Persistent Surveillance

[eyeball]

We have to assume that any technology we have can, is, or could/will be monitored by both private companies and/or governments (unless we pass laws to stop it).

We have laws already, what's missing are governments that obey them. As I see it we civilians have a serious enforcement problem on our hands. The options are few and mostly grim.

[GostHacked]

We have laws already, what's missing are governments that obey them. As I see it we civilians have a serious enforcement problem on our hands. The options are few and mostly grim.

And we see the reaction when we turn the cameras inwards to those watching us. They start to act very opposite of their rhetoric towards the public. That should be setting off red flags.

[dre]

I don't agree that any interception is an invasion of privacy, sorry.

It clearly is if whats being intercepted can contain private information.

[dre]

Ok, I can accept that but it doesn't change my position on whether and how it should be done

Problem is your position isnt based on any evidence, reason, or logic. We are more safe and secure than ever before by a fairly wide margin, and all of your arguments for the government engage in warrantless search and siezure could have been made 50 years ago with regard to the government opening your mail or tapping your phone.

Its simply not necessary, and people dont want it.

[Canada_First]

The cctv everywhere is troubling but to he expected when we have terrorists trying to destroy our way of life.

[dre]

The cctv everywhere is troubling but to he expected when we have terrorists trying to destroy our way of life.

Terrorism is not even one of the top 1000 threats you face. You are 7 times more likely to die by getting struck by lightening than you are of being killed in a terrorist attack. Why on earth would we be giving up any civil liberties for that?

We shouldnt ignore them though, and we should try to catch anyone trying to commit any kind of violent crimes in Canada. But the police and intelligence agencies already have a huge ammount of power to do just that.

The threat of terrorism simply does not warrant turning Canada into a surveillance state.

[Michael Hardner]

Terrorism is not even one of the top 1000 threats you face. You are 7 times more likely to die by getting struck by lightening than you are of being killed in a terrorist attack. Why on earth would we be giving up any civil liberties for that?

Top 1000 ?

Cite ?

The threat of terrorism simply does not warrant turning Canada into a surveillance state.

That's a personal assessment.

[Moonlight Graham]

Top 1000 ?

Cite ?

How many Canadian civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks on Canadian soil? Of the Islamic jihadist kind, I believe the total is a big fat zero.

The fear is completely overblown.

[Big Guy]

All campaigns are fought on some aspects of hope or fear. If you can spin both into the same campaign then you are a winner.

[Moonlight Graham]

Be a law abiding citizen and you have nothing to worry about. This doesn't concern me at all. Not even one little iota.

So you'd let the police or a CSIS agent randomly come into your house and search your belongings without warrant? Or search your car? Go through all your private things, your mail, email, text messages etc.

Sorry, I'm not down. We have a constitutional guarantee against that. No police officer has the right to search you or seize your belongings unless they have due cause (they do have a right to ask for your license/registration if you're operating a motor vehicle). The police can't search inside your vehicle unless they have a valid reason. They can't detain or arrest you unless they have a valid reason. If they don't have a reason, you don't have to talk to them. They aren't allowed on your private property like anybody else, unless they have cause. They have no right to know your name, address, or any other info. If you've done nothing wrong or there isn't a crime happening around you, they have no more power over you than any other person. People don't understand this. These "carding" laws are unconstitutional, so is Bill C-51.

http://www.criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights

Edited September 22, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Top 1000 ?

Cite ?

Top 1000 was clearly a rough guess. But seeing as terrorism is 1/7 as likely to kill you as a lightening strike you could be sure its not far off.

That's a personal assessment.

No YOURS is a personal assessment, based purely on some feeling you have. Mine is based on the available data and the fact that the threat is not even statistically significant. Its roughly the same approach used world-wide for risk management... THe same approach used by insurance companies when they set premiums. How often does the event occur? When it does occur how much damage is done? The average terrorist attack kills about 2.5 people and injures about 3.8, and outside of some specific geographical locations they are extremely rare.

By any litmus test that would be applied to any other threat the risk is very low, and its not really worth doing much to mitigate against it.

