freespirit
25th June 2012, 02:52 PM
If lineups, searches and shoe removal don't deter you from flying, a new plan to record private conversations in Canadian airports might keep you on the ground.
http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/private_conversations_will_be_recorded_in_canadas_ airports/c5716e2e
The walls will soon have ears in Canada's airports.
Microphones that can hear people talking to each other are going to beinstalled at airports (http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Canadian+airports+being+wired+with+listening+equip ment+that+will+record/6794662/story.html) and at border crossing points.
According to a news report, some border points and airport areas are already wired to capture audio but recording hasn't started yet. Before the microphones are turned on, signs will be posted to alert the public and a privacy impact assessment must also be completed.
The reasons given for the recording equipment include "border integrity," a catch-all phrase that could mean just about anything.
Canadians pay a price when we give up an element of our privacy. Last year, when the federal government announced changes to the way Internet data would be acquired by law enforcement, the public expressed strong enough disapproval that the Conservatives decided to rethink the idea.
When we give up privacy, there has to be a good reason. The payoff has to outweigh what we are surrendering.
Recording the conversations of other people is illegal in Canada unless a judge has signed off on a warrant to collect information. It's those kinds of checks and balances that were missing from the Tories' Internet plans.
To record any or all conversations in a public place is a major step. What benefits can we expect if we sign off and give away that level of privacy?
If such an intrusion could prevent a terrorist attack, most Canadians would likely be willing to allow the recording of conversations in airports or at border checkpoints.
But if you think about past terror attacks on airplanes, monitoring conversations in an airport would have been next to useless.
The 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have sat around the airport waiting lounge chatting about their plans. The would-be Shoe Bomber and Underwear Bomber acted alone, so there would have been no airport conversation to overhear.
On top of those facts, consider that the only way an airplane terror attack could be thwarted using details from airport microphones is if terrorists had a chat in the lounge while someone in law enforcement was listening in real time, able to act before the attack took place.
Now Big Brother may be a scary concept and may be able to record a lot of conversations – through the public airwaves, on telephone wires and even in airports – but Big Brother is not big enough to have officers listening to every conversation. Recording equipment and sifting technology are needed to help reduce masses of recordings down to a number that security folks can actually listen to at a later time.
So if our conversations at the airport at to be recorded, and that information will only be checked out long after flights have departed, how are we safer from terrorism? Answer: we're not.
It's a good bet that the "border integrity" mentioned to justify airport microphones doesn't mean safety from terrorism at all.
What the microphones will provide is a way to track conversations that could lead to the arrest of smugglers and organized crime groups operating in airports and Canadian ports.
And those crimes – unwanted as they may be – are effectively property crimes, a very poor reason for every Canadian to give up privacy whenever they step into an airport.
Do you want your private conversations recorded at airports and border crossings?
my bolding.
http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/private_conversations_will_be_recorded_in_canadas_ airports/c5716e2e
The walls will soon have ears in Canada's airports.
Microphones that can hear people talking to each other are going to beinstalled at airports (http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Canadian+airports+being+wired+with+listening+equip ment+that+will+record/6794662/story.html) and at border crossing points.
According to a news report, some border points and airport areas are already wired to capture audio but recording hasn't started yet. Before the microphones are turned on, signs will be posted to alert the public and a privacy impact assessment must also be completed.
The reasons given for the recording equipment include "border integrity," a catch-all phrase that could mean just about anything.
Canadians pay a price when we give up an element of our privacy. Last year, when the federal government announced changes to the way Internet data would be acquired by law enforcement, the public expressed strong enough disapproval that the Conservatives decided to rethink the idea.
When we give up privacy, there has to be a good reason. The payoff has to outweigh what we are surrendering.
Recording the conversations of other people is illegal in Canada unless a judge has signed off on a warrant to collect information. It's those kinds of checks and balances that were missing from the Tories' Internet plans.
To record any or all conversations in a public place is a major step. What benefits can we expect if we sign off and give away that level of privacy?
If such an intrusion could prevent a terrorist attack, most Canadians would likely be willing to allow the recording of conversations in airports or at border checkpoints.
But if you think about past terror attacks on airplanes, monitoring conversations in an airport would have been next to useless.
The 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have sat around the airport waiting lounge chatting about their plans. The would-be Shoe Bomber and Underwear Bomber acted alone, so there would have been no airport conversation to overhear.
On top of those facts, consider that the only way an airplane terror attack could be thwarted using details from airport microphones is if terrorists had a chat in the lounge while someone in law enforcement was listening in real time, able to act before the attack took place.
Now Big Brother may be a scary concept and may be able to record a lot of conversations – through the public airwaves, on telephone wires and even in airports – but Big Brother is not big enough to have officers listening to every conversation. Recording equipment and sifting technology are needed to help reduce masses of recordings down to a number that security folks can actually listen to at a later time.
So if our conversations at the airport at to be recorded, and that information will only be checked out long after flights have departed, how are we safer from terrorism? Answer: we're not.
It's a good bet that the "border integrity" mentioned to justify airport microphones doesn't mean safety from terrorism at all.
What the microphones will provide is a way to track conversations that could lead to the arrest of smugglers and organized crime groups operating in airports and Canadian ports.
And those crimes – unwanted as they may be – are effectively property crimes, a very poor reason for every Canadian to give up privacy whenever they step into an airport.
Do you want your private conversations recorded at airports and border crossings?
my bolding.