Just consider what the current means of surveillance would have meant in the hands of Joe McCarthy. Then it was just people snooping on people. I suppose the occasional envelope was steamed open and mail was intercepted. Investigative techniques are not to be used by either the Canadian or US investigators on domestic citizens. Oh yeah! We now have privacy commissioners and others who are mandated to insure our privacy but little is really done about the domestic snooping that appears to be going on constantly. How are we to respond?
On a level of personal security we all know that we are to use complex passwords that can't be easily hacked. However, a determined hacker will inevitably breach our firewalls and well- meant complex passwords. Given that most banking transactions are now done over the Internet or some kind of safe network we can only hope that banks and other financial institutions are doing their stuff. My inside information is that banks are bleeding like the rest of us. However, banks and other financial institutions do pay up when your account is raided. This adds to the cost of banking but I am not sure how much it impacts the average consumer. And then there are credit cards and debit cards (another aspect of the banking business). The US refused to accept the chip technology (on the grounds that it was too expensive) that we take for granted in Canada and they are now paying the price. We a just a bit more secure with out chip technology but only a bit. And then there is Facebook and Twitter where we place our lives on display for the public to see (latest dumb post: going to bed now...").
There is a tort doctrine in common law called "contributory negligence". This doctrine applies where one of the parties, usually the plaintiff, has done something that contributes to his harm. Riding over the centre of the road, attending a hockey game where he is likely to be hit by a puck are just two examples. When we place ourselves in harm's way we cannot squeal too loudly when harm occurs. I believe that this principle applies to privacy. We have consented to put our lives out in public and we can hardly complain when those who are malevolent take advantage of our exposure. If you leave your wallet on the street can you complain when someone takes it? Even the common law states that a "finder" has good title against everyone except the rightful owners. Don't do dumb things.
We have allowed all of this to happen to ourselves and when bad things happen we can hardly complain. If we are to be catalogued and carded for the delivery of health care can we really, really, expect that some day some bureaucrat will have that information on his/her laptop and then leave that very laptop in the mall. Life happens. Is there really a firewall that can't be breached? By anyone? When we set up state-of-the-art spying agencies can we really, really expect that they won't spy? On us? As they say on Monday Night Football, "C'mon man!".
I am all for Snowdon and everyone else who is a whistleblower on spying (with the exception of exposing agents whose lives might be in danger). This is because people like Snowdon turn the tables on those who would keep spying on us a secret. If "they" can spy on us why can't we spy on "them"? Therefore, if we are contemplating criminal behaviour why can't one of the deterrents be the fear that we are being spied on and that our criminal behaviour will be found out. A bit Big Brother? It's already here. So we must all comport ourselves in a manner that assumes that we are being spied upon. If we don't like it we have to turn the clock back 40 years and no one wants to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment