Opportunistsc, Draconian Measures?

This is "terrorist" related but doesn't quite fit the other threads. This is more along the lines of all the after affects here at home. I hear people saying we need to "liberate" those people in brutal regimes, while all along our own liberties are being eroded. Please read the following and comment if you will:
<hr>
Privacy commissioner says extra security measures unnecessary
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:17:07

OTTAWA - Canada's privacy commissioner is warning the government has lost its moral compass by planning intrusive, unnecessary new security measures.

INDEPTH: Privacy


Privacy Commissioner of Canada George Radwanski (CP PHOTO)


George Radwanski delivered his annual report to Parliament on Wednesday. It is a condemnation of a number of government measures taken in the last year in the war against terrorism. And Radwanski says if left unchecked the new measures will bring an end to privacy and freedom in Canada.

Radwanski says the government is using the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, to justify an assault on privacy like never before. "I've regrettably found it necessary to issue a solemn and urgent warning to every Member of Parliament, every Senator, and every Canadian," he said.

Radwanski has been a constant critic of five measures he says do absolutely nothing to increase security.


* the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency travellers data base that will enable any government department or law enforcement agency to search for suspicious or criminal activity

* a proposed bill that would allow the RCMP to search through airline reservation systems to find people wanted on warrants

* the Department of Justice wants to allow police unfettered access to Canadian's e-mail and cell phone calls

* the immigration minister's proposal for a debate on a national identity card for all Canadians

* government support for RCMP video surveillance of public streets

"He has as distrust of this government and so do I," said Canadian Alliance House leader John Reynolds. But, Reynolds says, Canada is involved in a war on terrorism and his party believes many of the measures are necessary.

Radwanski counters that Canada isn't immune to excesses by police, and once established, the measures will be impossible to repeal.

Radwanski, who's only an ombudsman with no real power, says the government has turned a deaf ear to his concerns and in some cases accused him of being soft on terrorism.



Written by CBC News Online staff

 

This is the only one that really concerns me....it would be an outright violation of privacy.

I'd definitely support the surveillance cameras on the street. I'm sure it would benefit the law-abiding public much more than a useless 1-billion dollar gun registry has (I'm not sure of statistics, but hasn't London, Eng. had a significant reduction in crime since having introduced these throughout areas of the city?)

The National Identity Card idea is a little iffy......how much would this cost? What would the REAL benefits be? Besides, this could only help to deter potential-terrorists that were in the country illegally.....Should we assume that there are absolutely ZERO Canadian citizens that are linked to terrorist cells/organizations?

And as far as Airport security goes....why would any decent, law-abiding citizen worry that the RCMP might see their name on a Flight Reservation list? This reminds me of when I was young, and I'd be driving around with my Mom....anytime we'd pull up next to a police car, my Mom would get really nervous, put two hands on the wheel and stare straight ahead. I'd ask what she was worried about, and she would say "well, what if I've done something wrong and I just can't remember?"

 

Congrats!

Canada has just created the CIA!!!

 

Good you brought this up Jim. I was listening to this on the news the other day and I must say it concerns me.

As Columbo pointed out, those are what bother me the most. Anything that would be deemed a "personal" way of communicating to others to me is a private issue and not something that should be made easy access for anyone. I do however realize that the two, cell phones and email, are not a secure way to communicate as is.- For me it it would almost give them the next step to tap all of our lines of communication, which is wrong.

This is one idea I am for. It is an idea that I believe the world should adopt BUT so long as it does not go beyond listing where we live when we were born and any other MINOR details. I do not want to carry a card around that could possibly list my health or dental or mental information because that should be no ones business but the health professionals that we deal with.

This is something that is already apart of the downtown cores here. I have nothing against it nor see anything wrong with it. BUT there are those homes which are close by, that these cameras could very well void the privacy one seeks in their own home...and that I am against.


Privacy is a very fine line right now because of all the issues present due to war times. But does it make it right to take away a persons privacy? I believe we should have privacy and we should fight to keep it. People whom have taken the rights away from others(criminals) have, however, should not be given these same rights...they should have no rights.

 

How about mandatory spyware?

How about XP-like OS's that will work with built-in chips on the mobo to keep tabs on you?

Imagine small computer chips implanted under your skin so your location can be monitored 24/7 by GPS technology? Don't laugh! It's already happening

Imagine this scenario: How about webcams built inside monitors and linked to a Government Security Agency and on 24/7 to keep tabs on you. And imagine it being illegal to disable it, the same way "Control Freaks" want computers to operate. Sound crazy? Paranoid? Don't laugh! This was written about 55 years ago in a well know classic book. The title?

Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It was once said that those that are not shocked by Einstien's Theory of Relativity fail to understand it.

