3 months ago I posted the following:
Canada's Red Mailbox Surveillance Program
I understand that the vast majority of darknet users are not affected by this as most of you likely reside in the states, Europe, or elsewhere other than Canada. However that which is discussed here may or may not be of concern to you. If it can happen in Canada, it can happen elsewhere.
It may be important to note that I do not know whether Canada has a border search exemption as the States do although it may be useful if anyone can find this out.
Within Canada searches, including sniffer dogs and puffer machines, are only legal if police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a crime is in progress. However, what constitutes as probable grounds is up for interpertation.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I directly involved in any way with the creation of Canadian policy relating to drugs or illegal activities other than what relates to environmental laws. That said, I have a very good relation with an individual who is. This individual is my direct supervisor. As mentioned in my previous post, my supervisor does occasionally tell me things he is not really supposed to. Since my last post, I have not been able to get any specific information relating to the red mailbox surveillance program within Canada, but he has participated in a second meeting (or maybe more, I don't know) with other officials from the policy branch relating to this program. And most importantly, the assistant deputy minister AND deputy ministers BOTH attended these meetings.
As I mentioned, I am not directly involved in these discussions. That said, let me share with you a little of what I've observed in my time with the science and technology policy team. Policy branch supervisors only ever meet with ADMs and DMs to discuss items on their agenda or action requests. Occasionally supervisors will meet to discuss things they would like to bring to the attention of the ADMs or DMs. But the fact that these meetings were held by the ADMs and DMs themselves suggests that the issue regarding red mailbox surveillance programs within Canada is on the agenda of our leaders.
Let me tell you a bit more. The following offers insight into how policy is introduced in Canada.
For the past 9 months I have been tasked with summarizing the recent scientific findings related to hydraulic fracturing and raising concerns to various members of my team. Other members of my team have been involved with this project for much longer than I have. My supervisor is closely involved in this project. Many reports have been written suggesting policies and directorates relating to hydraulic fracturing in western Canada as would be expected considering the great public concern relating to hydro fracking. However, despite daily scientific developments, generally speaking, recommendations from the scientific community have not changed. What is happening here? The government is simply waiting for the right time to introduce hydraulic fracturing policies. There is no such thing as altruism, the government will introduce these policies when doing so most benefits their best interests (take from that what you will). My supervisor has attended various meetings with the ADMs and DMs regarding hydraulic fracturing as well. I have been directly involved in projects involving fusion energy, and coal energy that have progressed in a similar fashion.
The truth is, not being directly involved in the projects concerning red mailbox surveillance means that I very well could be wrong that this is an item on the agenda of our leaders. Take from it what you will. I am not trying to scare the community, but rather I am trying to provoke a discussion.
In my previous post, the followng was posted. I offer responses, but do not claim to be any more involved in the policy introduction process than what I claim here.
/u/Lobali mentions:
"Despite being utterly unfamiliar with the difference between privacy rulings regarding mail between other countries and Canada, it does seem to me this isn't yet a genuine cause for concern.
Based on your description, it sounds as if at this stage it is little more than someone in some agency is wanting to introduce legislation (which then needs to follow political procedure for adopting) of the police are allowed to sit and watch general mail activity at these boxes.
It doesn't appear to be saying that mail placed in red boxes is open to search; only that they can keep an eye out for suspicious activity. Legislation such as this does exist in other places, most notably in the USA, where the police absolutely are allowed to sit and observe people sending mail and pass along concerns to the postmaster."
I don't want to give the impression that I know any more than I don't, so I will say that I don't know beyond reasonable doubt that the following is the case. However, what I have observed recently is the projects given as much attention as this one are used to introduce policy when it suits the governments best interest. For all we know, this can be 1 month from now, or 5 years from now. Yes, of course, policies must be approved in Ottawa and that takes time, but I believe the implications should be discussed here and now. The government takes months (if not years) to prepare the introduction of policy, why shouldn't we libertarians prepare as much as we can as well?
A deleted user mentions:
"
They're everywhere Our red Street Letter Boxes are a standard feature of the Canadian urban landscape and are conveniently located in public areas such as: street corners shopping centres public transit locations With more than 900,000 places across the country
My guess is that there is neither man power or resources to monitor even 1% of the boxes. What am I missing?"
I agree that the government will not dispense the resources required to monitor each and every mail box. However, within Canada, if police can demonstrate the superiority of the public's interests to that of the individual, evidence gathered in a search is admissible in court. Maybe new policy will change privacy rights when it comes to mail left in a public mailbox? Maybe new policy will change what is considered to be more iportant than an individual's interests? Who knows?
Please, I would like to open a discussion regarding this topic. Perhaps op sec standards can be adapted to reduce the impact of the introduction of such a policy (I am not very familiar with such things)? Perhaps I am missing something in Canadian policy that may be important to mention here? Afterall, I offer only what I have observed from my unique position.
I don't see the problem? Wear gloves and sunglasses. Good luck catching you after that