Canadian Privacy Commissioner Speaks Out

lbedford writes "As linked from Karlin Lillington's blog, the Canadians are struggling with big brother style laws coming through. The Canadian Privay Commissioner, George Radwanski, has this to say: 'The fundamental human right of privacy in Canada is under assault as never before.'"

Comments

If I didn't live in the states...

[heldlikesound]

....I would feel bad for them.

Re:If I didn't live in the states...

[wbm6k]

Except that it's happening here too... just called Total Information Awareness

And more frightening yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

And more frightening yet, many Canadians are in favor.

Sure, online polls are worthless, but the fact of the matter is that nobody up here would care enough to cheat on this one.

The Globe and Mail had a similar online poll on the same sort of question with less suggestive answers (In favour? Yes/No), but it still came close to being an even split for and against.

My favourite remark on the matter came in the form of a letter to the editor... "So, rather than allowing those draconian American border guards to fingerprint us, our government should pre-emptively do it the "Canadian way." Mr. Coderre says he's a chess player. Is he always in the habit of checkmating himself?"

Re:And more frightening yet...

[uncoveror]

The saddest thing is that the Canadian parliament, just like all the legislators on the globe will ignore George Radwanski, and others like him. They will not let this opportunity to grab power pass. Global totalitarianism will probably come to pass, followed by World War III, which will probably be Christianity vs. Islam, followed by a new dark age. Einstein said he did not know how we would fight World War III, but he did know how we would fight World War IV. With sticks and stones.

Re:And more frightening yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddest thing? From what I've read, even the opposition isn't opposing this. John Reynolds, who, thanks to the Day fiasco, is now tragically a member of high standing in the Canadian Alliance, essentially said 'He should quit whining'.

(And of course, all the other opposition parties are even more useless. Stop it, somehow, Liberal backbenchers!)

Re:And more frightening yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, they're not.

If online polls are meaningless, they're meaningless. It doesn't matter whether you think people would cheat or wouldn't, or what motives you ascribe the results to. It also doesn't matter what the results are - evenly split, overwhelming, whatever. Meaningless is meaningless.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the statement that polls are meaningless - I'm agreeing with it. But that implies that the rest of your post is equally meaningless (that sounds harsher than it's intended to, but think it over).

These polls are meaningless for a whole lot of reasons that go way beyond the obvious self-selected sampling and lack of verifiability, btw. The entire concept is utterly unscientific.

The one thing you can learn from a poll QUESTION is the same as any other edited article - the editorial slant of the publication. Questions don't create themselves, they're crafted by someone.

But

[Timesprout]

he did it in private so unfortunately nobody heard

Not Good

[ELCarlsson]

All I have to say is this is no good. I was planning on moving to Canada if the Patriot Act II is passed. Oh well, any good tech jobs in Mexico?

if only they could follow up ...

[duck 'o death]

Well, they might be destroying our privacy, but they can't do anything about it. The great thing about living up here in Canada, as you all know, is the eight month winters. My *mailman* doesn't even get to my house this time of year. I'd like to see the police try to follow up a warrant anywhere in town when the mail can't even get delivered ...

Canada has a *Privacy Commissioner*?

[0x0d0a]

Why the hell don't we in the US have a privacy commissioner? That's not fair!

Re:Canada has a *Privacy Commissioner*?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people in the US don't have any privacy?

Re:Canada has a *Privacy Commissioner*?

[optikSmoke]

Heh..... we've actually got 14, I think. 1 federal + 10 provinces + 3 territories. Or at least 11, I don't know if the territories have them. Whatever.

In any case, it's always nice to have a government with some built-in checks on its power. Hopefully it will actually mean something in this case.

On that note, it's also nice to have news that covers this sort of thing. Good ol' CBC :)

Re:Canada has a *Privacy Commissioner*?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to know the government has some build in checks on its power. Unfortunately the 'checks on power' in Canada are all neutered. The privacy commission can take any stand he likes, and the Canadian government will completely ignore him: and then (lets be honest), they will do whatever the American Administration orders them to do :-| Jump Sir. Yes Sir. How high Sir.

Not private at all

[Black Copter Control]

It was all over the CBC about a week ago. It was anything but a private statement.

"George Radwanski made the comment in his annual report tabled in Parliament Wednesday."

He also made a press release and stuck it on the front of the privacy commission web page. Other than taking out paid adds, and chaining himself to the parliament's copy of the anti-terrorism bill (that tried to label just about any effective politicial action "terrorism"), I don't think that he could do a whole lot more.

Re:Not private at all

[optikSmoke]

Also, he invited the provincial privacy commisioners to join in his protest, and many of them did -- something that has never happened before (provincial privacy commisioners speaking out on a federal issue). Well, at least the privacy commisioners are doing their job..... and someone is saying something.......

What a surprise....

[Smokey]

This bill will pass unless it is so far out there that even the parliament members can consciously vote in favor of this.

What will Canadian citizens do about it? Nothing, just look at how many posts there are. (9)

Re:What a surprise....

[Soko]

This bill will pass unless it is so far out there that even the parliament members can consciously vote in favor of this.

You forget that under our crippled system, the PM currently decides what will pass and what won't. For those not in the know, the PM can severaly discipline any member of his party that doesn't vote as the PMs caucus decides. With a majority government, the PM is basically a dictator. Ergo, if Jean wants it passed, it gets passed.

In Canada, when you write to your MP, you always, always, always send a copy to the PM and the Minister responsible for the legislation you're commenting on - in this case

The Honourable Elinor Caplan
Minister of National Revenue
555 Mackenzie Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K10 0L5
- just so you know.

What will Canadian citizens do about it? Nothing, just look at how many posts there are. (9)

Hey, it's bloody cold tonight - my cable connection just thawed out enough for me to respond, and I'm in Southern Ontario. Winter^H^H^Hnipeg won't be able to respond until, say April??? ;-)

Soko

There's a reason for that

[DDX_2002]

Provincial commissioners comment on federal legislation all the time. Read the transcripts of the senate hearings on Bill C-54 and C-6 (PIPEDA)- I'm pretty sure Cavoukian from Ontario spoke, and I'm fairly sure Flaherty from BC spoke too.

Now in thay case, it was going to affect them pretty directly, given the opting-out system of that legislation.

The present commissioner, IMHO, is the worst we've ever had in Canada. I thought the incident regarding his open letter to the Information Commissioner regarding an appeal that was before the courts was appalling. See this, wherein Radwanski is quoted as writing that having the Prime Minister turn over agendas showing his meeting schedule would be "tantamount to informational rape."