PIK Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 What I have heard on the radio, that it will be in the customs area and if people are acting suspicious,then the mikes will be on them, but I still don't like the idea. I am sick of the word terrorist. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Wilber Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 What I have heard on the radio, that it will be in the customs area and if people are acting suspicious,then the mikes will be on them, but I still don't like the idea. I am sick of the word terrorist. People don't go near customs when they depart unless they are going to the US from an airport that has pre clearance facilities and then it is only US customs. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
The_Squid Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 What I have heard on the radio, that it will be in the customs area and if people are acting suspicious,then the mikes will be on them, but I still don't like the idea. I am sick of the word terrorist. If someone is acting suspicious, shouldn't they be thoroughly searched, not just listened to? Why would the suspicious terrorists be chatting amongst themselves about blowing up the plane? What happens when these suspicious terrorists don't say anything? Do they just let them on the plane without a search anyway??? This is a really stupid argument to snoop into our private conversations. Quote
jacee Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) OTTAWA -- Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is halting a plan to eavesdrop on passenger conversations at airports and border crossings until the federal privacy commissioner has a chance to review. ... Toews defended the practice on Monday, saying it was necessary to detect and prevent illegal smuggling, and privacy rights of "law-abiding Canadians are respected at all times." Ya right He backed down a bit on Tuesday."What I can say is that I share the concerns of Canadians regarding the concerns of Canadians regarding the privacy impact of audio recordings, even when it occurs in a restricted area in an airport," Toews said in the House of Commons. "Even though CBSA does respect privacy rights in all of its operations, I have made it clear to CBSA that no audio monitoring is to occur until a privacy impact assessment is submitted and recommendations from the privacy commissioner can be reviewed by the government." No MORE monitoring until ... Ya right Gee ... I guess HarperToews got some feedback that "law abiding" hardline Conservatives aren't happy about having their private conversations monitored either. Gee ... I guess it isn't just us lefties who value our privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance. Imagine that!! They routinely fail to do due diligence on their own legislation, even with their own hardline supporters, let alone parliamentary committees and constitutional lawyers, etc, ...so ... well ... I guess they have to expect to spend half their time backtracking. What a bunch of BS! What EVIDENCE do they have that monitoring will turn up ANY human smugglers let alone terrorists?!? NONE! Criminals are likely VERY careful about what they say in airports. The only people detained will be innocent people hauled in for jokes or misinterpreted comments. Your tax dollars at work! Yay. Seems like the HarperCons think parliamentary procedures were invented for everyone but them! Edited June 20, 2012 by jacee Quote
GostHacked Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 If someone is acting suspicious, shouldn't they be thoroughly searched, not just listened to? Why would the suspicious terrorists be chatting amongst themselves about blowing up the plane? What happens when these suspicious terrorists don't say anything? Do they just let them on the plane without a search anyway??? This is a really stupid argument to snoop into our private conversations. Those are really good points. If an attack was to happen, the coordination would have been taken care of. Remember the 9/11 hijackers were plain clothed, and nothing would have been recorded because they would not have said anything terrorism related. But since they won't find them there in the airports, they will claim it a success which will mean they can roll it out to other places, like Parliament..(lols) But you can bet you will see about it in the general public in a very short time. Quote
nimiru Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 Ottawa intends to eavesdrop on conversations that travellers have at border crossings and airports. Supporters of this move argue that recording the conversation of travellers will help expedite prosecutions and make travel safer. Vic Toews says that "the privacy rights of law abiding Canadians are respected at all times." What do you think? Is this a necessary measure to keep Canadians safe or is the government going too far? I think that the gov. is probably heading in wrong direction with this plan. One only has to look back to the Soviet block countries and Fascist countries of the 20th century to see governments going awry. As others have pointed out it is very unlikely that anyone would be talking about a terrorist plot in a public place in the first place so what exactly does Toews imagine the gov. will pick up with listening devices anyway? This could be viewed as another step down a slippery slope to a big brother society all in the name of national security and public safety. In some warped form of logic the terrorist oranizations around the globe might view these loss of personal rights and freedoms as a win for themselves. Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 20, 2012 Report Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I think that the gov. is probably heading in wrong direction with this plan. One only has to look back to the Soviet block countries and Fascist countries of the 20th century to see governments going awry. As others have pointed out it is very unlikely that anyone would be talking about a terrorist plot in a public place in the first place so what exactly does Toews imagine the gov. will pick up with listening devices anyway? This could be viewed as another step down a slippery slope to a big brother society all in the name of national security and public safety. In some warped form of logic the terrorist oranizations around the globe might view these loss of personal rights and freedoms as a win for themselves. Of course it is... But remember,these are the "freedom loving" Reformers in control!... What could possibly go wrong with Daddy Vic protecting us from all those child pornographers?? By the way,the fact that this was another Trojan Horse put into the "Budget Bill" proves just how sneaky these Machiavellian folks really are... "Standing Up for Canada!!!"..."Here For Canada!!!"... Edited June 20, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
bleeding heart Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 By the way,the fact that this was another Trojan Horse put into the "Budget Bill" proves just how sneaky these Machiavellian folks really are... Well no, because Harper himself opposes this type of....wait..... Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 This is a very interesting thread for one interesting point. Everyone seems to agree that this is overstepping the governments boundaries and does infringe on peoples' rights. Considering the scope and scale of what is talked about on this board, so far we seem to be all on the same side when it comes to this topic. That tells me what the government is doing in this case is indeed the wrong approach to security. Quote
