What does open source search mean?
- Thread starter Montrealboy
- Start date
General references to "open source" tends to be about software and access to or sharing code.
However, that is NOT how it is used in the context of IRCC background screening of its clients.
My understanding of it, in the IRCC background screening context, is based largely on examples referenced in actual cases reported in published decisions. As I have occasionally noted, for example, LinkedIn is an online source which has been fairly commonly referenced as accessed by IRCC to check on clients' backgrounds. Canada 411, a directory of names and telephone numbers, is another. But it can be sources like "Iran Watch," which is a website that monitors Iran's nuclear and missile programs, the entities contributing to those programs, and international efforts to impede Iran's progress; information in Iran Watch was cited among open sources supporting reasons for denying a PR visa application, that website identifying a company the applicant was involved with, the company on its list of entities involved in materials for weapons of mass destruction, giving IRCC reason to apprehend the applicant was a security risk to Canada (appeal granted in this case, IRCC found to have unreasonably relied on that information).
So, best I can discern, open sources which IRCC may research for information includes just about any source of information which can be accessed by the public at large . . . for sure the contents of trade journals, newspapers, openly accessed websites, all sorts of directories. And more. If you can find and access a source doing a Bing search, bingo it's an open source.
Note that sometimes it can be the failure to find information in open sources that triggers suspicions. Thus, for example, when a Foreign National applying for a work permit references an employment offer, and IRCC cannot find any open source information about the company, that can trigger IRCC concerns the employment offer may not be genuine. A legitimate business operating in Canada will ordinarily be readily found in various open sources.
The main issue is when and why and what might IRCC research in regards to a given application or case.
In the published decisions it is not always said what the source was . . . there was the PR and citizenship applicant whose case crashed when CIC (before IRCC name change) found a "conference flyer" naming the PR as participating in a conference in Switzerland on behalf of a non-Canada business, when the PR had reported being in Canada at the time of that conference and being unemployed at that time, and in work history did not disclose ever being employed by that non-Canadian business. The published decision did not disclose how it was that CIC found or otherwise obtained the conference flyer. It was the PR's failure to adequately counter that information that sabotaged his application and his PR status (as I recall, he lost PR status based on failing to prove he complied with the Residency Obligation).
We tend to leave digital tracks all over the internet and elsewhere. More than ever, being open and honest tends to be a practical more than moral imperative. I have no idea what will trigger IRCC to take extra steps to research open sources, which can be a search for the applicant or for information the applicant has provided (like addresses, telephone numbers, employers). But it is clear that for some applicants IRCC will sometimes go the extra step.
But then there is the further question about how reliable is the information that is found. It is not hard to find information I have a professional office in a jurisdiction I have not visited in nearly two decades, an office I left more than a quarter century ago. Earlier this year I was actually contacted by officials involved in law enforcement about somewhat recent activities in that office. "HUH?" My being thousands of miles away in a different country was no impediment to their finding my telephone number and an email address. It was no big deal, none at all, nothing to do with me at all, but it does make one scratch their head. I'm thinking, where's the Minority Report?
@dpenabill
@legalfalcon
I just needed your insight.
8 or 9 years ago I used to have a second experimental LinkedIn profile with all fictitious information. I however have closed that account and it no longer exists.
Recently I did a check on my name at a people lookup website (like Social catfish) and it generates all those fictitious job and education information from that fake LinkedIn profile. I don't know how they got those info, provided I deleted that LinkedIn profile within a month of creating it.
I am a little worried that IRCC will run into all those fictitious information from people lookup websites and may think I misrepresented - which I haven't.
Are people lookup websites considered open source? I mean you have to pay a fee to subscribe to avail their services so maybe it's not considered open source?
I don't know what to do at this point.
I contacted the people lookup website and tried to have my info removed but they are not cooperating.
What else can I do?
Should I just allign my current LinkedIn profile as closely as possible to ircc profile and leave it at that?
Do you think it's something to worry about?
Thanks and will wait for your reply.
@legalfalcon
I just needed your insight.
8 or 9 years ago I used to have a second experimental LinkedIn profile with all fictitious information. I however have closed that account and it no longer exists.