Those of you that are nor scared by the above possibilities fail to understand it.

Any person that supports the above possibilites and champion the cause, I name my personal enemy and the enemy of indivudual freedom everywhere.

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

 

So because I think that having more video cameras to increase police surveillance in high-crime areas is a good idea, I am your enemy Did I read this wrong? Which "above possibilities" where you referring to? Please clarify......

If you were talking about putting video-cameras into monitors, then I'd agree with you...THAT is a gross violation of an individual's right to privacy.

Could you expand on this? Where is this happening, and for what "supposed" purposes?

Columbo

 

I wish they would make that mandatory for every child born in the US, including my own. It would certianly reduce the number of child abductions and murders. The child could decide at age 18 whether they wanted to keep it.

If that makes me your enemy, then draw your sword!

Remember that the personal freedoms most believe they enjoy are a myth--they are not guaranteed under the Consitution [or whatever its called in Canada ]. As an example, you MUST provide your current address to the government. If you have income, you must file a tax return. If you own property, you MUST pay property taxes. If the government drafts you into military service, you MUST go. And there are a host of other things you "MUST" do.

No Mr. Chips. You're only "right" is to be treated with the same due process everyone else gets, no more no less (unless you've been convicted of a crime or their is some other reason you're rights have been reduced).

You're perceived freedom is an illusion my Canuckian friend!

 

You don't need to "educate" me about "freedom".

People become angry when I tell them that their country's so-called "rights" are a lie and an illusion. "Rights" do not exist. Those in power bestow only "priviledges" upon the populace.

In 1970 Separatists kidnapped a British Embassy Attache' and a Quebec governemnt Minister. Canadians found out how phoney "freedom" is when the Canadian governemnt invoked the War Measures Act.

And to think that somebody would actually wish to enslave the entire population to merely protect the very few from the very few is a sickening and frightening thought. I'm no Christian but I seem to remember something about the mark of the beast. So ahead and brand your children but stay the Hell away from mine!

No, you are not "my" enemy. You are the enemy of free-thinking people everywhere. And you use enemy and "friend" in rather loose terms and too easily in the same breath. Speaking in tongues?

And to think some peoples' President dare call other nations the "Axis of Evil".

 

Here you go Mouldy....read up:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

For YOUR education

Columbo

 

How could looking for people with warrants "do nothing to increase security"? Seems to me that it would follow that catching law breakers is exactly what promotes safety and "security". It's not like it is some sort of "witch hunt", looking for a suspect amongst law abiding citizens. Forgive my ignorance of the Canadian justice system, but I assume that it works similar to the US, where warrants are issued for a reason.

This one is real funky. I recall all of us talking about it in another thread (but in regards to the US). Technology outpaced the law, and now no one is too sure where the above examples fall.

I think this is dumb, for you and for us. The irony is that there technically is a "national ID", its called a passport. I can use my passport in place of my state issued ID (drivers license) and usually receive less scrutiny, but that is because nobody forges a passport to get a beer in the airport bar. However, the same problems with our state ID's will carry over to national ID's once they become mainstream. Won't take long before some kid with a bunch of computer equipment figures out a way to fake one for smokes. Exercise in futility in my opinion.

By video, or by putting the person in a car, what is the difference? Again, how could an increase in police presense in public places not promote safety? Not too many bad guys rob banks when there is a cop sitting there. So now he/she will be sitting there via a camera. This is a far cry from putting it in my house, or my computer. Green brought up the point about them being near peoples homes. Good thought, but what if a cop drives down that street, do you think he/she doesn't look at the houses and buildings? When one "patrols" an area, they are supposed to be watching everything. I personally have a problem with converting the police force to strictly "reactive" from "proactive". I remember as a child the officer that patrolled my neighborhood, officer Smiley (no kidding, it was his name). He knew most of us kids, where we played, and where we went to misbehave (where he would promptly remind us to get back to being good children ). My brother and sister, around a decade to my jr., know no such events. They are of the mindset that if a cop is around, there must be a problem, or they are in a "bad neighborhood". It really shouldn't be that way.

Here in AZ there was a huge public outcry because of the cameras put up at intersections to catch red light runners. They all complained that it "wasn't fair". Not one of them stopped to consider that it is illegal to run a red light, no matter if the cop is there or not.

 

Sums up the point I was trying to make about video surveillance. I know that there are some statistics regarding London's success in reducing crime through increased public video surveillance.....I'll try to find links.

Reminds me of the "photo radar" fiasco that happened here a few years back. People were outraged about police setting up these vans on the side of the highway in order to catch speeders.....here's an idea....if you don't want to get a ticket, then DON'T do 60 over the speed limit!