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

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 true. We have good evidence confirming that MCFD does intercept e-mails and phone communications without any search warrant or court order, even when there is no on-going criminal investigations on parents. 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 100% "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.

To view the risk matrix in e-mail communication, please click on on/off switch. new [added on April 10, 2009]

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

new [added on April 10, 2009]

MCFD mounted surveillance is summarized below and characterized by:

social workers in charge of a file seldom get involved in surveillance because parents recognize them generally, MCFD surveillance operatives are men but sometimes women are used as well they wear plainclothes and at times work on teams they do not carry weapon as their muscle, the police, is at their disposal and is just a phone call away they do work around the clock and on statutory holidays they are particularly active on special events like Christmas eve, birthday of target’s children Counter surveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making surveillance difficult. Sometimes, a target may want to show that he knows that he is under surveillance just to get vermin off his back. This tactic will not deter MCFD-mounted surveillance. Your privacy is the last thing MCFD would respect. Their principle is to intimidate, to provoke, to belittle, to demonstrate power and to find faults.

There are countermeasures parents could adopt to minimize or evade surveillance. Our web site is monitored by MCFD. In order not to expose countermeasure information to MCFD, please contact us if you need assistance in this area.

Surveillance Method	Their Objectives	Indicative Sign(s) of Presence
monitoring target and/or their children by placing plainclothes secret agent in vehicle (stake out mission)	•  to find excuses (such as breach of unauthorized contact with children) to justify a removal or more intrusive measures •  to create fear to subjugate parents	unmarked vehicle with person taking notes at times, parked for a long period of time near target’s residence and children’s school with a clear view of traffic and access of home
foot stalking or tailing targets by public transportation		stranger(s) roaming around target’s residence, taking notes at times, making diversion gestures (such as checking house number pretending to find someone) when observed
vehicular stalking of target		unmarked vehicle following target, making aggressive pursuit if target is about to be lost due to traffic conditions
monitoring communications such as phone conversations, e-mails, video conferencing, interception of postal mail (whether MCFD uses this method regularly is unconfirmed, but we assume some social workers do in the worst case scenario) Subsequently, we received reliable information from parents that confirm interception of e-mails (including attachments) and phone calls (including cell phone) when there is no on-going criminal investigation (added on March 15, 2009).	•  gather information to catch a breach of supervision terms and to justify their next action •  monitor the sentiment of parents •  gather intelligence of what parents plan to do	social workers know information that has only been discussed over phone or e-mails
use family members, including the target’s own children, to spy for information	•  gather information to destroy healthy parental relationship as child adhesion to parent is an obstacle to removal and adoption •  tarnish targets under scrutiny as bad parents	•  social workers know information that has only been discussed with family members and children •  target’s children are withdrawn, appear confused, nervous, doubtful, not open to parents
use neighbors to monitor target	•  cheap methods with the added benefit of destroying parent’s reputation •  given the kangaroo practice of “child protection” court, social workers can misconstrue information from unsuspecting neighbors to their liking or using grudges of neighbors to their advantage	•  neighbors are overly observant and vigilant •  neighbors ask unusual questions, show abnormal interest in target’s affairs and have uneasy facial expression
use compelled counseling to extract information (there is no privileged information and confidentiality protection as MCFD paid counselors are obliged to open the entire client file to social workers, after all, counselors seldom bite the hands that feed them)	force or induce target to admit incriminating statement in this disguised form of interrogation and use information extracted during counseling in court to justify legal action (be mindful that most supervision orders contain a term of completing counseling to the satisfaction of counselor and social worker, many parents are forced to admit whatever wrongdoing imposed on them for the purpose of getting their children back after completion of counseling)	•  counselor pays undue attention to your past (like asking you to repeat what caused MCFD intervention again and again) •  counselor is more interested in extracting information than in offering professional help
use supervised visit when seeing removed children to spy for information (be mindful supervised visit workers take notes during the entire visit, some parents are searched before and after the visit)	fabricate or misconstrue information to incriminate parents or to attack their parenting skills (most common scheme is accusing parents to be the cause when children cry at separation, lack of parenting skill to deal with situation when children are traumatized)	•  social workers use information from supervised visits in court or when interacting with parents •  supervised visit workers (who are not always MCFD employees, they could be employees of organizations, such as family resource centers, closely related to MCFD) are making negative remarks on parents

To give a real example, the photo on the right was taken during a supervised visit in 2006. The fine Asian gentleman snoozing on the left with a writing pad on his lap was an interpreter hired by MCFD. We have no intention to embarrass him by showing his face. Unfortunately, if we blurred his face, our browsers could not see that he was snoozing on the job.

Despite that he was snoozing for over 30 minutes and he has limited understanding of Cantonese (a Chinese dialect the parent speaks with children), derogatory report from the supervised visit worker (who is a Caucasian woman not shown in this photo) was made against the parents. Unsurprisingly to those who had received interventions from MCFD, this report containing fabricated allegations was later used by social worker in court to justify MCFD’s position. Court, of course, considered these reports credible as they were made by various “impartial”, "independent" and “respectable” social workers who work so “genuinely” to "protect children".