It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Post 9/11 Laws Too Intrusive?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:55 AM
Coming from a small town in Canada, I had not been directly affected by the aftermath of 9/11. The surge of new laws, loss of privacy, etc., was something we were not directly impacted by.

But after reading this article the other day, I believe we are beginning to feel this wrath.

Unable to locate the CTV article, but I have one here.

It's still just a test, but police surveillance cameras are keeping an eye on a wide swath of downtown Halifax.

Halifax Regional Police began installing the cameras around the city yesterday.

Don't count on the high-tech surveillance system being in one place for long.

The cameras being used by the police can be quickly set up in other locations according operational needs.

"This is still very much in the testing phase," said Const. Jeff Carr.

The areas under surveillance include Brunswick Street east to Halifax Harbour and the area between Duke Street and Spring Garden Road.

So Big Brother has finally his the east coast. Halifax is experimenting with surveillance cameras in their downtown area. After the death of the American sailor, changes were to be expected.

This only began to spark my intentions here. The main agenda is here:

Almost half of Canadians and even more Americans feel new post-9/11 laws aimed at protecting national security are too intrusive, says a survey conducted by Queen's University-based Surveillance Project.

"It would have surprised me if we had these results immediately after 9/11," Queen's sociology professor and the project's lead investigator, Elia Zureik, told Canada AM on Monday.

"But now... the whole sort of fear campaign has subsided and people are getting back to normal assessment which means that privacy means a lot to people."

Forty-seven per cent of Canadians, 53 per cent of Spaniards and 57 per of Americans called current surveillance laws intrusive.

Zureik said while the concern was high the level of understanding was not.

"Canadians known very little about legislation governing privacy of information across the country," he said.

Link to Article

Ok so we are being fed statistics. I want to know what you think. Are these laws too intrusive? Seems more people think so, with the Americans trailing in the distant. The whole big brother is not something that worries me too much. But I can see it being the beginning of a larger problem. Do you support some of the legislations that have removed amounts of our privacy?

I find a problem here though. Hypocritical if you ask me.

National ID cards

Showing a majority of support for national ID cards:

* France approved with 78 per cent;
* China had 77 per cent;
* Canada 53 per cent

The U.S. did not have a majority with only 42 per cent in favour of the cards.

We feel the legislation is too intrusive, but we support the ID cards. Ok, that makes sense still. But Americans who are more accepting to the intrusive laws, reject the ID cards. Why? What am I missing here?

This is one issue that I have discussed on more than one occasion with others. Normally the extent of my discussions are spent with AboveTopSecret. But I have discussed this issue and a lot of people tell me that its not a big deal. They have nothing to hide, so they have no problem giving up some of their privacy in order for protection.

My big agenda is I do not believe it is a necessary trade. I don't think we should have to give up our privacy for security. Naive? Maybe. But I do believe we can have one with the other.

So I ask you, intrusive? Yes or No? Do you want to give up your privacy for security? Can we have one with the other?

[edit on 14-11-2006 by chissler]

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:42 PM
I'm a big fan of privacy and I hate those stupid CCTV systems. I would rather have more police on the street than a bunch of cameras.

I don't think CCTV's have all that much to do with post-9/11 fears, the VPD started their push for them in 1999. A CCTV system does nobody any good if there aren't police in the area to respond. I think they are close to useless and give people a false sense of security.

As for Bill C36, I've tried to read it several times. What happens is my brain shuts down and I end up staring blankly at the page. It has got to be the most mind-numbing document I have ever had the displeasure to attempt to read.

What does stick out is that there was no way they came up with that legislation after 9/11. Bill C36 received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001. When did our government ever get anything done that quickly? This was a wish list from certain agencies and 9/11 gave them an excuse to have it pushed through with little discussion, under the guise of national security.

Now that I've rambled on a bit and haven't come close to answering your question - Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I want my activites monitored. I support nothing that lessens my previously legally protected privacy rights.