In terms of making an argument for forcing new laws on Canadians you could make a much stronger argument for mandating breathalyzer start devices in all new cars sold as a way to combat the threat of drunk driving. At least the threat of drunk driving is statistically significant... theres thousands of injuries and a couple of hundred deaths in Canada each year.

[Canada_First]

How many Canadian civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks on Canadian soil? Of the Islamic jihadist kind, I believe the total is a big fat zero.

The fear is completely overblown.

3 soldiers were killed last year in terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 soldiers were killed last year in terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.

Correct. 3 military targets. But zero civilians.

[Bonam]

...

By any litmus test that would be applied to any other threat the risk is very low, and its not really worth doing much to mitigate against it.

In terms of making an argument for forcing new laws on Canadians you could make a much stronger argument for mandating breathalyzer start devices in all new cars sold as a way to combat the threat of drunk driving. At least the threat of drunk driving is statistically significant... theres thousands of injuries and a couple of hundred deaths in Canada each year.

Wait... you're arguing for people to evaluate risks and appropriate responses rationally? You're aware you're on a political forum, right?

[Michael Hardner]

Top 1000 was clearly a rough guess. But seeing as terrorism is 1/7 as likely to kill you as a lightening strike you could be sure its not far off.

Threat and risk isn't solely measured by how likely it is to kill you, especially when we actively prevent attacks constantly. It's kind of like disease like that.

No YOURS is a personal assessment, based purely on some feeling you have.

The only personal assessment I made is that assessing these things is a personal assessment. Your assessment is personal, as is mine or anyone's.

[Michael Hardner]

But zero civilians.

Ok, then 100% safe then !

I understand, empathize with, and even share the feelings of revolution that some have with the mindset that rallies behind excessive security. But to discount peoples' fears, to distrust the government beyond all reason, or to deny we have enemies is just as bad.

There's a point in between zero threat and imminent threat that is probably where the real threat should be, for most of us.

[Canada_First]

Correct. 3 military targets. But zero civilians.

3 soldiers are Canadian citizens. No less valuable. Terrorism must not be allowed to fester amongst our young people who hold the Islamists as heroes. The young minds are being radicalized. Terrorism is a constant threat.

[Canada_First]

Ok, then 100% safe then !

I understand, empathize with, and even share the feelings of revolution that some have with the mindset that rallies behind excessive security. But to discount peoples' fears, to distrust the government beyond all reason, or to deny we have enemies is just as bad.

There's a point in between zero threat and imminent threat that is probably where the real threat should be, for most of us.

I actually 100 % agree with you here.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ok, then 100% safe then !

I understand, empathize with, and even share the feelings of revolution that some have with the mindset that rallies behind excessive security. But to discount peoples' fears, to distrust the government beyond all reason, or to deny we have enemies is just as bad.

There's a point in between zero threat and imminent threat that is probably where the real threat should be, for most of us.

Of course there isn't zero threat. The threat is obviously there, but it's clearly well within control, and based on the statistics the fear is vastly overblown, and doesn't warrant suspending our basic rights for. The odds of any Canadian getting killed in a domestic terrorist attack is extremely low, and its been well argued that we already have enough tools to do a good job protecting Canadians from terror threats. There's thousands of preventable death hazards we should be focusing on more.

And yes, I do distrust government, well within reason. You give them an inch and they'll take a foot. Government is full of lying, corrupt scumbags. They take advantage of their power all the time and break the rules, even when they are given legal limits and have oversight: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24978-citizen-pulls-over-cop-demands-id-catches-him-breaking-law/

Edited September 23, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Ok, then 100% safe then !

We are not 100% safe but we are among the safest humans that have ever existed.

But to discount peoples' fears, to distrust the government beyond all reason, or to deny we have enemies is just as bad.

Irrational fears ShOULD be discounted. And the government is a big part of the reason we have enemies. If youre really worried about the threat of terrorism you should be questioning policies like our current involvement in Iraq, which blatantly invites retaliation and increases the threat of terrorism.

And also you just assume that these things are going to benefit security without thinking them through. This persistant surveillance thing could actually be a boon for criminals. It could be used to stalk people, to case out potential crime scenes, locate potential victims to victimize, or make sure theres no police cars near a place you plan to commit a crime. Not to mention create business opportunities for people that want to sell services that route people around police road blocks, and that kind of thing.

