Big Brother Watching You Surf

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Bell Sympatico has informed its customers that it intends to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider's networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...echnology/home

Bell is the first Canadian internet provider to do this. Telus, Shaw and others are likely close behind.

I've got nothing to hide and I'm all for catching the bad guys. But how much of our civil liberties are we supposed to give up to satisfy post 9/11 paranoia? Why not conduct random searches of our homes to see if we are linked to the evil-doers?

[Igottago]

Well, its that slippery slope. I suppose if you have nothing to hide, you're fine. But what ensures that the government won't misuse the information, or abuse the power and be overly intrusive? And this part is pretty scary.

"Geist fears police will be able to demand customer information from Internet providers without having to make a case before a judge, opening the door wide to an abuse of civil rights"

[GrrlGoalie33]

So, where exactly do you think they're going with this?

Tracking for child pornography?
Watching for terrorist activity?
Trying to catch people who download music, movies, software illegally?
Seeing what we post on CP?

As for the Child pornography part of it, I am all for it...but the line of civil freedom has to fall somewhere...

[RougeUnderoos]

I feel safer already, knowing that Stockwell Day has a hand in all this.

Is this any different than the police being allowed to open your mail or listen to your phone conversations without a warrant? I don't think so. Of course I have no problem with them doing that, because I have nothing to hide. I also have nothing to hide in my house, so they are more than welcome to have a poke around whenever they feel like it.

But will this thing pass with a minority government? If it's a "hardened approach" compared to what the Liberals introduced then they just might do the politically expedient thing and flip-flop. I can't see the NDP or the Bloc voting for this kind of thing either.

[mykalberta]

Hahaha, another "The conservatives are evil post"

Maybe you didnt read the article, it says REINTRODUCED which means...it was introduced before.

Most likely there are clauses to tighten the bill for Canadian Security, terrorist activity etc, Stock doesnt care if you download your K-Fed songs.

If some Jacktard from Missisauga or wherever is planning to blow up the building where I work, sorry you dont get to surf the net un-monitored.

MYK

[Savvy27]

You should be sorry Myk... your desire to feel safe from terrorist attacks is interfering with my personal freedoms and our minority government seems to be onside with your viewpoint. I think that my right to privacy should remain despite the possibility that it will make hunting down terrorists more difficult, that's one of the difficulties in sustaining a free society.

Do you think we are going to get our rights back at some point? Do you see an end to the 'war on terrorism' where the governments of the world are going to say "we got 'em! now we can stop our invasive investigations"?

Now I doubt the government is pushing this with the intention of turning Canada into a police state but I'm not going to support the corrosion of personal liberty even if its for security. The way I look at it is you cannot defeat terrorism or end crime, but you can sacrifice freedom in an effort to do so, therefore while we should understand that there are instances where law enforcement should be allowed to investigate us, there are rules (like requiring probable cause before getting a warrant) that were established to protect the citizens of Canada.

All in all this bill sounds like a terrible idea and is being justified through fear.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Maybe you didnt read the article, it says REINTRODUCED which means...it was introduced before.

It also means it was dimissed before.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Most likely there are clauses to tighten the bill for Canadian Security, terrorist activity etc, Stock doesnt care if you download your K-Fed songs.

How do you know what they will and will not monitor if they can monitor whatever they chose with no warrent?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If some Jacktard from Missisauga or wherever is planning to blow up the building where I work, sorry you dont get to surf the net un-monitored.

I'm no terrorist, I should get to surf the net un-monitored. If the police believe a terrorist is going to blow up a building, then they should get a warrent to monitor him.

[ken0042]

I wonder what it is they will be doing. I would think it would be something in conjunction with what the Americans are doing to combat child porn.

Plans call for the missing children's center to collect known child-porn images and create a unique mathematical signature for each one based on a common formula. Each participating company would scan its users' images for matches.

AOL, for instance, plans to check e-mail attachments that are already being scanned for viruses. If child porn is detected, AOL would refer the case to the missing children's center for further investigation, as service providers are required to do under federal law.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Maybe you didnt read the article, it says REINTRODUCED which means...it was introduced before.

MYK

Maybe I read the article and you didn't read my post?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If it's a "hardened approach" compared to what the Liberals introduced

As for the rest of your post, it's pretty obvious you've got very little to hide. No wonder you are all for this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

You should be sorry Myk... your desire to feel safe from terrorist attacks is interfering with my personal freedoms and our minority government seems to be onside with your viewpoint. I think that my right to privacy should remain despite the possibility that it will make hunting down terrorists more difficult, that's one of the difficulties in sustaining a free society.

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.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I feel safer already, knowing that Stockwell Day has a hand in all this.

Is this any different than the police being allowed to open your mail or listen to your phone conversations without a warrant? I don't think so. Of course I have no problem with them doing that, because I have nothing to hide. I also have nothing to hide in my house, so they are more than welcome to have a poke around whenever they feel like it.

But will this thing pass with a minority government? If it's a "hardened approach" compared to what the Liberals introduced then they just might do the politically expedient thing and flip-flop. I can't see the NDP or the Bloc voting for this kind of thing either.

