians approach the issue of Canada’s national security. It’s time to stop blinding ourselves with individual security issues and tools (such as wiretapping and tasers) and move onto a wider assessment of the state of security in Canada.

Considering the RCMP reforms, and indeed any reforms around security in this country, is a bit like peeling back the layers of an onion. On the surface, especially to an uninformed observer, the reforms and the bodies created to oversee them appear solid, devoid of any funny smell. Ask a few questions, peel back the layers and soon enough your eyes are watering from a slight burning sensation and something starts to stink…

Posted in Wiretapping & Surveillance, Identity Management, Biometrics, Security Measures, North America, Politics | 1 Comment »

March 24 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The proposed $1.3-billion sale of a Canadian developed geospatial unit to a U.S. firm spurs a question that’s been nagging at me: why can’t Canadians think strategically? That the pending sale has even made it this far is a prime example of the inability of Canadians to consider issues strategically; it also explains why Canada continues to slip in international importance.

Radarsat-2, the highly advanced geospatial technology in question, provides exceptionally detailed information on monitored regions, such as the arctic. MDA’s website describes the endeavour as:

“A unique collaboration between government - the Canadian Space Agency, and industry…MDA will operate the satellite and ground segment, while the CSA is contributing funds for the construction and launch of the satellite. CSA will recover its financial investment in the program through the supply of RADARSAT-2 data to Canadian government agencies during the lifetime of the mission.” 

The mission’s lifetime will be a minimum of 7 years beginning from it’s launch on the back of a “Soyuz vehicle from Russia’s Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan” in late 2007.  Although MDA and Alliant Techsystems Inc. are providing assurances for continued provisions of satellite imaging to the Canadian government, concerns abound which are not unfounded. 

Chief among those concerns is how a country such as Canada, with all of its assertions over arctic sovereignty, could even consider selling the only tool it has available proven to help ensure such territorial interests are protected. Far from simply being a matter of business, this sale is a potential threat to national security. After all, did not the government foster the development of this very technology to enable Canada to protect its own interests, as in without the assistance of our powerful southern cousins? Selling the technology to a foreign firm (regardless of how close our relations are with that foreign country) seems a bit antithetical; it makes no sense from a security perspective.

Anyone accepting the assurances that imaging will continue to be provided should the sale be approved is as naive as the prairies are flat. Most countries operate based on national interests, in other words, a country does what it thinks is best for it. This means that should it not be in the best interest of a country to share information, it won’t. Furthermore, as a result of new security measures implemented in the U.S. since 9/11, many firms inside of the country are under pressure to co-operate more closely with the government - even if such co-operation is morally questionable (consider the communication service providers abetting the NSA wiretapping scheme.) Thus, just because Alliant Techsystems Inc. agrees to certain conditions under the sales terms doesn’t mean it will always be able honour them.

After using $400 million from the Canadian taxpayer caboodle to develop technology that could help us with our age-old sovereignty issues, the only thing standing in the way of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.’s (MDA) sale to Alliant Techsystems Inc. is Industry Minsiter Jim Prenice. 

The decision whether to allow the sale or not will be an interesting test for Mr. Prentice, (not to mention the Conservative government.) Should he go against the urgings of most Canadian experts and allow the sale, Mr. Prentice and his party ought to expect the typical political tar and feathering: an unflattering media giddily picking up on a story that smacks of further integration with a security-happy U.S. On the other hand, the decision provides the Conservatives with a golden opportunity to practice what they preach - block the sale and maintain the only real tool available to us in our bid to maintain arctic sovereignty. Choosing to block the sale could also stand as a turning point in Canadian decision making from short-sighted to strategic, a change I for one would welcome.