You have absolutely no idea that this will benefit our security at all. Same goes for all the other surveillance ideas you support. Criminals and terrorists are going to know about these things... they arent just going to casually wander in the ellaborate surveillance dragnet you are hell bent on creating for some strange reason.

There's a point in between zero threat and imminent threat that is probably where the real threat should be, for most of us.

Well for anyone capable of rational thought the degree of threat from criminals and terrorists is extremely low.

I would compare you to a parent that wont let their 12 yearold kid play at the public park for fear a stranger will rape them and kill them. Theres quite a few people like that. YES... there is an extremely small chance your child will get abducted by a stranger and beaten or raped or killed. And because that is such a horrible thing to happen it invokes fear in people, and they forget the fact that their children could play in a public park all day every day for a thousand years and the chances of an abduction would still be extremely low. And we COULD make that one in 10 million chance even smaller... we could spend billions of dollars putting security guards in every single park, and maybe the chance would be 1 in 15 million!

But its simply not worth devoting that much resources to these statistically insignificant threats. When governments act on the irrational fears of people like you bad policy is made, which is exactly why we have constitutions and charters, etc.

Edited September 23, 2015 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Irrational fears ShOULD be discounted.

I don't agree. I think you have to talk through such things and come to a resolution.

And the government is a big part of the reason we have enemies.

So, if we had no government we'd have no enemies ? Maybe so. You can question policies of our current government, or go back to the 1950s or even further. It seems the further back you go, the more you make the case that conflict is a constant and so is the need for security.

If youre really worried about the threat of terrorism you should be questioning policies like our current involvement in Iraq, which blatantly invites retaliation and increases the threat of terrorism.

I think that's a false choice. We have participated in some wars in the past, and not others. Whether or not you agree with those, we still have to think about security.

And also you just assume that these things are going to benefit security without thinking them through. This persistant surveillance thing could actually be a boon for criminals. It could be used to stalk people, to case out potential crime scenes, locate potential victims to victimize, or make sure theres no police cars near a place you plan to commit a crime.

But... you won't be able to commit a crime without being seen.

You have absolutely no idea that this will benefit our security at all.

Well, for this revolutionary idea I absolutely agree. Basic security is a requirement these days, though.

And we COULD make that one in 10 million chance even smaller... we could spend billions of dollars putting security guards in every single park, and maybe the chance would be 1 in 15 million!

Or... the chance could be effectively zero ... without spending billions.

But its simply not worth devoting that much resources to these statistically insignificant threats. When governments act on the irrational fears of people like you bad policy is made, which is exactly why we have constitutions and charters, etc.

The idea of surveillance in this way appeals to me because it changes the landscape of what 'public' means. It has nothing to do with fear, but it destroys the unnatural idea of anonymity - which is the act of living without consequence. Fear has nothing to do with it.

[dre]

So, if we had no government we'd have no enemies.

No, but if we had a smart government we would have less. I dont remember talk of a persistant threat of international terrorism before we start lobbing explosives around the middle east.

that conflict is a constant and so is the need for security

Yup which is why we have a very powerful security apparatus with all kinds of tools, and why we enjoy more security and safety than ever before.

Or... the chance could be effectively zero ... without spending billions.

It IS effectively zero... Statistically insignificant. We havent had a real terrorist attack since the air india bombing.

The idea of surveillance in this way appeals to me because it changes the landscape of what 'public' means. It has nothing to do with fear, but it destroys the unnatural idea of anonymity - which is the act of living without consequence. Fear has nothing to do with it.

Privacy does not mean living without consequences.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Privacy doesn't mean you can walk in public without being photographed for example

[eyeball]

No, but if we had a smart government we would have less. I dont remember talk of a persistant threat of international terrorism before we start lobbing explosives around the middle east.

I sure do.

It's listening I don't remember.

[Michael Hardner]

I think I'd like to start thinking of this a different way: as the end of anonymity, rather than as an encroachment on our privacy.

Why do we allow anonymity ? What purpose does it serve ?