 |
     |
|
|
This is the bais of judgment on an odd statement by Canada's Chief Electoral Officer (as reported in the Globe & Mail: Elections chief would share data on voters). Strip away the philosophy and religion of keeping personal information private (admittedly hard to do given that privacy is a philosophical position that is becoming religion in this "information age), the heart of what the election chief suggests is allegedly about public safety. So the weight of opinion and decision ought to rest on whether personal privacy is more or less important than the public good. Put another way: individual or society, which is more important.
The Canadian and US social experiences are suitably different that the answer could, should, and probably would be different in these two worlds. The United States is constituted on the basis of "freedom, liberty, and justice;" Canada, on the other hand, on "peace, order, and good government." The former much more individualist; the latter socialist (not in the spectre-raising bad way -- necessarily).
Still, as long as we have any remaining vestiges of private life and property, the matter of privacy and security of the individual (including privacy of information) is a critical matter. Moreover, without the right to vote freely and anonymously (i.e., secretly, as in a "secret ballot"), the notion of a free and, particularly, "democratic" society is a joke. So, the idea that information about electors, based on their registration as electors, could or should be used for any purpose at all beyond that restricted purpose is dubious. However, as the lead graf from the Globe & Mail piece states,
Canada's Chief Electoral Officer wants the authority to share information from his voter database with other public agencies -- including the spy service -- when doing so would serve the interests of health, safety or national security.This all has a prima facie good sound within the context of a community-favoured society. In fact, even in a more individualist society that has suffered harm as a result of terrorism, the stirring call for this kind of unthinkable act of a democratic government gets a hearing on the basis of public safety. But what public good comes from distribution of the elector list information?
Further in the article the suggestion is made that in the event of some other localized tragic event (think Katrina on the Canadian maritime coast, or a viral outbreak like SARS, or, or , or . . .) the list could be used to great effect to ensure that all the people registered to that geography were sought and found. Obviously a public good. At first glance. Begs a few questions: who is being protected by distribution of a voters' list. Obviously not those obviously without the means and requiring government assistance. Chances are they are not registered. Not resident aliens and other non-citizens: they don't make it to the voter register either. Not transients of any economic status because their information is out of date. Who then? I don't know.
Moreover, what does the CSIS agency have to do with any of this except viz. terrorism and other crimes? Please understand that I personally subscribe to the dictum that "those with nothing to hide, hide nothing." The unfortunate part of having lots of information available to choose from is that a history can be created based on select parts of that information. A history that may or may not accurately reflect the reality of one's past, and could, in fact, be maliciously fabricated. Ironically, Canada is one of those states in the world that believes in due process, habeas corpus, and innocence until proven guilty.
Frankly, I'm not sure that the proposal by the Chief Electoral Officer is dangerous or harmful in the big picture. It may indeed, one day, allow that official to "save lives." But, at first blush, my knee-jerk reaction is that it is unnecessary and a cure potentially more harmful that the problem itself.
Posted by Grayson at September 30, 2005 07:46 AM