Don’t worry, Mr. Prentice has another 30 days to consider the deal…

Posted in Security Measures, North America, Politics | No Comments »

March 21 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

AtomFilms.com: Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | Comedy Central

Posted in Other | No Comments »

March 20 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The parents of a 14-year old Swift Current, Saskatchewan girl are bewildered and upset that members of the community who saw the girl outside at night with luggage didn’t alert the authorities. Speaking with the Edmonton Sun the mother said, “When you see a young girl like that in the middle of nowhere, standing on the side of the road with two suitcases and an old man is in the (cab), you don’t find it suspicious?” Her statements neatly sum up what is perhaps the biggest weakness in Canadian security - a lack of community involvement.

In fact, one might take this line of thought even further and speculate that the problem goes beyond a simple lack of involvement to an utter lack of community. There was a time, not so very long ago, in this country when individuals and families truly relied upon one another to get by in life. We were an agricultural society full of family farms. Bringing in the harvest or wood for winter meant co-operation. If something was amiss with one of the neighbours, someone would look in on him or her. Crime rates were low in a community where everyone knew one another. Not only does this familiarity breed a sense of conscience that prevents many would-be criminals from acting upon urges but identifying culprits was much easier. Moreover, given the interconnectedness of a community, behaviour that threatened the stability of the greater whole was not tolerated and thus dealt with in a timely, appropriate fashion.

Gradually a more centralized form of government crept into the Canadian countryside. Everything from rule of law to identification was taken up by a growing bureaucracy. Communities were encouraged to let officials do their bidding, putting more and more of the decision making around community issues into the hands of a few career-bureaucrats and politicians.  As a result, the average person became less engaged in community affairs and development. Apathy for the decision making process set in which was aggravated by the deterioration of community with the mass movement of Canadians from farms to towns.

With increasing taxes levied to support the decision-making government and a growing reliance on machinery, the Canadian farmer suddenly found much greater need for revenue than ever had been the case before. Farming, as opposed to a traditional means of existence (not to mention freedom which is why so many poor immigrants flooded into the country in the 19th century) for a family, became a business. Struggling to get by people began leaving the land for urban centres in search of a more profitable life.

As the rural population decreased, the government became less concerned with development in those areas and began a pattern of funding cuts that continue to this day. Governance and representation in rural environments was repeatedly consolidated, taking the bureaucracy ever further from those people who remained on farms. Hospitals and schools continue to close.  

The draining of rural populations into urban centres was really only completed in the 1970’s and 1980’s, although some areas were left deserted more quickly than others. (The final impetus that pushed the independent farmer off the land was the shift in agricultural production from family operations into industrial factory farms.) Individuals, such as the distraught mother or myself, still recall what it meant to be a part of a rural community.

The prevalent sense of community today in Canada is limited. An increasing majority of Canadians live in large towns or cities, where a sense of urban anonymity (urbanonymity, if you will) spawns considerable apathy. The sort of apathy which encourages taxi drivers to unquestioningly drive off with a young teenager and a perverse predator.  We live in a time and society where the modern man’s mantra is truly see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Not exactly a mindset conducive to increasing security or fostering communities.

Thus, the mother of this young girl lured out in the night by a predator is lamenting not just her daughter’s near brush with disaster but also the loss of a system that once prevented such threats from really existing in the first place.

Posted in Security Measures, North America | No Comments »

March 19 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Many Canadian news outlets are reporting on a U.S. study that suggests that red light cameras installed in some Toronto intersections are having an effect. The cameras, which take pictures of drivers going through red lights, are accredited with a decrease in fatalities. As a result of the cameras, the study also suggests, intersections under surveillance are also experiencing an upshot in collisions as drivers brake suddenly to avoid garnering a ticket. I think all of this is actually good news.

The decrease in fatalities and the increase in smaller collisions are part and parcel. It’s simply a matter of humans growing accustomed to a new approach, a new mode of conduct. It proves that cameras at intersections are a great deterrent for unlawful and dangerous driving (which is also the reason why many CCTV cameras in Britain, while proving wholly ineffectual at preventing other types of crime, are being redirected to catch bad drivers.)

