More muzzling?

The harper government™ has released, through Treasury Board,  rules for public servants on use of social media. 

"We’re basically saying it’s ok to dialogue with the public, it’s ok to open up government information, it’s ok to be more productive by sharing information, but there is a framework you are going to have to develop." - clement

But open government advocate David Eaves said the rules don’t jibe with Clement’s message about improving the flow of information.  "This entire document is about improving the control of information," he said.

But while the rules may help persuade managers to let their employees go online, fear of running afoul of policy will make people’s lives more difficult, Eaves said.

Eaves says the new rules will slow communications to a crawl as departments struggle to make sure any messages distributed via the Net will be subject to far too much scrutiny.

Communications

1.      Verify that the planned Web 2.0 initiative is congruent with Government of Canada themes and messages, as well as departmental communications' and consultations' objectives and requirements. Privy Council Office should be engaged early in the process to ensure alignment of Web 2.0 activities with Government of Canada communication and consultation priorities;

As this applies, I believe, to all government departments and agencies, this gives harper that foot into controlling independent agencies’ communications products, something he has been trying to do for some time.  PCO takes an oversight position, here.

Another area of concern is how the new rules address public servants’ private use of social media.

For Professional Networking & Personal Use:

1. Your obligations as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service apply at all times, particularly if your employer could be identified through your use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

Simply put, anytime public servants express themselves publicly, they must make it very clear they are speaking as a private citizen, and not on behalf of their department.  However, perception is recognized as playing a part, so even a disclaimer does not protect public servants from speaking if it comes out that they are public servants.  That’s problematic since it would only take exposing the person’s identity and job to give an abusive government an excuse to shut down public servants who are occasionally critical of the elected government.

2. By virtue of your employment, information shared through Web 2.0 tools and services may be perceived as an official Government of Canada position rather than your own opinion. You should therefore clearly state in your account profile that the views expressed are your own and not those of your employer. However, it is important to note that such a disclaimer does not absolve you of your obligations as a public servant, including your duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada… An employee's public commentary (including online activity on blogs and other social media platforms) about an organization, including its minister, is subject to scrutiny under the duty of loyalty requirement.

What are the boundaries of duty and loyalty?  Will public servants be willing to test these under a government that treats any kind of dissent as criminal?  Will they have to be concerned about being spied upon?  Are they now more apprehensive over the changes to online surveillance Toews wants to implement?   

Will public servants place their loyalty to serving the public before heavy-handed policies passed down by a secretive, repressive government?  Is not the first loyalty of public servants to the public?

Only publicly available information may be shared externally, unless you are specifically authorized otherwise. Always check permissions required to reproduce or distribute any information, including Government of Canada content such as illustrations, photographs, videos, audio, logos, trade-marks or wordmarks.

There’s a troubling contradiction there.  While publicly available info can be shared, that right can be over-run by…who?  A Minister?  A Deputy Head?  A manager?  On what basis?  Already, this latest set of rules contrains public servants from using the same resources as any other private citizen.

“Duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada” comes up several times in the rules and seems to override the public servants’ rights as private citizens to express opinions or criticize.

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;

But what if your employer is acting inappropriately and this has become information available to anyone, such as the case of Clement and the G-20 funds, or political aides interfering with ATIP requests, or the AG reports that expose lack of transparency and waste of funds?  Would criticizing Clement’s actions and lack of accountability be considered a violation of the rules if the public servant posting as a private citizen works for TBS?

There is a single line that offers public servants some small protection against abuse of power by political bosses -

·         public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

 

However, that statement is immediately followed by more reinforcement of “duty of loyalty.”

·       

  In  In Canada's system of parliamentary democracy, public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This includes refraining from any activity that could compromise the efforts of Government organizations to deliver on their mandate.

Eaves is right.  These new rules are more to control communications than encourage them, and this extends even to a public servant’s right to express themselves as private citizens.

How you (and any Canadian) can be a patriot and a hero

You don’t need to risk your life, or freeze outside protesting for hours, or spill blood, or spend so much as a penny.

All you need to do is fight this:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says he won't budge on the government's online surveillance laws despite the "deep concerns" of Canada's privacy watchdog.

The lawful access package would:

- require Internet Service Providers (ISP) to hand over basic personal information of customers to police without a warrant;

- ISPs would also be required to revamp their networks to allow for real-time surveillance of online activities of customers

- companies would also be required to assist police in the testing of online surveillance capabilities

- new powers envisaged are not limited to specific, serious offences or urgent or exceptional situations

Of particular concern to the privacy commissioner are provisions that would allow authorities access to internet subscriber information without first getting a court's go-ahead...Stoddart (said) "In the case of access to subscriber data, there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information - real names, home address, unlisted numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and much more - without a warrant.

Despite repeated calls, the federal government has not shown a need for the new investigative capabilities outlined in the previous Conservative bills, adds Stoddart. 

"Canadian authorities have yet to provide the public with evidence to suggest that CSIS or Canadian police cannot perform their duties under the current regime."

For those who say you have nothing to worry about if you don’t break the law, consider what is being done to citizens of other countries like China, North Korea, or Iran where such invasion of privacy is committed by their governments.

For any right-wingers out there:  

-you wanted the gun registry scrapped because you believe it treats innocent farmers and hunters like criminals.  These spy Bills treat us all like criminals.

-you wanted the long form census cancelled because it was intrusive and asked for too much personal information.  These spy Bills have no limit on the type of information they would give the government power to collect.  Furthermore, unlike the long form census, you wouldn’t even know the information is being gathered, nor what that information is, who will use it, or why.

-you want smaller government, less government involvement with your life.  With these Bills, the government would be able to intrude into personal aspects of your life and accumulate files on you containing a vast range of information, all without a warrant or without you even being aware that it's being done.

- you might be one of those who buys into Toews claim that the laws are needed to fight internet crime :

(In March, 2011) Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, along with every provincial privacy commissioner in the country, sent Public Safety Canada a letter expressing their concerns about the lawful access bill. Namely, they didn’t see any need for it—ISPs already hand over whatever information police ask for, without a warrant, when the cops claim there is immediate danger or child endangerment. They called the bill “problematic”  and wrote that there was “insufficient justification” for the new powers, suggesting “less intrusive” ways for law enforcement to fight crime.

You can be a patriot-hero by signing a petition, or writing your MP and The Privacy Commissioner, or blogging about it, or writing a letter to the Editor.  The important thing is to spread the word and to be heard.

This is the single, most important issue facing Canadians right now.  If the government is allowed to put such policies through, we will not be able to express our concerns, protest, criticize any government actions or policies, and even in some cases do our jobs properly without fear of serious retribution.  You can’t fight poverty if you are muzzled, you can’t work for equal rights if you have no voice, you can’t protect your own personal rights and freedoms if you live in fear of what you say, what you research, who you associate with.

September 20, 2011 – Under the intense pressure of a 70,000+ signature petition, the government has omitted “Lawful Access” (Online Spying) bills from the larger omnibus crime legislation announced today.

You can still sign this petition to stop the bills from being re-introduced.

Jennifer Stoddart's Letter to Vic Toews

In keeping with this post, here are a few videos: Hero of the Day – Metallica, and The Partisan Song, Joan Baez version because of the lovely style, and Leonard Cohen version because I love the French bit.