Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Grits propose new eavesdropping law

This new law being introduced by the Liberals is something that Canadians should be concerned about.

The proposed law would also force communication service providers, including traditional telephone companies, wireless firms and Internet providers, to phase out technical barriers to police and security agencies seeking access to messages or conversations.

Now I am not a hardcore advocate of privacy. Sure, take my picture in public; I let a computer read my GMail. I don't mind.

But when it comes to this type of law, there are a number of serious concerns.

1) Who has the authority to grant access to Canadians'
"messages or conversations"?
2) Will people know when their messages are being read?
3) Who has access to this information?

This ought to be an election issue. The NDP, Conservatives, and Bloc: bring it up, make an issue out of it.


Blair said...

I agree wholeheartedly. The law and the government are scarey things--they are constantly prone to the evil of political whimsy, etc. My point is that we should be reluctant (to put it mildly) to relinquish our freedom to the government. If the government can demonstrate ADEQUATELY that to impose this violation of personal liberty is essential for good governance and peace in our land, then the law should pass....

We should not be caught sleeping in the night while our freedom is stolen. Wake up and make the thief justify his actions. If he can, fine; if not, then kill him and elect a government that respects its citizens.

Let's be vigil

Jonathan said...

Viva revolution! Viva Blair!

Why aren't you running for political office yet? If not already, then consider it in the future. I'll be behind you. As long as I get to be a crafty advisor. Tee hee hee.

It is interesting how you approach that, which is basically a more libertarian style Lockean approach. I think that is very cool, since that is Lockean. My tendency, well the one I thought of when writing the post, was whether or not such powers by the government were really in line with precedent, with historical freedoms. Yet, in this case, it seems as though it is a historically unprecedented thing this internet. Thus, I think your approach is more apt than my original tendency, since it doesn't address the real argument.

At any rate, I also heard about another law the Liberals are trying to pass to hold people without trial. I am not in favour of taking the body without trial...at all.