Higgly Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Doug Saunders is a columnist for the Globe and Mail. I'm always cautious about quoting columnists, because they tend to take outrageous positions to build market share for salary negotiations. Look at Conrad Black's wife On December 20, 2006 (too late to buy the issue but you can have it for free at your local library ), Saunders asserted that "Privacy is not a right, it's a privledge." Of course if somebody were to put Saunders' credit card numbers up on the internet, he'd have another column to write... Any comments? Edited November 23, 2007 by Higgly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Doug Saunders is a columnist for the Globe and Mail. I'm always cautious about quoting columnists, because they tend to take outrageous positions to build market share for salary negotiations. Look at Conrad Black's wife On December 20, 2006 (too late to buy the issue but you can have it for free at your local library ), Saunders asserted that "Privacy is not a right, it's a privledge." Of course if somebody were to put Saunders' credit card numbers up on the internet, he'd have another column to write... Any comments? Privacey allows one to focus and accomplish things. Without it living in this state that has become corporately hostile and for the most part if allowed will harrass citizens till they do not know if they are coming or going. Sure the removal of privacey will bring about strong dictitorial control but at the price of quality of life- you need your own room to think. Do we want a nation of thoughtless drones? Maybe some want that - I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 On December 20, 2006 (too late to buy the issue but you can have it for free at your local library ), Saunders asserted that "Privacy is not a right, it's a privledge." Of course if somebody were to put Saunders' credit card numbers up on the internet, he'd have another column to write... Any comments? Well, did Doug not recall there is the Privacy Act in effect in this country? It was a privilidge granted to us by the feds,not like the reverse in the States. What most people dont get is the lack of privacy in other places, like outside in public etc. Putting credit card numbers up would go far beyond privacy concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Doug Saunders is a columnist for the Globe and Mail. I'm always cautious about quoting columnists, because they tend to take outrageous positions to build market share for salary negotiations. Look at Conrad Black's wife On December 20, 2006 (too late to buy the issue but you can have it for free at your local library ), Saunders asserted that "Privacy is not a right, it's a privledge." Of course if somebody were to put Saunders' credit card numbers up on the internet, he'd have another column to write... Any comments? I think it should be a right, if I buy a subscription to a magazine they are allowed to sell my personal information for profit. Canada Posts sells our personal information yearly to the highest bidder, if I get a credit check done I have to give them written permission under our current privacy laws to do the invasive credit check. Yet the government can sell if for a profit. Why is that? Certain groups can profit from my personal information and other groups can't, I prefer to be given a choice. If I don't want the hardware store doing a personal profile I just tell them my phone number is unlisted and they shutup, if I tell them I don't want them having that information they imply I HAVE to give it to them. Dah, no I don't. Personal information gathering is a gold mine for certain junk mail groups and it po's me to no end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 In what context was he referring to privacy? One cannot expect complete privacy yet has a right to a certain amount of privacy. Public places are not private by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Won't Canadians lose their privacy on their drivers' license if they put a "chip" in , so the US will know who we are when we cross the border??? I'm against anything has has to do with a "chip" in a card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 A drivers licence is a voluntary privilege. If you dont want the chip, dont get a license. I for one think privacy should be a right....in some forms. selling of our personal information by the post office, ect. should be illegal. telemarketers are driving me nuts right now. they call about 10 times a day, up until 10 at night and now they even have recorded messages. if i dont answer and it goes to my answering machine, i have to check my messages, sit through the message and then delete it. how annoying. and i even pay to have my number listed as private. im prepared to just use my cell phone and change the number every couple of years just to get rid of that invasion of my privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Won't Canadians lose their privacy on their drivers' license if they put a "chip" in , so the US will know who we are when we cross the border??? I'm against anything has has to do with a "chip" in a card. Your home address, your bank account and all your purchases are recorded each time you swipe your debit card. Or if you have one of those "grocery store cards" or "airmiles points" anytime you use a card of any kind the information is recorded. I'm ok with chipping cards but I will never allow an implanted chip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Your home address, your bank account and all your purchases are recorded each time you swipe your debit card. Or if you have one of those "grocery store cards" or "airmiles points" anytime you use a card of any kind the information is recorded. I'm ok with chipping cards but I will never allow an implanted chip. Dogs are chipped with a small device under the skin - some prisoners in Canada are chipped also in the forearm convicted or not. I am against this. As far as the ID chipping, the way I look at it is with a confident and arrogant attitude - that a citizen rules and the ones that insist on chipping are the ones who lack confidence and are fearfull to the point of being overly controling..so why worry about them? It's like religion - like fiat currencey...and banks that have no real wealth other than electronic digits - like in all belief systems you have to believe that some twerp that weighs 12 pounds sitting behind a desk coming up with plans on "how to track the population" really has no power - you must believe that he has power ---- I simply don't believe or fear these people. This is the infinite conciousness that must be achieved if you are to live outside their little control box..if they want to tag me or my idea like I am and endangered speicies or a dangerous species in their pea brains go head...it will not effect me because I am king and they are not - so the kingly and lofty attitude and infinite consiousness will keep you ahead of the silly control game played by the weak - If they were strong confident and brave - they would not launch such plans - it is because they are weak - remember that...they do not own you - how can an inferiour being own or control a superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Won't Canadians lose their privacy on their drivers' license if they put a "chip" in , so the US will know who we are when we cross the border??? I'm against anything has has to do with a "chip" in a card. You don't think the US has the right to know who you are when you cross the border? It's a method of identification, not a tracking device. Aside from motor vehicle related situations you are under no obligation to show anyone your drivers license. There won't be anything on that chip that can't already be put on the magnetic strip which is already there, it just makes them harder to counterfeit. The police have card readers in their patrol cars. All they have to do is swipe your license and bingo, they have your driving record and anything else that is in their files. Banks and other agencies are going to chipped cards because they make fraud more difficult, which has the result of protecting your privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 telemarketers are driving me nuts right now. they call about 10 times a day, up until 10 at night and now they even have recorded messages. if i dont answer and it goes to my answering machine, i have to check my messages, sit through the message and then delete it. how annoying. and i even pay to have my number listed as private. You may find this interesting. I've used phone tricks on telemarketers and saw a decrease in calls. http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Misc/Telemarketers.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Is it......yes. But as with all rights, there are duties. A right for one individual correlates to a duty for another to respect said right, and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 (edited) Section 8 of the Charter provides the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The tens of thousands of cases that interpret that right do so with an analysis of a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy in any given set of circumstances. Our firm is currently taking a case to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage that they put out for collection by the city garbage men. Alberta Court of Appeal Decision SCC Registry As is always the case, I do not post about pending cases, so I leave the issue for others to debate and I will keep you posted on the outcome of the SCC decision. FTA Edited December 1, 2007 by FTA Lawyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 (edited) Section 8 of the Charter provides the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The tens of thousands of cases that interpret that right do so with an analysis of a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy in any given set of circumstances.Our firm is currently taking a case to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage that they put out for collection by the city garbage men. Thanks for this post, FTA. I was wondering: what is "privacy"? Your post made this clear to me.Privacy must be our right to go about our affairs without intrusion of the State. (Corporations can only intrude our privacy if we grant this. The State alone has the power to invade our privacy against our will.) The key word here is "unreasonable". What constitutes "reasonable" search and seizure? (I think the US legal system uses the term "probable cause".) The State (the police) should not be allowed to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained this way should not be admissible. (If it were, it would create an incentive for the police to go on wasteful fishing expeditions at greater cost to the public.) In short, if the police stop you in the street and discover you're wearing a stolen watch, this evidence should not be allowed in court. If the police stop you in the street near a shop where a theft was recently reported, and they discover you're wearing the stolen watch, then a court should admit the evidence. Incentives for the police - and the cost to the rest of us - should be the guiding principles. ---- As to your case FTA, what is the cost to society of the police going through my garbage? Not much. IMV, if the police go through someone's garbage, that's sufficient "probable cause". It's garbage. If someone throws it out, it means they don't want it. IOW, for the police - or anyone, it's a hassle to go through garbage. But it's no cost to me if they do. Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 August, I don't want you to think I am ignoring your post...but I really can't engage in debating the question you have posed. Such questions may very well be riased in the SCC hearing and I don't feel that it is proper for me to express personal opinion on issues that our firm will be arguing before the courts. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 FTA, Are you personally involved in a hearing with the supremes ? Very cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 FTA,Are you personally involved in a hearing with the supremes ? Very cool. Two as it turns out. One is set tentatively for hearing on April 17, 2008 on the correctness of a jury charge regarding intent for 1st versus 2nd degree murder. The second is the one I have mentioned in this thread. Both files were my partner's at the Alberta Court of Appeal, so I will be second string on them in Ottawa. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted December 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Very nice, FTA. Now that we have your ear.... Is privacy actually defined anywhere? What information is private? What is not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 In short, if the police stop you in the street and discover you're wearing a stolen watch, this evidence should not be allowed in court.\Why not, if a person is knowingly in possession of stolen property it is a criminal offense in Canada. That in itself doesn't prove they stole it but if it can be put together with other evidence that ties them to the theft or that they knew it was stolen, it should be admissible. Are you saying that if they stop someone during something like a road check for drunk drivers over the holidays and find a trunk load of crystal meth, 50 cal. machine guns, or someones dead kid, that should not be admissible either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.