 |
     |
|
|
Police need their "sources": those unnamed people and places where information -- some relevant, some not -- comes to them for their use in some way or another. The latest thing to hit the media radar screen, about a week ago, is that police in Canada now wish to expand their ability to make sources of our individual Internet activity as this G&M story describes: Police to seek greater powers to snoop. Last week's headline was more to the effect of police want more power to intercept Internet transmissions and they want you to pay for it. [An approach to funding that doesn't require additional tax-funded support, at least.]
The whole thing could, of course, be troubling. And so it is to privacy advocates. The linked article notes:
Police organizations have been saying for years that Criminal Code provisions for wiretaps, written in 1974, need amendments that would allow officers to monitor e-mail, Web surfing, instant messaging, mobile telephones, and telephone services that use Internet connections.Personally, I'm less concerned by the privacy implications despite the dire potential consequences of being electronically defiled unwittingly and without justification. Mostly because I have nothing that I would be overly troubled with anyone else knowing. Oh sure, it might be embarrassing: some things I've said over the years, I've grown out of and try not to associate with anymore; other things are just nobody's damn business. But, in general, the revelations would be mere wisps of embarrassment that would evaporate in the harsh light of public availability. Nobody seems to care that Hugh Grant was arrested for having a good time with a Hollywood hooker in his BMW a few years ago anymore.
"Privacy is not primarily about secrecy. It's about opacity."
Posted by Grayson at August 23, 2004 07:18 AM