I don't feel any more secure than I did before. Then again, I never really felt insecure to begin with. Life happens and sometimes people do bad things. Nothing will ever change that, it doesn't matter how many laws we enact.

Unless we get that pre-cog program in place.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:51 AM
Lovin' those pre-cog's.

Yeah I agree that these cameras only attempt to install a false sense of security. Why don't we explore prevention rather than justice? These would not prevent crimes, they would just make it easier to uncover the guilty. Employ more police, give these people jobs. Everyone is going to benefit from a hike to the police enforcement.

When I discuss this issue with people, some are really misguided. They agree with wiretapping, big brother, etc., all for our security. Where does it end though? If it's wiretapping today, what would we expect tomorrow?

I may of been a little narrow minded in the title to name 9/11 has the basis for these legislations. I feel it is a large part of it, but there is more at play here.

Duzey, What are your thoughts on the National ID cards statistics? Is this hypocracy at it's best? Or am I missing something?

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 01:00 AM
Sorry for the delayed response.

I wouldn't use the term hypocritical, I use the softer term of contradictory in nature.

ID Cards, like CCTV, offer nothing other than a false sense of security. The only way these cards could be 100% secure is if there were DNA extracted at the moment of birth and then encoded into the cards. If all you need a license and a birth certificate to get one, it's not secure. Anyone who knows anything about how to create a new identity could breeze through the process.

Step One: get a copy of a birth certificate
Step Two: use birth certificate to get SIN
Step Three: use SIN and birth certificate to get licence
Step Four: use new licence and birth certificate to obtain ID card


I'm all for more police and I'm completely against making their jobs easier through extended wiretapping provisions and preventative arrests. I'm contradictory in nature.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:46 AM
I say hypocritical, you say contradictory, yet I am the optimistic one. Would that be hypocritical, or contradictory? Is anyone else confused?

I see what your saying Duze. Well said. Anyone who is going through these steps to cause havoc, is easily going to overcome this extra hurdle. It is going to act as nothing more. Just another step for the wrong people to overcome.

Once you get the initial document in your hand, the rest is just minor legwork.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:46 AM

I would say that it's contradictory, but I like to make things sound nicer than they are. Let's just call me a pragmatic realist and admire the quotation I have thoughtfully supplied.

The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. ~ William A. Ward

Seriously, if I can figure out how to get an ID card under another name, I'm pretty sure most criminals can too. ID cards are nothing more than the illusion that something is being done when all it will create is another level of bureaucracy and government fees. I already have an encoded piece of plastic with my picture and vitals on it - it's called a driver's licence.

In my opinion, a false sense of security is worse than no sense of security. A false sense of security causes people to become lax, because it couldn't possibly happen to them.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
In my opinion, a false sense of security is worse than no sense of security. A false sense of security causes people to become lax, because it couldn't possibly happen to them.

And a false sense of security normally comes at a cost to the public. Millions of dollars will be spent on a program that does nothing to improve our safety. Sure it might look good on paper, but when we closely examine what it is actually doing, it appears to be a waste of time, effort, and money.

Another identification card is going to do nothing to ensure safety on flights, border control, etc.

Pragmatic realist,

Well done.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:47 PM
What doesn't the government do that costs us lots of money?

The sad part about all of this is it doesn't really matter if there is no reason for the cards or if they are not secure. All that matters is that the US will demand them and we will have to go along to keep traffic flowing across the border.

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
What doesn't the government do that costs us lots of money?

Dentyne Ice chewing gum?

The outcry for safety is going to outweigh logic on this one. Even though our empty pockets is not going to dictate into safety, our fall sense of security leaves the general population sleeping well at night.

Well cuddle close to your new I.D. cards, it is the extent of their use.

Think of the chewing gum we could buy with this money.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by chissler]

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:51 AM

Someday I will start a RATS thread about the time I had the pleasure of auditing a Bechtel invoice. They make the Liberals seem like Boy Scouts.

Perhaps the new ID cards can be in the shape of teddy bears. That way they won't poke us in the eye while we cuddle our false sense of security.


log in