Privacy rights only go so far

A recent article in Macleans magazine by Philip Slayton questions “how far we should go to keep out the evils like child pornography.”

A recent article in Macleans magazine by Philip Slayton questions “how far we should go to keep out the evils like child pornography.”

He writes of how individual lives have been ruined by the sweeping powers of Canadian Border Security guards who do not have to respect the privacy act, and they can actually look at the contents of your laptop, just on a vague suspicion that something illegal might be there.

That’s how Bishop Lahey got caught, allegedly with child porn on his laptop.

But Slayton seems to think that what was wrong was the seizure of the laptop by the border guards, not the alleged possession of child porn.

He gives no thought to the child victims involved.

His article goes on to discuss how some people have the benefit of savvy advice – like lawyers advising corporate officials not to travel with company secrets on the laptop (good advice as laptops are so easily stolen or forgotten!); and that gay and lesbian websites advise “tech-savvy gay men will at least encrypt their porn.”

What?

If pornography is illegal, why should we be advocating that people should carry porn ‘safely’ by taking special precautions to hide their guilt or that they be entitled to special privacy protection?

Shouldn’t the issue of privacy be relevant to those who are not committing crimes? How can we have privacy laws that allow national networks to continuously screen “news” images of the dying Robert Dziekanski in an aberrant and unethical (in my view) public viewing of a snuff film – claiming this is for the public good (so much for his right to privacy!); while on the other hand we defeat the efforts of domestic law enforcement agencies over and over as they catch criminals in the act . . . and the criminals get off in court because they claim their privacy was invaded?

Where are our ethical values? Do we have any left?

If you are doing something wrong, it is wrong whether you get caught or not. And if you get caught, why should claims of privacy provide protection from the law?

Isn’t that the whole angle of criminal thinking? They do things subversively, privately, intentionally sneaking through or under the radar, hoping that important social values like a sense of common decency, trust and cooperation can be used as foils to cover up the dastardly deeds?

And what of this advice to gays to encrypt ‘their porn’?

For years we have been hearing about how being gay and gay marriage is ‘just like’ conventional love and romance, but of an alternate gender, and thus deserving of mainstream respect in society. But this advice suggests that gays believe themselves to be in a special category.

They somehow have a special right to have porn because it is an important lifestyle element – and who is the federal government or a Border Security guard to deny them that?

Going back to Slayton’s article called Crossing the Line — he argues that “Freedom has its costs” – one of them being apparently that he feels it is going too far to have Canadian Border Security do ‘unreasonable search and seizure’.

I ask, what’s unreasonable about catching criminals? If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from a search.

And as for Canadian Border Security, I am acquainted with someone who works in the field and let me tell you — they’ve heard it all and seen it all. That means that most of their searches are based on pretty reasonable gut feelings, born of years of watching thousands of liars and cheats posing as “good citizens.”

A free and open society relies upon responsible, ethical and lawful behavior by the majority of its citizens. Allowing absurdly stretched interpretations of the privacy act to protect those who subvert the law just leads to a deterioration of the complex social trust we rely upon for an ordered world.

Maybe we need to change the name of the acts to the Charter of Freedoms and Responsibilities; and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act for Law-abiding Citizens.

Michelle Stirling-Anosh is a Ponoka freelance columnist.

Just Posted

UPDATED: Economy and health care expected to be hot election topics

Premier Rachel Notley makes announcement on Tuesday morning

Cruel and sadistic: Central Alberta dog rescuers believe there are dog fighting rings in province

With the increased number of stolen dogs, some central Alberta rescuers are… Continue reading

Red Deer hospital expansion recognized in throne speech

Society for Hospital Expansion in Central Alberta calls for more details

Mixed Nuts revue presented Saturday to kick off first Carole Forhan Theatrical Scholarship

Broadway songs, comedy skits are part of the Red Deer Players production

Opinion: Let’s be heard ‘loud and clear’ during provincial election campaign

By David Marsden During the banquet for Sunday’s Boston Bruins alumni game,… Continue reading

Documentary on Colten Boushie case to open Toronto’s Hot Docs festival

TORONTO — A film examining the case of a young Indigenous man… Continue reading

Want to help bees? Plant flowering herbs

Herbs are among the most useful plants in nature. They can tantalize… Continue reading

UN: Gene editing for human reproduction is ‘irresponsible’

GENEVA — A panel convened by the World Health Organization said it… Continue reading

Photos: Three moose spotted in Red Deer Tuesday

Three moose were spotted in Red Deer Tuesday morning. Red Deer resident… Continue reading

Andreescu rockets to No. 24 in WTA Tour rankings after Indian Wells title

Canada’s Bianca Andreescu has rocketed to No. 24 in the WTA Tour… Continue reading

Canadian figure skaters looking to reach new heights at world championships

Nam Nguyen, Alaine Chartrand and Kirsten Moore-Towers and Michael Marinaro all have… Continue reading

Man linked to largest art heist in history freed from prison

HARTFORD, Conn. — A reputed Connecticut mobster who federal authorities believe is… Continue reading

Most Read