Maybe it's just me and my 'sunny ways' but throughout most of my life I never saw a telephone phone book filled with names, addresses, and phone numbers as a data breach. In fact, the first thing most of did after receiving the yearly book was check to make sure the personal information it listed was correct. But now? A deadly conspiracy is afoot, I tell you. (It took personal time, effort, and money to remove this information from the public domain and gain an unlisted number... which it was why it was called 'unlisted'. And there was nary a scandal in sight.)
My, how times have changed. Now the risk to safety for this unacceptable breach cannot be overstated and the culprits held to account for their dark motives. Think of the thousands in some form of witness protection who kept their name and stayed determined to exercise their franchise under it, confident that select electoral officers can access this information with no risk but anyone familiar with a phone book casts a long and threatening shadow.
This is a genuine question as I’ve thought about some of the points you raise as well: if having our private voter contact info available online is safe enough, why do we use pseudonyms or nicknames to comment here, and why don’t we include the neighborhood where we live in our monikers, to help contextualize our comments? For me the online environment is different than a physical phone book in terms of who has access and how quickly, but I’m curious how you are thinking about that question if you are willing to share?
I think because people have become so used to hiding behind pseudonyms to flame and troll that they fear any revelation of their identity. Similarly “doxxing” is considered a crime by law enforcement. So they extend this fear to any revelation of their identity even in innocent contexts like the white pages (do they still exist?)
Good point(s). The online aspect is a consideration that could be much better handled using, let's say, designated passwords to gain access only by those authorized to do so. Believe me, I understand the need for privacy and implement a personal amount that I think is necessary in my case.
But it's this notion of what used to be basic public information (I think, but I could be wrong) to now be some earth shattering exposure that I question. Yes, it's certainly an issue, but is it really this big of an issue considering its place in scope of the amount of online information I can freely and with little effort gain about others through various social media... much of it on offer by people revealing private information? Or is the lack of proper oversight (and accountability) in this one case being used to blow this WAY out of proportion for the political ammunition it offers, targeting as it does only one side of those on this the binary question and painting this side as if part of an evil conspiracy?
Has nothing similar by any other political entity ever been done in Canada? (I sincerely believe so having worked multiple elections in various positions of authority in different provinces and encountering all kinds of political information questionably sourced). We sure wouldn't know anything about any of that when journalism writ large has devolved into regularly producing narratives built around motivated reasoning promoting personal political beliefs and policy positions. I suspect this case falls much more into that category than a truly terrible breach of privacy on personal and private information... especially compared to and contrasted with ongoing and repeating government, banking, health, library, municipal, educational, and consumer breaches. In other words, maybe we need to get a better grip on the scope and scale of what it is we're really talking about here with this example.
Thank you for responding in good faith. Interesting questions. A friend was interviewing for work with Canadian census, got all the way through multiple rounds and then was asked if they had room to store 30 boxes at their home, i.e. all that info was being stored in plain old boxes in a private citizen's home for the duration of the contract. So I wonder how secure our info is on an average day in any case. I have more questions than answers.
I get your point but if rules were broken, and even a handful of people are exposed to harm due to their information being made public against their will, it's good to see those who broke those rules being held to account.
What I do find interesting is that this is a scandal where the powers that be have seemingly decided that it's acceptable to hold those responsible to some kind of account, or at least let it hurt their cause and movement. We face multi-million and even billion dollar misappropriation scandals at alarming regularity - most commonly involving the federal Liberals but also at the provincial level too - and the reaction isn't what I have seen so far here. We see laws made that endanger the public and activist judges release dangerous people into society, creating just as much if not more of a threat to individuals as this kind of data breach, and there is nothing done.
Again, it's good to see a reaction to - something - but I think this also serves as a test as to what kind of scandals are still allowed to be scandals.
I generally agree, but isn't it interesting to note how demands for accountability and media support for it seems (to me, at least) strangely focused on anyone who dares to question the ideological purity and motives of those in positions of public authority?
I 99% agree. Historically public prosecutors and judges were unlisted pro bono for good reason, the rest of us had to pay. The rules were broken, but the harm is not clear in a society that is big on transparency.
You beat me to the correction. I suspect that the culprit was the autocorrect function.
Your definition of the term “ringer” is also the one I use for “sandbagger”.
There is also a term called “dead ringer “ to refer to someone who looks just like someone else. Back when the science of determining death was in its infancy people were sometimes buried alive after a premature death diagnosis. To prevent this a bell was attached by a string to the buried person’s hand. If he or she woke up they could pull the string and ring the bell to be disinterred.
How many names on the pro-referendum list were just pulled from the List of Electors? If there's even one, that throws the entire list out the window. Lawsuits against the perpetrators could go on for years and bankrupt the entire operation.
Lists are the most important resource that a bonafide political party is permitted by law to use with clear legal guidance in the pursuit of an electoral commitment. The Republican party of Alberta, which most of us have never heard of, clearly did not read or fully grasp the rules of engagement vis a vis said list and gave it to the Centurion project to use however they wished.
