@9L2P5YG1mo1MO
Depends. If the person is under government radar for illegal activities, then yes. But if the person is off radar or reformed and is completely fine, even with criminal background, then should be occasionally monitored but not strictly.
@9JC6BKV3mos3MO
Yes, and all communications for any elected official should be public record before ANY private citizens are subjected to monitoring excepted by court order.
@9GNXSP7Conservative6mos6MO
No, only in cases where a warrant is needed and deemed necessary for extreme crime and terrorist activities.
@9F98QST8mos8MO
Only if there is a confirmed threat in the country
@9F5KMPV8mos8MO
No, this is a severe violation of privacy. Emails, messages and phone calls should be private. Privacy is a fundamental right and it is not the government's business what Canadians are talking about on call, email or messages. National security is an excuse the government shouldn't be allowed to monitor it's citizens regardless.
@9D4R2DY9mos9MO
Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds for violent; sexual; financial; and/or gang related crimes.
@9CQJF7L10mos10MO
No, but add resources to eliminate fraud attempts from foreign nations, starting with the #1 front they use…make offshore call-centres illegal.
@9C8YBHH11mos11MO
Yes, but only during times when there is reason to suspect a threat to public safety (ex. terrorism, war), and even then only if there is reason to suspect someone
@9BZ2SK612mos12MO
Yes, but only by court order in the case of criminal issues or in the interest of national security
@8V6GWMR3yrs3Y
With a legally issued warrant
@8V5CFHL3yrs3Y
Only if there is a suspected threat to the country.
@8TWYK3L3yrs3Y
Key words only. But taking people's concerns seriously would be better
@8TWTTZV3yrs3Y
No, only law enforcement with proper court approval.
@9FCQFGMConservative7mos7MO
Yes, but only in certain circumstances when security is in danger
@9F9MWMM8mos8MO
yes but only depending on the person
@9BSPFFY12mos12MO
Yes, but only to build intelligence and parties are notified after.
@99G9S5L1yr1Y
Yes, but only for those with serious criminal offences.
Only to prevent serious criminal activity and terrorism
@96JJRBT2yrs2Y
No, unless you are suspected of any wrongdoing, and it is needed for an investigation.
@948L3W4New Democratic2yrs2Y
No, except under extreme circumstances & permission from the Attorney General.
@92YKHH62yrs2Y
Yes, to block hate mail or calls
@8ZX3GXZConservative2yrs2Y
Enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless a court order is acquired.
@8Y85WN92yrs2Y
Grey area. If it is relevant to court proceedings, then tentatively yes.
@8XXXYKS2yrs2Y
No, privacy should be a right to all Canadians
@8X8B6QX2yrs2Y
Yes but only if they are trying to catch a criminal and have proof of their actions
@8W4BGQ5New Democratic3yrs3Y
Yes but regardless of if they were justified or not the individual or individuals must be made aware of the breach of privacy within 1 year of the violation and be allowed to seek
Damages from the government should they have overreached and be granted immunity for other non related infractions.
@8VWXDZS3yrs3Y
Yes for protection only from terrorism use court orders and watch if involved in criminal activity
Yes, but only if we can monitor their emails and phone calls as well.
@8VF8YNL3yrs3Y
No, Not without testamony it will prove a serious crime, Sexual Assault
@8VDCCCB3yrs3Y
In obvious circumstances of national security, or where criminal organizations are concerned I support this. In situations involving petty criminals or the general law-abiding public I do not support this.
@8S3NTLN3yrs3Y
@8RWBJNQ3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if approved by a group of randomly selected lawyers, civil right advocates, and other people.
@8PZND2G3yrs3Y
yes but only in extreme circumstances. the government should not be allowed to survey private citizens conversations and interactions
@8PNGTCV3yrs3Y
Yes, to combat terrorism and criminal backgrounds and court order.
@8P9CY8Q3yrs3Y
The government can track all calls and e-mails, but they cannot access the content unless given permission by a court order.
@tofutofu3yrs3Y
For most cases, no, this is a violation of one's personal right to privacy. It reminds me of the way the police will use anything you say against you, which makes staying silent and hiring a lawyer immediate so crucial when defending yourself in the justice system. I believe violating the privacy of the people is a slipper slope to tyranny. People need to be protected and have the freedom to their personal, private lives. They have a right to defend themselves also. The exception would be for extreme cases when it's determined a serious threat exist and this is absolutely necessary to protect the country and people- in which case, a court order should be required and the person involved should already have a criminal history/involvement in a serious crime.
@8DYSL8H4yrs4Y
Yes, but only when it concerns national security.
@8DTTLFQ4yrs4Y
No, unless they have a good reason to
@98TLB6M1yr1Y
No, unless it's permitted by the Supreme Court.
@98PQTLX1yr1Y
Yea only if it is an issue with warrant and probable cause
@97WSTML1yr1Y
No as it is our conversations unless national matter or an attack
@8TD3S5V3yrs3Y
Only for those suspected with strong evidence of terrorist activity
@8TBKBH43yrs3Y
Yes, only once known criminal activity is going on
@8SRCS7J3yrs3Y
Yes, but only to combat terrorism and for those with criminal backgrounds.
@8RM38743yrs3Y
They should only be allowed to monitor calls and emails made by non-residents/ people living overseas.
@8QCHD32Conservative3yrs3Y
If its for a criminal investigation then yes. Otherwise no.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
