1) China considers Canada a “soft target” for hacking and surveillance. And Huawei could be the prime weapon because it seems that profit is more important to Telus, Bell and perhaps others than our security. As far as we know, Telus has yet to remove or stop using Huawei 5G equipment.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Why CSIS believes Canada is a ‘permissive target’ for China’s interference
“And on Monday, Beijing warned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “stop making irresponsible remarks,” according to The Associated Press, after Trudeau told reporters Beijing’s decision to charge Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor with spying was related to the Meng case.
But despite warning signs of China’s incursions, Canadian academics, think tanks and media have been way behind the international curve in scrutinizing China’s “clandestine” tactics, Mulroney said.
“Canada is kind of a sleepy and unaware target,” he said. “We don’t have the same kind of vigilance that you now see in places like Australia and New Zealand. That had better change.”
2) Apropos security and privacy concerns, the provincial Privacy Commissioners have offered suggestions that could make the contact-tracing apps the govt is anticipating more secure.
Canada’s privacy commissioners offer guidance on COVID-19 contact-tracing apps
“As New Brunswick and other provincial governments contemplate launching COVID-19 contact-tracing apps, privacy watchdogs from across the country have issued joint guidelines on what they are describing as an “extraordinary” measure, urging transparency and accountability.
“The choices that our governments make today about how to achieve both public health protection and respect for our fundamental Canadian values, including the right to privacy, will shape the future of our country,” the federal, provincial and territorial privacy commissioners said in a statement Thursday….
Such apps “raise important privacy risks,” according to the privacy commissioners.
But “if done properly,” they can achieve both privacy and public health goals, said federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.”
Coronavirus tracing app not yet OK’d by privacy watchdog, but outside experts give thumbs up
3) Berkeley, California fought and won the right to require that stores selling cellphones have information available that states, in essence, what cellphone manuals must say: that cell phones should not be held directly against any part of the body. Now the fight resumes with the FCC supporting the telecoms maintaining that there is no evidence that cell phones can cause harm so there’s no need for “overwarnings”. See the article below in “Letters” because it is not available to the general public via the link.
FCC Supports Mobile Industry In RF Emissions Suit
4) A new group in Nova Scotia is active in educating about 5G and here is their new website. Please share with friends and family in the area.
FCC Supports Mobile Industry In RF Emissions Suit
Law360 (June 23, 2020, 6:56 PM EDT) — The Federal Communications Commission is throwing its weight behind the mobile industry’s ongoing challenge to the city of Berkeley, California’s wireless disclosure ordinance, saying phone retailers needn’t warn customers about potential harm from radiofrequency emissions.
In a Monday letter of support, the commission told a California federal district court that the agency has done its due diligence and confirmed that commercially available mobile devices are safe for consumers, rendering the local warnings unnecessary — or even confusing.
“The Berkeley ordinance conflicts with the FCC’s determination that the information provided on its website and in cell phone user manuals is sufficient to inform consumers about the risk of RF exposure, and that additional notices risk ‘overwarning’ and misleading consumers into believing that RF emissions from FCC-certified cell phones are unsafe,” the agency said.
The lawsuit stems from a 2015 ordinance requiring phone sellers to inform customers that holding an internet-connected mobile phone close to their skin — such as “in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra” — could expose users to too much RF radiation.
Mobile trade group CTIA sued to block the ordinance in June 2015, arguing that the city’s “opinions” are “unfounded” and are preempted by the FCC’s wireless guidelines. Further, CTIA asserted that the rule went against First Amendment principles by forcing retailers to issue the warnings.
“That compelled speech is not only scientifically baseless and alarmist, but it also contradicts the federal government’s determination that cell phones approved for sale in the United States, however worn, are safe for everyone,” CTIA wrote in its complaint.
The case reached the Ninth Circuit, which originally upheld the mandate in 2017, but then the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court for a rethink. On review, a divided Ninth Circuit again declined to block the ordinance, and in December, the high court refused to hear the case a second time.
In the meantime, the FCC revisited its RF guidelines in 2019, finding that its current standards are among the strictest worldwide and are still effective in protecting people from harmful wireless transmissions. The agency said it reached the decision after in-house engineers studied the issue and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration affirmed that “available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”
In its Monday letter, the FCC also pointed out that all cellphone makers must submit to testing for compliance with the FCC’s RF emissions limits overseen by FCC-certified labs.
“The FCC has made a carefully considered judgment about how best to disseminate information to the public regarding the potential risks associated with RF emissions from cell phones,” the agency wrote. “The Berkeley ordinance conflicts with the FCC’s judgment concerning how best and in what form to provide information about RF exposure to the public.”
The FCC letter follows an April 24 request from the wireless industry for judgment on the pleadings. In response, the city of Berkeley wrote on June 12 that its ordinance remains constitutional and does not present an “‘obstacle’ to any FCC policy.”
The FCC is represented in-house by Thomas M. Johnson, Ashley S. Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis and James M. Carr.
CTIA is represented by Theodore B. Olson, Helgi C. Walker, Jacob T. Spencer, Joshua D. Dick and Alexander N. Harris of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The city of Berkeley, California, is represented by Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School and Farimah F. Brown and Christopher D. Jensen of the city attorney’s office.
The case is CTIA – The Wireless Association v. City of Berkeley et al., case number 3:15-cv-02529, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain’t so.” Mark Twain