Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
I think my desire for protection of life should be far greater then your right to download porn off the internet without anyone seeing.
Not saying that you do, but I'm sure many people will have a qualm about this because they're afraid that the government will catch them doing things that they "morally" feel guilty about.
Having said that, I have no problem with the government keeping tabs on websites that might have a terror link, such as they already do with child porn. I do have a problem with the government looking at every single page I visit, all in the name of security.
I don't think CP, or any other hockey related sites/forums pose a threat to Canada, therefore the government has no right to be watching us. But we all know there are many sites out there that have terror links, and I believe the government, as they already do with child porn explained by Ken, should be watching to make sure our safety isn't threatened.
|
If you want to disregard the concept of personal privacy by narrowing it down to porn or downloading mp3's I guess we can do that. I do, however, disagree with you that this is what the issue boils down to.
Here's what George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada had to say Feb. 10 2003 to a Subcommittee on National Security.
The simple fact is that I have not, in reality, raised privacy objections against a single genuine anti-terrorist measure. What I have opposed, and what I must oppose, given the responsibilities entrusted to me by Parliament, is the extension of anti-terrorism measures to unrelated purposes and intrusions on privacy whose value as anti-terrorism measures has not been at all demonstrated.
I'm talking specifically about the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's new Big Brother passenger database; the provisions of proposed section 4.82 of the Public Safety Act; the lawful access proposals to enhance state powers to monitor our communications; the proposal for a national ID card with biometric identifiers; and the government support of police video surveillance of public streets. These initiatives, in and of themselves, are all cause for deep concern because of the way they violate our privacy, but they're even more disturbing because of the thresholds they cross and the doors they open. Each of these measures sets a dangerous precedent. They redefine privacy and redraw the lines of what's an acceptable invasion of privacy. What has long been unthinkable in a free society threatens to become not just thinkable, but a fait accompli.
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/02_05_a_030210_e.asp
This is from a few years ago but I think he makes a strong argument for privacy in general and how each time we surrender more of it, we redefine what privacy is.
For the record, I do not think that your concerns about personal safety from terrorist attacks are more important than mine about *sigh* searching for pornography unconcerned of anyone finding out about my immoral actions.
I think that you are being unreasonable in assuming that the invasion of privacy which the government is pursuing will in fact stop terrorist attacks from occuring. Also I think you are undervaluing what it means to live in a free society, instead desiring to live in a "secure" society.
I would hope that at the very least you would demand absolute transparency from the government regarding this program if they were to monitor internet activities of innocent citizens. But that could inadvertently help the terrorists avoid being caught so do we now allow the government to monitor us secretly?
There will never be an end to the calls for more power from law enforcement agencies because they probably would allow those agencies to do their job better, we do have a responsibility however, to resist these calls and maintain the freedoms that made Canada a great place to live in the first place.
Passing this bill would be a mistake.