The reason why collisions rates are so high, I would suspect, is due to the limited implementation of such cameras across the city. With only some 40 cameras being rotated about the city, many drivers are only reacting to the cameras as they are spotted. Given this effect, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that should cameras be implemented on a permanent basis at every intersection in the city that the driving habits of Torontonian motorists could be altered for the better in the long-term.

CCTV cameras won’t necessarily increase security, but changing people’s habits through the use of cameras will.

Posted in Wiretapping & Surveillance, Security Measures, North America | No Comments »

March 18 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

Peter Worthington has published a great article on Kosovo that sheds some light on a complicated situation:

“NATO’s big blunder: Action in Kosovo one of the great outrages of our time

Last Thursday, at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto, a gathering sponsored by Lord Byron Society discussed Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia.

This is an esoteric topic of limited concern to those not familiar with Balkan politics. It is one of the great outrages of our times, and certainly the most scandalous and unnecessary adventure of the presidency of Bill Clinton, who unleashed his incompetent Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to declare war on Serbia and persuaded NATO to join in.

Albright and the Clinton administration were persuaded that genocide was under way in Kosovo against Albanian Muslims who constituted a majority of the population.

The spectre of massacres and mass graves resulted in the 1999 decision to bomb Serbia into submitting to a more independent, multicultural Kosovo.

It was predicted by those who advocated war, that within 48 hours of being bombed, Serbia (Belgrade and Slobodan Milosevic) would capitulate and Kosovo would be free. Serbs, however, were made of sterner stuff than NATO and Washington anticipated, and the bombing lasted 78 days.

In the end, Kosovo technically remained a province of Serbia under UN jurisdiction. As for genocide and mass graves — that was a hoax. Nothing was found.

Atrocities, yes, roughly divided among Serbs and Albanians — the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). But not one mass grave.

It was eventually estimated that four times the number of Kosovo civilians died under NATO bombs, than had been killed by Serbs. The “war,” was largely the product of Kosovo Albanians provoking Serbs into retaliatory action, and having a willing international press — and U.S./NATO staff — eager to document what they were told.Jamie Shea, NATO’s spokesman, announced that some 100,000 Kosovars were missing, unaccounted for, and probably slaughtered. NATO later reduced this estimate to 10,000.

Winnipeg forensic pathologist Dr. Peter Markestyn was one of those designated to investigate and conduct forensic examinations. His team performed 1,800 autopsies. “That’s it,” he said. Hardly genocide.War crime prosecutor Louise Arbour — Albright’s choice for the job — did her bit by charging Milosevic with genocide and war crimes. She and the U.S. believed he was responsible for a massacre at the village of Racak, in January, 1999, when Serbs supposedly massacred 45 Muslim Albanians.William Walker, head of the Kosovo Verification Mission, visited the site and called it “an unspeakable atrocity … a crime against humanity … the worst I’ve ever seen.”

Skeptical French journalists investigated, and discovered that the bodies of KLA fighters who’d been killed while fighting, were dragged to the ditch, mutilated, some decapitated, and presented as massacred by Serbs.Finnish pathologists found it odd that little blood was in the ditch, and many had been shot at random, rather than executed. In other words it was a phony massacre, aimed at framing the Serbs.

To some it was mindful of Bosnian Muslims in Sarejevo mortaring market places and blaming Serbs — and getting away with it. Fortunately for Arbour’s reputation, Milosevic died before facing trial for Kosovo war crimes, else he’d likely have been acquitted.

The Kosovo war was staged and unnecessary — the U.S. and NATO hoodwinked into attacking. None of this suggests that Serbs were choirboys in the Balkans. Horrendous atrocities occurred.

Today, the Bush administration and European Union recognize Kosovo’s Independence. Russia and it allies do not. Nor does Serbia.

Realistically, there’s no way to right what was clearly a wrong, but at very least the truth of what happened should be recognized — which is what the meeting at the Military Institute on Thursday was all about.”

Posted in North America, Europe, Politics | No Comments »