Canadians have a damned good reason to be outraged at this. Both organizations should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. This isn't about asking the government to investigate its about prosecuting. Unless the Smith government in its legislative fiddling has neutered Elections Alberta to such an extent that they are helpless even beyond the apparent inability to launch an investigation into a reported breach. Danielle Smith is actually beginning to appear like her support for this absurd separatist movement is for real, at this time, with Canada's economic future at stake. This type of Conservative party pandering to the lunatic fringe is bad politics bleeding into policy and its damaging to our country.
Breakenridge, have you read Bill 14? I read relevant sections and Jen Gerson's information and after that, it's obvious to me and probably pretty well everyone that someone dropped the ball. After getting the info on March 31, the civil service decided not to use the legislated expectation that they'd exercise reasonable discernment. At their salary levels, the public can expect some discernment ability. And cry me a river - a civil service that does not get it's finding request? There's no news there.
I am very glad the RCMP is involved in finding out how the voters list migrated from the Republican Party to Centurion. That's just wrong. What you and journalists miss is that the number of new eyes on that list is likely low due to overlap between the volunteers and workers at the Republican Party, who already could access the list, and those at Centurion.
Using Jason Kenney's data as an example is really bad taste and frankly should be actionable. If it is actionable, the rest of us can then launch legal action against the many tasteless people who bring our names up in circles we are not part of. Many people are no doubt waiting for that day. Even if Kenney gets nowhere with a lawsuit, public approbation can do it's job.
And a note - the NDP knew about the voters list situation and chose not to tell either Elections or the public. Were they out of touch with the media and the public? Did the NDP even grasp the seriousness of the situation. Did they expect there is little effective result due to the overlap in people between the two groups? Are they using the media to avoid public attention to their own lapse? What?
Messing with election integrity. How GOP of them. It seems this, and misogyny, are now the gathering points of modern conservatism, as they sure don't stand for any form of fiscal responsibility or equal rights.
Anybody here still think partisan politics and elections are the best alternative for a democracy?
Think of all the problems of electoral politics (like this one) that would disappear.
This is a good example of why I support sortition as the only viable alternative. Using random (after some judicious filtering e.g. age, comprehension, education?) as a means of selecting parliamentary representatives is the way to restore real deliberation and stop the continuing insanity of doing the same thing to select representatives while expecting a different result.
Maybe it's just me and my 'sunny ways' but throughout most of my life I never saw a telephone phone book filled with names, addresses, and phone numbers as a data breach. In fact, the first thing most of did after receiving the yearly book was check to make sure the personal information it listed was correct. But now? A deadly conspiracy is afoot, I tell you. (It took personal time, effort, and money to remove this information from the public domain and gain an unlisted number... which it was why it was called 'unlisted'. And there was nary a scandal in sight.)
My, how times have changed. Now the risk to safety for this unacceptable breach cannot be overstated and the culprits held to account for their dark motives. Think of the thousands in some form of witness protection who kept their name and stayed determined to exercise their franchise under it, confident that select electoral officers can access this information with no risk but anyone familiar with a phone book casts a long and threatening shadow.
This is a genuine question as I’ve thought about some of the points you raise as well: if having our private voter contact info available online is safe enough, why do we use pseudonyms or nicknames to comment here, and why don’t we include the neighborhood where we live in our monikers, to help contextualize our comments? For me the online environment is different than a physical phone book in terms of who has access and how quickly, but I’m curious how you are thinking about that question if you are willing to share?
I think because people have become so used to hiding behind pseudonyms to flame and troll that they fear any revelation of their identity. Similarly “doxxing” is considered a crime by law enforcement. So they extend this fear to any revelation of their identity even in innocent contexts like the white pages (do they still exist?)
Good point(s). The online aspect is a consideration that could be much better handled using, let's say, designated passwords to gain access only by those authorized to do so. Believe me, I understand the need for privacy and implement a personal amount that I think is necessary in my case.
But it's this notion of what used to be basic public information (I think, but I could be wrong) to now be some earth shattering exposure that I question. Yes, it's certainly an issue, but is it really this big of an issue considering its place in scope of the amount of online information I can freely and with little effort gain about others through various social media... much of it on offer by people revealing private information? Or is the lack of proper oversight (and accountability) in this one case being used to blow this WAY out of proportion for the political ammunition it offers, targeting as it does only one side of those on this the binary question and painting this side as if part of an evil conspiracy?
Has nothing similar by any other political entity ever been done in Canada? (I sincerely believe so having worked multiple elections in various positions of authority in different provinces and encountering all kinds of political information questionably sourced). We sure wouldn't know anything about any of that when journalism writ large has devolved into regularly producing narratives built around motivated reasoning promoting personal political beliefs and policy positions. I suspect this case falls much more into that category than a truly terrible breach of privacy on personal and private information... especially compared to and contrasted with ongoing and repeating government, banking, health, library, municipal, educational, and consumer breaches. In other words, maybe we need to get a better grip on the scope and scale of what it is we're really talking about here with this example.
Thank you for responding in good faith. Interesting questions. A friend was interviewing for work with Canadian census, got all the way through multiple rounds and then was asked if they had room to store 30 boxes at their home, i.e. all that info was being stored in plain old boxes in a private citizen's home for the duration of the contract. So I wonder how secure our info is on an average day in any case. I have more questions than answers.