The liberals actual were the ones that started this legislation.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

It also means it was dimissed before.



How do you know what they will and will not monitor if they can monitor whatever they chose with no warrent?



I'm no terrorist, I should get to surf the net un-monitored. If the police believe a terrorist is going to blow up a building, then they should get a warrent to monitor him.

It wasn't dismissed it died on the order paper when the Liberal government fell.

[Savvy27]

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.

[jolinar of malkshor]

As most of you know I am all for doing what it takes to catch terrorists. But I think the government is going too far is monitoring the internet by having the internet companies forward records that they have.

If they have concerns they can and should be getting warrants from the courts. They shouldn't be producing legislation that circumvents the judicial oversight.

[Azure]

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.

So you think its more important to have freedom of rights, then protection of life?

Not that we are necessarily being threatened, but even so, I still believe security is more important then our freedom to access the internet without having the government watching us.

Although the manner in which they watch us is up for debate.

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.

It was just a thought.

I desire to live in both a secure and free society. You're taking this as if the government is restricting our freedom here. They may restrict our "privacy" but not our freedom.

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?

Of course. They already moniter child porn activities, what holds them back from monitering terrorist activities? After the arrest of the 18 suspected terrorists in Toronto, I think it should hit home with more people that Canada deals with the problem as well.

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.

So we should allow the idea of "freedom" to prevent out agencies of protecting "our" lives? Seems wierd that you value your idea of freedom over the very thing that protects it.

Passing this bill would be a mistake.

Passing "this" bill would be a mistake, yes. I think it gives the government TOO MUCH power to moniter our activities. But I also believe that the government should be able to do anything within its power to prevent a terrorist attack.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It wasn't dismissed it died on the order paper when the Liberal government fell.

Okay, fine. But is still makes little difference which party introduced it -- Liberal or Conservative -- its bad either way. I don't like it when I object to a Conservative idea/proposal and someone points out the Liberals introduced it first (or vice versa), like that is supposed to make me rethink the issue. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter where it comes from.

[Savvy27]

Well said Jolinar. Requiring a warrant for investigation of personal records is a reasonable expectation for citizens to have of their government and law enforcement agencies.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you think its more important to have freedom of rights, then protection of life?

Not that we are necessarily being threatened, but even so, I still believe security is more important then our freedom to access the internet without having the government watching us.

Although the manner in which they watch us is up for debate.

Yes I do think it is more important. I don't like how you stated it but even your way I would prefer a free society. The government cannot, even with this new power, stop all terrorist attacks from occuring, which doesn't mean that they shouldn't try, but to sacrifice the liberties of citizens for a possible intervention on possible attacks, is being incredibly short-sighted.

What frustrates me about this debate is that terrorists will never convince Canada or the US to leave the middle east through terror attacks, but they are having an incredible impact on OUR society. We are being dictated by fear they are instilling in us and its causing us to surrender our privacy.

It was just a thought.

I desire to live in both a secure and free society. You're taking this as if the government is restricting our freedom here. They may restrict our "privacy" but not our freedom.

You cannot be free if you are not afforded privacy. Your point doesn't make sense to me. I was saying that we are exchanging our free society for a more secure society, everyone wants security, but if you are giving up freedom for security then the best you can hope for is a balance between the two. My argument is that the government is going too far.

Of course. They already moniter child porn activities, what holds them back from monitering terrorist activities? After the arrest of the 18 suspected terrorists in Toronto, I think it should hit home with more people that Canada deals with the problem as well.

Isn't it implied that the tools available to CSIS and others are adequate to defend us from attacks if they are successful in averting the attack? The government was on to those guys for two years, but now they need unrestricted access to internet records to catch people?

So we should allow the idea of "freedom" to prevent out agencies of protecting "our" lives? Seems wierd that you value your idea of freedom over the very thing that protects it.

Yes. Yes we should allow our desire for personal freedom (I'm not sure why you would put such a thing in what appears to be sarcastic quotations... or the 'our') to prevent our agencies from ignoring our civil liberties in their pursuit of terrorists. I think its pretty weird that you are willing to allow our society to be gradually altered into something very different for the sake of protection.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think your acceptance of the government stripping away our rights in the name of national security is a cowardly way to live.

Passing "this" bill would be a mistake, yes. I think it gives the government TOO MUCH power to moniter our activities. But I also believe that the government should be able to do anything within its power to prevent a terrorist attack.

Why are we debating then? Do you honestly believe that the government should dictate which information on the internet is acceptable?

As far as the government doing what is in its power... the citizens have to control what power the government has if we want to control our own lives. That is why I oppose this bill.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The liberals actual were the ones that started this legislation.

I know. I mentioned that right in the post you quoted.

In other news, well said re: the warrants. That method seems to have worked in the past. I don't know why we'd change it now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I think its pretty weird that you are willing to allow our society to be gradually altered into something very different for the sake of protection.

Maybe that's the strategy? The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms, so we take away our freedoms, they won't hate us anymore and presto! Victory in the War On Terror!