PIK Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 OTTAWA -- Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is halting a plan to eavesdrop on passenger conversations at airports and border crossings until the federal privacy commissioner has a chance to review. ... Toews defended the practice on Monday, saying it was necessary to detect and prevent illegal smuggling, and privacy rights of "law-abiding Canadians are respected at all times." Ya right He backed down a bit on Tuesday."What I can say is that I share the concerns of Canadians regarding the concerns of Canadians regarding the privacy impact of audio recordings, even when it occurs in a restricted area in an airport," Toews said in the House of Commons. "Even though CBSA does respect privacy rights in all of its operations, I have made it clear to CBSA that no audio monitoring is to occur until a privacy impact assessment is submitted and recommendations from the privacy commissioner can be reviewed by the government." No MORE monitoring until ... Ya right Gee ... I guess HarperToews got some feedback that "law abiding" hardline Conservatives aren't happy about having their private conversations monitored either. Gee ... I guess it isn't just us lefties who value our privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance. Imagine that!! They routinely fail to do due diligence on their own legislation, even with their own hardline supporters, let alone parliamentary committees and constitutional lawyers, etc, ...so ... well ... I guess they have to expect to spend half their time backtracking. What a bunch of BS! What EVIDENCE do they have that monitoring will turn up ANY human smugglers let alone terrorists?!? NONE! Criminals are likely VERY careful about what they say in airports. The only people detained will be innocent people hauled in for jokes or misinterpreted comments. Your tax dollars at work! Yay. Seems like the HarperCons think parliamentary procedures were invented for everyone but them! Or trying to do thier job, which is protect canadians, they threw out the idea and the people spoke and it seems now to be canceled, that is doing your job. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Wilber Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 Or trying to do thier job, which is protect canadians, they threw out the idea and the people spoke and it seems now to be canceled, that is doing your job. They did more than throw out an idea. It's more like, let's see what we can get away with. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Manny Posted June 21, 2012 Report Posted June 21, 2012 They did more than throw out an idea. It's more like, let's see what we can get away with. I wonder if what they did was illegal, and whether they can be sued for having done it. Quote
capricorn Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 They did more than throw out an idea. It's more like, let's see what we can get away with. It's possible they put it to a focus group who thought it was a great idea and the Conservatives bought into the focus group's conclusions. In this case, it is clearly a losing proposition and they backtracked. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Wilber Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 It's possible they put it to a focus group who thought it was a great idea and the Conservatives bought into the focus group's conclusions. In this case, it is clearly a losing proposition and they backtracked. Ya think? I don't but if they did, they better look at how they choose their focus groups. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2012 Report Posted June 22, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/22/pol-mckie-cbsa-border-agency-surveillance-policy.html The Canada Border Service Agency is reluctant to explain the extent to which it monitors passengers across the country, but internal documents obtained by CBC News make it clear that overt audio-video surveillance occurs at "all CBSA offices."The explanation is contained in a 15-page document, entitled Policy on the Overt Use of Audio-Video Monitoring and Recording Technology, which spells out CBSA’s surveillance policy in detail. It's way more extensive than people realize. Quote
Wilber Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/22/pol-mckie-cbsa-border-agency-surveillance-policy.html It's way more extensive than people realize. I don't have a problem with it in CBSA offices, lots of offices have surveillance and most companies record the phone conversations between customers and their service personnel. I don't have a problem with video surveillance in terminals. It's electronic eavesdropping on conversations in public spaces that would be an issue for me. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
westguy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 If the NDP brought CC cameras to Canada, I would abandon the party quicker than Belinda Stronach. You'll never have to worry about that Quote
Tilter Posted June 23, 2012 Report Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I'm SURE yor awar this is not "bugging" or tapping into cell-phones right? Of your having Dialog at the GTAA regarding a bomb... I'm fully in support of this... Its comforting to see the Harper party taking and active role against terrorism... Its ABOUT TIME we took steps in this direction. I do like the anouncemet and the sheer transparency in this. Goood for the Tories in trying to turn terrorism around. After installing a "bomb exploder" booth in the airports in Australia the authorities found that they could eliminate all the Xray booths. The only comment that arose was, after the sound of an explosion)"There is an extra seat available on the Flight to Sidney" :lol: Edited June 23, 2012 by Tilter Quote
GostHacked Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 I don't have a problem with it in CBSA offices, lots of offices have surveillance and most companies record the phone conversations between customers and their service personnel. I don't have a problem with video surveillance in terminals. It's electronic eavesdropping on conversations in public spaces that would be an issue for me. But some of these cameras and mics are on private property but can be used to monitor the immediate public surroundings. It already is an issue. Some of these mics are hyper sensitive and can pick up very quiet conversations. IF you want to catch a glimpse of your future surveillance, check out this company ..http://www.intellistreets.com/ Vic Toews would LOVE these things to keep us safe. Quote
Wilber Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 But some of these cameras and mics are on private property but can be used to monitor the immediate public surroundings. It already is an issue. Some of these mics are hyper sensitive and can pick up very quiet conversations. IF you want to catch a glimpse of your future surveillance, check out this company ..http://www.intellistreets.com/ Vic Toews would LOVE these things to keep us safe. Like I said, I have a problem with monitoring conversations in public areas. It doesn't matter where the mic's are mounted. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.