Slashdot Mirror
CND Government Demands Widespread Tap Access
north_of_49 wrote to mention a Globe and Mail article stating that the Canadian government is seeking the ability to conduct surveillance on the communications of its citizenry. From the article: "The major boost in interception capacity is in proposals the government has put forward in confidential negotiations with the telecom industry as it prepares new legislation on high-tech wiretapping scheduled to be introduced next month. Government officials insist their proposals will bring Canada's laws on wiretaps -- drafted when people still attached alligator clips to telephone lines to listen in -- up to speed with new technologies. But privacy advocates fear an erosion of safeguards, and telecom companies worry the government wants them to build in a costly interception system."
Perhaps it has something to do with the recent finding that China has more spies in Canada than in any other nation? The government can't be too happy about that - they may be feeling they've been too lax.
Have they actually thought about asking the neighbours where they have gathering if they've noticed anything "strange" lately? That will save telecom companies a lot of money and certain the 24/5/365.25 survalence costs.
By and large I agree with what you're saying. However, this example is somewhat lacking. You can ask neighbours all you want. They will tell you "those guys are part of a gang for sure...." but the cops already know that. Generally it's easy for the cops to figure out that guys are "up to something" but finding hard evidence to prove that this is the case is much more elusive. Lots of kids walk around wearing clothes that make them look like gangsters, but we should only put into jail those that have actually committed serious crimes!
Now, wiretaps and other surveillance give police the ability to find out about illegal activities, and thereby get the evidence they need. This of course doesn't mean that any and all surveillance is justified. I agree with you that such invasions must be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet it would be naive of us to think that putting criminals in jail would be possible without some measure of information gathering (i.e.: surveillance). What remains is to (democratically) decide how much surveillance is acceptable.
Lets make a law saying that all our elected officials are required to have a live webcam feed 24/7/365 from their offices, cars and houses.
In this most democratic form of the 'Big Brother show', we would be able to hold our elected officials directly accountable. We would see what lobbyists are met, how long a lunch break they take, how ethically they shop, if they are really recycling and so on.
My little Linux and tech blog
I see no mention of electronic communications in the charter. Is there any precedent that a tap constitutes a search?
The question is what constitutes a 'reasonable' search? That alone begs the question, "If i'm not an identified suspect as a party to a criminal act, does the government have reasonable grounds to observe me in ANY fashion?" I believe that the US courts have held that with respect to law enforcement, there must be a legitimate reason for any government entity to entangle itself within activities of a citizen's day-to-day life. Legitimate reason arises when one is a suspect of a criminal act that has been committed, or one's actions are a very clear indication that a crime is about to be committed. Downloading a file, talking on a telephone, walking in a public park, or onto a public transit system do not qualify in any sense. Therefore, any effort to observe the citizenry at large to determine if they *might* be doing something illegal, is completely unreasonable.
No. Not at all.
Socialism says that society should try its best not to simply abandon people and let them fend for themselves. You know
You're both badly misquoting Spock, and mischaracterizing all forms of socialism as inherently individual-destroying, impersonal machines.
If you donate to a charity, that is doing something socially minded. You're not inherently deciding that all of your money should be appropriated to help everyone else out.
As in all things, there are varying degrees -- in Canada, we still try to preserve individual rights, but also try to make sure as many people as possible get a leg up. Or, at least that's what we try to do.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.