I get your point but if rules were broken, and even a handful of people are exposed to harm due to their information being made public against their will, it's good to see those who broke those rules being held to account.
What I do find interesting is that this is a scandal where the powers that be have seemingly decided that it's acceptable to hold those responsible to some kind of account, or at least let it hurt their cause and movement. We face multi-million and even billion dollar misappropriation scandals at alarming regularity - most commonly involving the federal Liberals but also at the provincial level too - and the reaction isn't what I have seen so far here. We see laws made that endanger the public and activist judges release dangerous people into society, creating just as much if not more of a threat to individuals as this kind of data breach, and there is nothing done.
Again, it's good to see a reaction to - something - but I think this also serves as a test as to what kind of scandals are still allowed to be scandals.
I generally agree, but isn't it interesting to note how demands for accountability and media support for it seems (to me, at least) strangely focused on anyone who dares to question the ideological purity and motives of those in positions of public authority?
I think in the phone book era one could be unlisted.
I said that.
I 99% agree. Historically public prosecutors and judges were unlisted pro bono for good reason, the rest of us had to pay. The rules were broken, but the harm is not clear in a society that is big on transparency.
I notice that the name Stay Free Alberta doesn't appear once in this article.
ie: the organization who actually collected the 306K signatures seeking a referendum.
If you include the 450K signatures Lukaszuk collected, as many as 750K Albertans have signed petitions seeking a referendum on this subject.
The end result CANNOT be no referendum.
Editorial note:
A ringer is usually referencing someone with superior skills entering a contest under false pretenses.
When someone, or a group of people, have been exposed to hardship in one way or another, they have, colloquially, been "put through the wringer".
You beat me to the correction. I suspect that the culprit was the autocorrect function.
Your definition of the term “ringer” is also the one I use for “sandbagger”.
There is also a term called “dead ringer “ to refer to someone who looks just like someone else. Back when the science of determining death was in its infancy people were sometimes buried alive after a premature death diagnosis. To prevent this a bell was attached by a string to the buried person’s hand. If he or she woke up they could pull the string and ring the bell to be disinterred.
How many names on the pro-referendum list were just pulled from the List of Electors? If there's even one, that throws the entire list out the window. Lawsuits against the perpetrators could go on for years and bankrupt the entire operation.
Lists are the most important resource that a bonafide political party is permitted by law to use with clear legal guidance in the pursuit of an electoral commitment. The Republican party of Alberta, which most of us have never heard of, clearly did not read or fully grasp the rules of engagement vis a vis said list and gave it to the Centurion project to use however they wished.
Canadians have a damned good reason to be outraged at this. Both organizations should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. This isn't about asking the government to investigate its about prosecuting. Unless the Smith government in its legislative fiddling has neutered Elections Alberta to such an extent that they are helpless even beyond the apparent inability to launch an investigation into a reported breach. Danielle Smith is actually beginning to appear like her support for this absurd separatist movement is for real, at this time, with Canada's economic future at stake. This type of Conservative party pandering to the lunatic fringe is bad politics bleeding into policy and its damaging to our country.
You seem to forget all the UCP's data is on the list too!!! NDP !crats in Edmonton at work!!!
Breakenridge, have you read Bill 14? I read relevant sections and Jen Gerson's information and after that, it's obvious to me and probably pretty well everyone that someone dropped the ball. After getting the info on March 31, the civil service decided not to use the legislated expectation that they'd exercise reasonable discernment. At their salary levels, the public can expect some discernment ability. And cry me a river - a civil service that does not get it's finding request? There's no news there.
I am very glad the RCMP is involved in finding out how the voters list migrated from the Republican Party to Centurion. That's just wrong. What you and journalists miss is that the number of new eyes on that list is likely low due to overlap between the volunteers and workers at the Republican Party, who already could access the list, and those at Centurion.
Using Jason Kenney's data as an example is really bad taste and frankly should be actionable. If it is actionable, the rest of us can then launch legal action against the many tasteless people who bring our names up in circles we are not part of. Many people are no doubt waiting for that day. Even if Kenney gets nowhere with a lawsuit, public approbation can do it's job.
And a note - the NDP knew about the voters list situation and chose not to tell either Elections or the public. Were they out of touch with the media and the public? Did the NDP even grasp the seriousness of the situation. Did they expect there is little effective result due to the overlap in people between the two groups? Are they using the media to avoid public attention to their own lapse? What?
Messing with election integrity. How GOP of them. It seems this, and misogyny, are now the gathering points of modern conservatism, as they sure don't stand for any form of fiscal responsibility or equal rights.
Anybody here still think partisan politics and elections are the best alternative for a democracy?
Think of all the problems of electoral politics (like this one) that would disappear.
This is a good example of why I support sortition as the only viable alternative. Using random (after some judicious filtering e.g. age, comprehension, education?) as a means of selecting parliamentary representatives is the way to restore real deliberation and stop the continuing insanity of doing the same thing to select representatives while expecting a different result.