Canada Reportedly Monitors Downloads From Citizens

[Blade of Grass]

If you have have nothing to hide then why would you be concerned?

It's an unpopular opinion but as long as mass data collection is PROPERLY REGULATED AND CONTROLLED I really don't see what the issue with it is.

If you have nothing to hide, would you allow police officers to search you at any time? Strip search? Would you feel it is a violation of your privacy to be strip searched at their whim?

We keep hearing about how mass surveillance will keep us safe, yet they have yet to show any tangible evidence that it does. How many crimes have been predicted or prevented due to mass surveillance? How much money has been spent on this? What's the (essentially) return on investment?

These are questions that we need answers to, but from my understanding, it hasn't prevented any crime, they've spent a ton of our money on this, and based off those two factors, the ROI is 0.

[Embattled]

Global disaster - USA becoming authoritarian...

 

Another mild example of hubris. 

Lol, by slippery slope logic we'd see Europe become Authoritarian long before we would fall to the same fate. 

[stconquest]

Lol, by slippery slope logic we'd see Europe become Authoritarian long before we would fall to the same fate. 

 

They(Europeans) have been there, done that... many times.

[Embattled]

If you have nothing to hide, would you allow police officers to search you at any time? Strip search? Would you feel it is a violation of your privacy to be strip searched at their whim?

We keep hearing about how mass surveillance will keep us safe, yet they have yet to show any tangible evidence that it does. How many crimes have been predicted or prevented due to mass surveillance? How much money has been spent on this? What's the (essentially) return on investment?

These are questions that we need answers to, but from my understanding, it hasn't prevented any crime, they've spent a ton of our money on this, and based off those two factors, the ROI is 0.

I never said the common implementation of mass surveillance was a good one. I just said you can't say mass surveillance as an entire category of intelligence is inherently flawed.

[stconquest]

If you have nothing to hide, would you allow police officers to search you at any time? Strip search? Would you feel it is a violation of your privacy to be strip searched at their whim?

We keep hearing about how mass surveillance will keep us safe, yet they have yet to show any tangible evidence that it does. How many crimes have been predicted or prevented due to mass surveillance? How much money has been spent on this? What's the (essentially) return on investment?

These are questions that we need answers to, but from my understanding, it hasn't prevented any crime, they've spent a ton of our money on this, and based off those two factors, the ROI is 0.

 

At the end of the day, it is the people behind the tech that fail the system... not the tech itself.  In a better world (which, for now, is fantastical), surveillance could be more of a benefit to the whole of the society it monitors.

 

@Embattled this was a perfect follow to your post too.

[amintha1992]

That's just the thing, it wasn't the CIA or the NSA doing the spying on Canadian citizens, it was the CSE themselves.

We were talking about this a couple of day ago at a college class. I'm still Ont surprised.

[Blade of Grass]

I never said the common implementation of mass surveillance was a good one. I just said you can't say mass surveillance as an entire category of intelligence is inherently flawed.

At the end of the day, it is the people behind the tech that fail the system... not the tech itself. In a better world (which, for now, is fantastical), surveillance could be more of a benefit to the whole of the society it monitors.

@Embattled this was a perfect follow to your post too.

The issue with looking at an ideal world, is it is just that - ideal. It is not reality. The biggest issue with mass surveillance is that you are essentially making more haystacks to find the same amount of needles in, which is what makes the process inefficient. I believe that targeted data collection would reap a much better ROI while also violating the rights of citizens less.

Stepping back abit, you didn't answer the previous question. Would you feel your privacy is violated if a police officer could strip search you without probable cause? Would you feel your privacy was violated if police officers could barge into your house without probably cause/warrant?

[Daegun]

Actually, with that amount of space they have in the facility, they are planning to fit in 1 EXABYTE by 2020.

Jeez, they're certainly thinking big. Will they move up from storing emails to something else? Because I'm not sure there's enough emails in the world to fill that up lol

[stconquest]

The issue with looking at an ideal world, is it is just that - ideal. It is not reality. The biggest issue with mass surveillance is that you are essentially making more haystacks to find the same amount of needles in, which is what makes the process inefficient. I believe that targeted data collection would reap a much better ROI while also violating the rights of citizens less.

Stepping back abit, you didn't answer the previous question. Would you feel your privacy is violated if a police officer could strip search you without probable cause? Would you feel your privacy was violated if police officers could barge into your house without probably cause/warrant?

 

Mass surveillance is a double-edged sword.  I am kind lazy to scour for numbers (actual research) but I can say with reasonable confidence that the monetary investment into the infrastructure is by far the superior when comparing it to the value of returned posessions and prevented theft it has realized... but it is just a guess. 

 

Targetted data collection would still infringe on someone's rights sooner or later.  I believe our laws, and the enforcement of those laws, are geared towards this more than blanket surveillance.  The ridiculous implementation of full body X-Rays at airports and the frisking of 2 year olds is a great example of the misuse of tech... and the failure of the people paricipating to realize it.

 

As to being strip searched... tough one to answer.  Personally I would not feel violated, emotionally... but I am a "grown man", kinda.  I would seriously question the motive.  If the same was happening to another person that did not have the mental faculties to emotionally cope with a strip search or frisking, it would take every bit of retraint on my part to not interfere... at risk to myself of course.

