North American Perimeter Security

[sags]

With Canada and the US already past the discussion stage, and heading into the implementation stage, it would have been nice to have a vote/say/notification/hearing/meeting/twitter/gathering/election/ referendum, or something to present average Canadian's views first.

From what I have read, Canadians give up all their personal information, in exchange for US protection from those wild eyed terrorists running amok in our cities. Apparently our own security forces just aren't up to snuff.

I find this whole thing troublesome.

One can bet that once the information gate opens, they will want everything from health records to social security numbers to credit checks and past residences..........everything will be provided, of course.

Personally, I have nothing to hide. No outrageous conduct or misspent youth.
Just a typically boring Canadian...............like most others.

But, I don't trust authority figures, nor should I. We know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If we don't fight to preserve our liberty and freedom, we will lose it.

[OhGreatGuru]

In an age of international terrorism we have to cooperate with our neighbours on security, like it or not.

If we don't want a N.A. perimeter, we will have a US Border patrol and fencing along the 49th parallel, just like Mexico.

if we don't agree to a N.A. perimeter, Congress will use it as an excuse to harass us with trade barriers. (Some would say they will try it anyway, for the usual parochial, self-serving reasons. Can't be helped, but an agreement would at least undermine their argument, and reduce the probablility of such measures passing. But there are no guarantees with Congress.)

Having said all that, I agree that some US measures are invasive, and not of any proven benefit. I don't know what the political solution is. Maybe insist on applying the same measures to US citizens, so their citizens will begin to question them? But it is generally accepted that we need access to the US more than they want access to Canada. The US travel industry and Congress would be quite happy if Americans stayed at home because it was a hassle crossing the border. We need to find some leverage.

(Wouldn't you really like to know how much of our gun-related crime is committed with weapons illegally imported from the US?)

[the-royal-mail]

It is rather presumptuous of any of these agencies or authorities to demand access to my health records for "security purposes". That's total and utter BS.

That's not why electronic health records were devised.

Same goes for credit checks.

It has nothing to do with having something to hide, but everything to do with the right for people to decide whether or not to divulge access to our medical and financial files.

And barring me access to travel to or through their country because of this choice is simply not right.

This hardly represents freedom, folks.

[m3s]

If you don't partake in terrorist activities you should have nothing to worry about. You're naive to think think this information can't be used to weed out bad apples.

Credit information is one of the first things used in any investigation/missing person. Where did he make his/her last purchase? Then the cell phone logs, triangulation with line of sight or meta data. Someone goes to the doctor with something seemingly innocent however narrows them down to someone experimenting with biological weapons or who knows what

They're not looking for what STDs you have or anything personal. Again if you don't partake in terrorist activity what does it matter? Lots of strangers have access to and look over this information as is

[Sherlock]

So how do I, Joe Canuck, benefit from this new agreement?

[the-royal-mail]

It very much matters. I do not consent to the collection of these data, but this is forced on me. I do not consent to the viewing of these dats, and this is again forced on me? How is this freedom?

The whole wikileaks thing exposed what happens when the eye is instead turned on the gov't. Funny how they get all uppity when the lens is pointed their way for a change.

Telling me I shouldn't object to big brother spying on my health and financial records on the basis I should have nothing to hide is a spurious argument.

[m3s]

Sometimes it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, but calling it a duck would be prejudice or racist and not good enough for a warrant to even check for proof

Sometimes you know what a duck sounds like and there is recordings out there that could easily identify them, but you're not allowed to because it would invade their privacy

So instead you spend $$$ watching their pattern of life etc for minute clues, gathering data that is readily available while people complain you're wasting tax dollars. We could just stop enforcing security and see what happens?

[the-royal-mail]

Absolutely. One of the goals of terrorism is to bankrupt the enemy. In this case the US is doing it quite handily on their own, they think they're all clever and shrewd while the terrorists just laugh at all the money being wasted on rent-a-cops. We are wide open on numerous fronts, if they really wanted to get us, they would. The billions spent and all the lives invaded don't prevent that.

[m3s]

A better way to stop terrorism would be to not oppress them in the first place, but I'm sure you enjoy your high standard of living at their expense. Sure the Americans spend way too much on terrorism, but a restricted border is still required as long as we live a better lifestyle than others and an efficient perimeter can save tax money

[the-royal-mail]

Save tax money? You're joking right? BILLIONS have been thrown at "security" since some yahoos ran aerial suicide missions 10 years ago. This is hardly a savings and neither is invading the privacy of 34 million Canadians.

Let's just drop it - clearly we don't agree. Back to money topics.

[olivaw]

Tax dollar savings don't convince me to give up portions of our sovereignty and personal privacy. A unified perimeter will only work if there are harmonized border and immigration policies. Given the size disparity between the United States and Canada, that will translate to America dictating Canadian policy. If recent history is any indicator, Canadian citizens will not be subject to the same protections as American citizens. I'm opposed to this thing.

[Toronto.gal]

The post 9/11 world we live in, is very different and having been in NY on 9/11, I have no problem cooperating with our neighbor with the aim of preventing violence, identifying who comes in and out & fighting terror.

We already have a lot less freedom than we think we do anyway & not bothered by it, this is Canada, not Russia or China [thank goodness], having said that, many of our laws are simply too lax & working co-operatively should hopefully prove to be cheaper & more effective.

[Berubeland]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[John_Michaels]

I don't really think it is 'terrorism' that is the target of this integration. I think the U.S. is thinking long term versus China. China won't be going to war (economic/military, pick one) with the U.S., it will be ABCA...Austrailia, NZ, Britain, Canada, AND America. This integration is just an extension of the US fighting its war off its soil as the debris has to land somewhere. I suspect if one digs deep enough, you will find similar security arrangements with those countries.

[OhGreatGuru]

Have a look at item 1 of these FAQ's about the US Patriot Act, on a Treasury Board of Canada web site:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/gospubs/tbm_128/usapa/faq-eng.asp#Q1

There are serious privacy issues raised by this bill. Several years ago Alberta was going to contract out it's Health Care data system. It became a big political issue when US companies bid on the contract. (I don't know how or if they resolved it.)