why S16(2)(c)

[Drajesh]

My notes were also redacted stating s(16)(1)(c) in the notes section & s(16)(2)(c) in the history section. Have odered one on september (CBSA). Confused as to what it signifies.

 

[Bella Wu]

My notes were also redacted stating s(16)(1)(c) in the notes section & s(16)(2)(c) in the history section. Have odered one on september (CBSA). Confused as to what it signifies.

I have a 16 2 (c) on my file as well, do you thinks we may get into deep secutiry cheking?

 

[Drajesh]

I have a 16 2 (c) on my file as well, do you thinks we may get into deep secutiry cheking?

Not sure. Hope it doesn't..

 

[ndse2]

Not sure. Hope it doesn't..

I think security checks have started on your file . I also have s16(2)c
But my security shows - not started

 

[Drajesh]

I think security checks have started on your file . I also have s16(2)c
But my security shows - not started

Security check as in? The intensive screening?? Mine also says not started.

 

[ndse2]

Security check as in? The intensive screening?? Mine also says not started.

Honestly No idea . Only a guess

 

[armoured]

I have a 16 2 (c) on my file as well, do you thinks we may get into deep secutiry cheking?

TL;DR version: this exemption is probably not related to the individual's file or some deep security check, or if so, only coincidentally - not worth worrying about. It's probably not about you.

S16(2)(c): exclusion from disclosure of information that could facilitate commission of an offence ... including (amongst other things) ... "(c) on the vulnerability of particular buildings or other structures or systems, including computer or communication systems, or methods employed to protect such buildings or other structures or systems."

This is (c). I believe the vast majority of stuff not disclosed under this section (c) is because sharing the info would also mean sharing technical information about the computer/communication systems and their protection (and why I bolded this).

In other words, it probably is not about information in an individual's file but the system the information is from or is stored in.

Think about this from the govt perspective: they assume that any and all information released under ATIP is "public." And that some nefarious party reading this stuff can use parts of that information to figure stuff out, even if the actual content of the information (your file) is of no interest.

For the analogy: think of signals intelligence in wartime. Collect enough signals traffic on boring stuff like how much cooking oil is delivered where and when, you might be able to figure out troop movements. It doesn't mean anyone cares whether Private Ryan individually likes fish and chips.

 

[caipsnotes]

TL;DR version: this exemption is probably not related to the individual's file or some deep security check, or if so, only coincidentally - not worth worrying about. It's probably not about you.

S16(2)(c): exclusion from disclosure of information that could facilitate commission of an offence ... including (amongst other things) ... "(c) on the vulnerability of particular buildings or other structures or systems, including computer or communication systems, or methods employed to protect such buildings or other structures or systems."

This is (c). I believe the vast majority of stuff not disclosed under this section (c) is because sharing the info would also mean sharing technical information about the computer/communication systems and their protection (and why I bolded this).

In other words, it probably is not about information in an individual's file but the system the information is from or is stored in.

Think about this from the govt perspective: they assume that any and all information released under ATIP is "public." And that some nefarious party reading this stuff can use parts of that information to figure stuff out, even if the actual content of the information (your file) is of no interest.

For the analogy: think of signals intelligence in wartime. Collect enough signals traffic on boring stuff like how much cooking oil is delivered where and when, you might be able to figure out troop movements. It doesn't mean anyone cares whether Private Ryan individually likes fish and chips.

Just fyi - IRCC has been using S16(2)(c) to withhold the "history" section in GCMS and it has been successfully demonstrated that it's use in certain cases in invalid. IRCC was forced to disclose the information it had withheld under S16(2)(c). https://bit.ly/3rQpKUb