 

Barging into my house.  Doing damage to my stuff.  Screw privacy, replace my broken stuff!  Nah, I get it.  This is why we have some of the laws we do.  Officers are supposed to protect us from dangerous situations.  A lot of the time if an officer is the dangerous element in a situation, it is only the fear of the law that can stop that officer from ceasing his unlawful act.  Other officers can sometimes tend to freeze up if a fellow co-worker is doing something wrong.  I am wandering off, sorry.

 

I guess what I am arguing is the freedom to have privacy, is different than the emotional sense of safety related to privacy.  I may be okay with a strip search, where somone else would not be.  Since I in no way demand to be strip searched by every law officer I come into contact with, the law is written to protect the right for anyone that would be unconfortable with the search from having to go through it.

[RexinOridle]

Ooo Canadaaaa
Why go through my stufffff?

Don't be a sissy

You know shit can get really messy.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Mass surveillance is a double-edged sword.  I am kind lazy to scour for numbers (actual research) but I can say with reasonable confidence that the monetary investment into the infrastructure is by far the superior when comparing it to the value of returned possessions and prevented theft it has realized... but it is just a guess. 

 

Targeted data collection would still infringe on someone's rights sooner or later.  I believe our laws, and the enforcement of those laws, are geared towards this more than blanket surveillance.  The ridiculous implementation of full body X-Rays at airports and the frisking of 2 year olds is a great example of the misuse of tech... and the failure of the people participating to realize it.

 

As to being strip searched... tough one to answer.  Personally I would not feel violated, emotionally... but I am a "grown man", kinda.  I would seriously question the motive.  If the same was happening to another person that did not have the mental faculties to emotionally cope with a strip search or frisking, it would take every bit of restraint on my part to not interfere... at risk to myself of course.

 

Barging into my house.  Doing damage to my stuff.  Screw privacy, replace my broken stuff!  Nah, I get it.  This is why we have some of the laws we do.  Officers are supposed to protect us from dangerous situations.  A lot of the time if an officer is the dangerous element in a situation, it is only the fear of the law that can stop that officer from ceasing his unlawful act.  Other officers can sometimes tend to freeze up if a fellow co-worker is doing something wrong.  I am wandering off, sorry.

 

I guess what I am arguing is the freedom to have privacy is different the emotional sense of safety related to privacy.  I may be okay with a strip search, where someone else would not be.  Since I in no way demand to be strip searched by every law officer I come into contact with, the law is written to protect the right for anyone that would be uncomfortable with the search from having to go through it.

The monetary investment is just insane, especially if you consider how miniscule the risk of dying in a terrorist attack actually is.  Roughly 20 US citizens die of terrorism every year.  That's a one in 15 million chance. I'm not just talking about US soil here, that number includes journalists in war zones etc.

Even if you factor in 9/11, we're talking around 3300 US citizens in the last 15 years.  That's 200 per year, still making it a 1 in 1.5 million chance.  You're more likely to drown in your bathtub or die of taking the wrong medication.

The NSA has spent an estimated one trillion dollars on data centers and data mining in those 15 years.  That's 303 million dollar per casualty.  Am I the only one who thinks that is completely bonkers?

 

 

Targeted surveillance will indeed at some point infringe someone's privacy.  However that person would already have to be under suspicion before he's targeted and investigated.  Blanket surveillance simply infringes everyone's privacy regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing or not.

 

 

Knowing you can be under surveillance has been proven to completely affect people's behavior.  You'll think twice before saying anything, will avoid subjects on the phone even if there's nothing really wrong with them, you'll even respond differently to questions.  If you know that they can watch you without you knowing it, you'll also feel like you're constantly being watched even when you're not. 

There have been several studies on this over the last 40 or so years. It's pure psychological warfare to make people compliant.

[stconquest]

@Captain Chaos  There is only one way to deal successfully with despotic bodies, whether it comes in the form of assailants, governments, or militias:  people helping one another.  Groups of individuals with the same understanding of what it means to respect life, have to protect one another.  It serves to prevent acts of "terrorism" before they even happen.  A truly "anti-terror" community, not this preaching of danger and then perpetuating a cycle of violence.

 

Terrorism stops, only if it stops everywhere.

 

Riot police are usually stationed against a protest, decked out in gear, forming a line... just like an "old world" war battle.  Are they really there to make sure there is peace? 

 

Bottom line, the cycle of violence makes money.  If people actually find a way to live peacefully, somebody is, sure as s**t, gonna make sure that cycle begins again.

[Embattled]

@Captain Chaos  There is only one way to deal successfully with despotic bodies, whether it comes in the form of assailants, governments, or militias:  people helping one another.  Groups of individuals with the same understanding of what it means to respect life, have to protect one another.  It serves to prevent acts of "terrorism" before they even happen.  A truly "anti-terror" community, not this preaching of danger and then perpetuating a cycle of violence.

 

Terrorism stops, only if it stops everywhere.

 

Riot police are usually stationed against a protest, decked out in gear, forming a line... just like an "old world" war battle.  Are they really there to make sure there is peace? 

 

Bottom line, the cycle of violence makes money.  If people actually find a way to live peacefully, somebody is, sure as s**t, gonna make sure that cycle begins again.

"Riot police are usually stationed against a protest, decked out in gear, forming a line... just like an "old world" war battle.  Are they really there to make sure there is peace?"

 

Depends, where is the world are you?

[Brainless906]

Good thing, there's nothing in America like this!

 

F*ck yah freedom!

 

Right boys? Freedom? Whats an NSA?