Dr. Shirley Moore spoke of court corruption ...
Please click here to view Part 2.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
parents must read
  1. MCFD Tactics
  2. MCFD Surveillance
  3. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  4. Psychotherapy
  5. Flaws of CFCSA
  6. Absolute Power and Corruption
  7. Myths & Reality
  8. On-line Service Application
Media
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD Tactics
  3. MCFD Surveillance
  4. MCFD & The First Nation
  5. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  6. Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting
  7. Empirical and Statistical Data
  8. Child Removal Cases
  9. Video Archives
contact us
most popular
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD & The First Nation
  3. The Child Protection Industry
  4. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  5. Our Comment on "When Talk Trumped Service"
  6. "The problem with Children’s Aid Societies" by Barbara Kay for National Post
  7. Powerful As God (2011 documentary)
  8. CPS Quotas: How Child Protective Services is Incentivized To Take Children video
  9. Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
  10. "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation"
  11. 3-part WLKY Target 32 Investigates (Kentucky, U.S.A.):
    1. "CPS Makes Shocking Allegations at 2 Moms Part 1 of 3"
    2. "CPS Does About Face, Accuses Parents Of Abuse Part 2 of 3"
    3. "CPS Makes More Disturbing Allegations Against Parents Part 3 of 3"
  12. "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 1"; and
    "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 2"
  13. Documentary on the Ministry of Children and Family Development Part 1 and Part 2
  14. "The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children" (Wikipedia)
  15. "Mass CPS corruption Part 2"
  16. "Deconstructing America Part 1" "Deconstructing America Part 2"
  17. "Death of a foster child Dontel Jeffers, Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" ABC News
  18. U.S. Republican Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on "child protective service" (CPS) corruption video
  19. "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" National Post
  20. Wrongful Removal of Christina Harrison's Baby
  21. Jessica Laboy case
  22. Removal of the 13 Gates Children in Texas, U.S.A.
  23. "Married to the State: How government colonizes the family"
    by Professor Stephen Baskerville (September 2009)
Wanted By The State: Your Children (the UK)

MCFD’s Advantages in Surveillance

Table of Contents

MCFD Mounted Surveillance

  1. What is Surveillance?
  2. Real or Paranoid?
  3. Evidence Suggesting Surveillance
  4. Government Modus Operandi
  5. MCFD's Hired Guns
  6. An Anecdote on Comments from Browsers and A Debate With A Service Provider in the Cyberspace
  7. Comments from Browsers
  8. Debate With A Service Provider in the Cyberspace
  9. Why Denying Surveillance?
  10. The Objective of Surveillance
  11. MCFD’s Advantages
  12. Common Surveillance and Countermeasures
  13. MCFD Information Systems
  14. Remarks
  15. Popular Culture
  16. References

MCFD enjoys the following advantages in surveillance:

  1. They have the target’s basic information such as the name, address, phone numbers, photos (obtained from the police, probation office, target's family), personal description.
  2. They have access to confidential personal information of their targets such as medical and prescription drugs records, driving records, criminal records, ... etc.
  3. Most of their targets are unsuspecting ordinary citizens subject to surveillance for the first time, who have no knowledge and experience in surveillance countermeasures.
  4. They have cooperation of key players (such as the target’s neighbors, school teachers, telecommunication companies, the police) vital in launching effective surveillance on their targets as they occupy the moral high ground of “child protection”. Note that the contracts or licenses under which telecommunication companies operate oblige these companies to provide access for tapping lines to the government and the police. No company will risk losing their licence to protect the privacy of their customers.
  5. They have discretion to choose when, where, what and how to conduct their surveillance.
  6. They could gain knowledge of the whereabout of parents and children, legal access into the residence of their targets anytime as most supervision orders forcibly imposed on parents contain terms obliging parents to disclose their whereabout, allowing after-hour “child protection” social workers to enter their residence at will.
  7. Given the vast public resources, they could change surveillance operatives and vehicles that make detection more difficult.
  8. Ignorant of the true nature of “child protection”, the unscrupulous public is generally in support of, hence cooperate with, such intrusive surveillance activities.

Government Surveillance Programs on e-mail Communications

CSEC's Former Director warns Canadians about its secretive and illegal monitoring of communications and sharing of information with other spy agencies ...

Nowadays, e-mails are so popular that they constitute a good portion of all communications in our society. Many Canadians think it is safe to communicate by e-mails. Government will respect privacy of its citizens. Court orders are required before their e-mails are monitored. In MCFD's world of "child protection", this is not quite true. You are dealing with a ministry who is able to get the medical records of all your family members without your knowledge under the pretext of "child protection". In the worst case scenario, it is safe to contend that MCFD is able to intercept e-mails and phone communications. This prompts us to add this new section on this page. Please contact us if you need suggestions of how to minimize the risk of e-mail interception.

When you are using an e-mail server without encryption, the connection between your computer and the server is open to internet connection eavesdropping. That means that intruders (more commonly known as hackers in this context) will be able to read the traffic (including e-mail attachment) that you send to the e-mail website. They can break into e-mail servers and steal large amounts of user data to fish for useful information. This is especially important if you are using your computer on a public or office network, or if you are using a wireless connection that is not encrypted.

In some countries, government sponsored projects have been set up to collect massive amounts of data from the Internet, including emails, and store them away for future analysis. This data collection is done without any search warrant, court order, or subpoena. One example of such a program was the FBI's Carnivore project. E-mail communications without encryption are broadly open to government surveillance, identity thieves and hackers.

No system is completely "unhackable". Anyone who tells you otherwise is being disingenuous. However, some systems are harder to hack than others. In most e-mail systems, once a hacker gains access to the server upon which your email is stored, the e-mail can quickly be copied off the server and read. The most dangerous compromise is to capture your server access password. To do this, the intruder (hacker) would have to gain control over the software of our system, alter it, and remain undetected until the next time you sign in to steal your password. That would be a much more difficult task than simply getting in, copying data, and leaving.

E-mail forgery

E-mail forgery is when someone sent an e-mail that looks like it comes from any email address. There is no guarantee that an e-mail that looks like it comes from an address of someone you know is actually from that person. Digital signature can help by proving that the e-mail actually came from the true owner of an e-mail account.

E-mail Risk Matrix

An attacker is an intruder trying to access your email without your consent and knowledge. No system is bullet-proof. If you believe that you are under MCFD surveillance, it is wise to keep all your thoughts to yourself and do not communicate in any way unless it is absolutely necessary.

The following table gives a risk analysis of intrusion in an unencrypted e-mail. It also indicates how risk is mitigated by using encrypted e-mail.


The following examples apply to the bodies and attachments of e-mails sent using public key encryption.
Attacker is listening to your Internet connection Protected
Attacker gets access to email stored on the server Protected
Attacker obtains data from the server's databases Protected
Attacker compromises webserver after you have accessed your email Mostly protected (there is a chance some sensitive data could remain in memory)
Attacker controls webserver while you are accessing your email Not protected
Attacker has access to your computer after you have accessed your email Protected
Attacker has access to your computer before you access your email (and can install programs such as key loggers) Not protected


(back to MCFD Surveillance main page)


[This page was created on 13 March 2010, last revised 24 March 2015.]