Recently I did a check on my name at a people lookup website (like Social catfish) and it generates all those fictitious job and education information from that fake LinkedIn profile. I don't know how they got those info, provided I deleted that LinkedIn profile within a month of creating it.
I am a little worried that IRCC will run into all those fictitious information from people lookup websites and may think I misrepresented - which I haven't.
Are people lookup websites considered open source? I mean you have to pay a fee to subscribe to avail their services so maybe it's not considered open source?
I don't know what to do at this point.
I contacted the people lookup website and tried to have my info removed but they are not cooperating.
What else can I do?
Should I just allign my current LinkedIn profile as closely as possible to ircc profile and leave it at that?
Do you think it's something to worry about?
Thanks and will wait for your reply.
the term “open source” refers specifically to information that is available for public consumption. If any specialist skills, tools, or techniques are required to access a piece of information, it can't reasonably be considered open source.
I certainly do not know the scope of what IRCC researches, looking for information available on the Internet, generally let alone in individual cases, other than recognizing that IRCC can and to some extent, at least in some cases, does do such research. I know even less about the manner in which this is done, and even less about the extent to which IRCC actually uses or relies on information found.
As I noted, and as just about everyone knows and has experienced, there's a ton of unreliable information on the Internet . . . and even for anyone who has paid for a supposedly credible and reliable background check, even those services are often populated with erroneous data, so even using a reputable service requires some culling of the information obtained. I have seen information in background check reports from highly reputable services listing me as living at addresses I never even visited. And on the open Internet, like scores and scores of others, there's a ton of information connected to my name which appears to be about me, on the surface, but upon closer inspection is easily distinguished, easily discerned to be about some other person with the same or similar name.
Probably more so than many others here, I generally trust IRCC to judiciously screen the information it acquires from open sources and appropriately assess its reliability, including its relevance and accuracy, including in particular recognizing information that is inaccurate or irrelevant (like same name but a different person). Thus my guess is that there should be little or no reason to apprehend that IRCC would be at all influenced by the information you reference here.
The worst case scenario, if IRCC finds information conflicting with the information a client has provided and deems that contrary information credible enough to consider, is a request for clarification or explanation, which may or may not be explicitly labeled a "procedural fairness letter." Before IRCC makes any substantive decision based on information contrary to information provided by a client, IRCC is required to notify the client and give the client an opportunity to respond.
In most of the cases I have read where a client has been subject to a negative decision based on "open source" information, it's the client's failure to reasonably respond that tends to be the bigger problem, leading to the negative decision.
In some cases, sometimes, it can be difficult to prove a negative, especially when the source of the information found is the client. It would be one thing for a LinkedIn account to show employment history in an account belonging to a client, versus that history showing up as derivative information in some other website. My guess is that IRCC would not consider the latter, or at least not give it much weight, UNLESS that information was corroborated by other information tending to indicate its reliability. In contrast, IRCC will probably (again I do not know that much about how IRCC internally processes this stuff) give more consideration to information in an account controlled by the client, again like employment history information a client has posted in the client's own LinkedIn account.
I am thinking, in particular, of the case where (as best I can recall without revisiting the research), a doctor applying for Canadian citizenship had listed, in LinkedIn, work experience with certain hospitals or clinics outside Canada, but did not list that work history in the citizenship application and did not disclose time outside Canada related to the LinkedIn history. As best I can recall, the doctor's response to IRCC's request for explanation was that the LinkedIn information was largely padding, essentially confessing he was overstating minimal and remotely done consultations to pad his résumé. How to prove the negative? prove that he did not actually spend any time employed at those entities? I cannot recall the particulars of his response, but he lost. Not sure, memory more fuzzy on this point, but I think the negative outcome was due at least in part to the doctor's lack of evidence showing where he was actually employed in Canada during those periods of time . . . it was not just that he could not disprove the employment abroad, but he also failed to adequately document being in Canada.
In any event, qualified applicants who appropriately complete the application and follow through, who honestly give IRCC accurate and complete information, should have almost nothing to worry about.
But, just as one example, if the name of an employer in work history is something that is made up, not a real business, yeah, there's a risk IRCC will figure that out and have questions.
Open-source searches are fascinating because they pull data from publicly available sources, but they can also be a bit hit-or-miss depending on how thorough they are.
Last edited: