Big Brother Watching You Surf

[Azure]

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.

I agree that the sacrifice of personal liberities for protection of life might be short-sighted, and I agree that the this is the wrong law, but I also think the government should be able to regulate the terror that is spreading through the internet.

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.

Can't argue with that. I think you make a very good point there.

The rest is basically a matter of opinion. I value protection of life more then I do the privacy of the internet. You on the otherhand will probably not agree.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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!

Haha good point.

Myself, I am totally against government intrusion into the lives of private citizens. As other posters have said, the risks involved outweigh the security benefits.

[Vulcan]

One question. I'm to lazy to read up on this bill but is it only in effect for a certain time as the old War Measures Act or is this a power grab we'll be saddled with for eternity?

[Vulcan]

What are the chances this bill gets passed with out Canadians raising much of a protest. We'll get upset on our message boards but our newspapers and media probably won't say much at all and it'll all get swept under the rug. The Americans may have gotten stampeded into passing similar legislation but now they are waking up. I'm not sure trusting Canadians will.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

I usualy stick away from these threads because I'd rather dislike less people in my life. These arguments are impossible to argue against because anything you say means you hate life.

You know what, we die, stop being a bunch of pussies, cowards. The phrase "if it saves one life , then it is worth it" is ****. If we all believed this **** that we accept like a porn star darting their tongues out, then we should ban the following:

• corners - how many bang their heads and how many fall into them causing death. Probably one a year. Ban corners!
• Hard surfaces - How many live would be saved if surfaces were less hard. (YOu mean you would choose the right to hard surfaces over life? Unreal)
• Cars - WE would save more lives than all terrorist attacks by banning cars.
• etc -

I will buy any argument for that bull**** terrorist argument that is pulled out of asses but when you pull that 'you choose life over X argument' you can go suck it because you are being a weasel and you know it.

Come on fotze, there is no need to get worked up. I pretty much agree with you, although I still think the government should have some right for our protection of life. In other words, I believe in the military, our intelligance agencies and our efforts overseas, because they go a long way in the "protection of life."