Should the government be able to monitor phone calls and emails?

Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds for violent; sexual; financial; and/or gang related crimes.

Only if they have reasonable cause to believe somebody needs to be monitored, like if they're a criminal or there's police evidence. In addition there needs to be a court order to give permission.

Yes, and all communications for any elected official should be public record before ANY private citizens are subjected to monitoring excepted by court order.

No, only in cases where a warrant is needed and deemed necessary for extreme crime and terrorist activities.

Yes, but only in certain circumstances when security is in danger

yes but only depending on the person

Only if there is a confirmed threat in the country

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.

No, unless the person is a registered offender or someone else that must be kept tabs on for safety reasons.

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.

No, except under extreme circumstances & permission from the Attorney General.

Yes, to block hate mail or calls

Enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless a court order is acquired.

Grey area. If it is relevant to court proceedings, then tentatively yes.

No, privacy should be a right to all Canadians

Yes but only if they are trying to catch a criminal and have proof of their actions

VERY Unsure.

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.

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.

No, Not without testamony it will prove a serious crime, Sexual Assault

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.

Only for those suspected with strong evidence of terrorist activity

Yes, only once known criminal activity is going on

yes, but only if their is suspesion of violent crime

Yes, but only to combat terrorism and for those with criminal backgrounds.

With a proper warrant

This removes our right

no i don't want 1984

Yes, but only if approved by a group of randomly selected lawyers, civil right advocates, and other people.

They should only be allowed to monitor calls and emails made by non-residents/ people living overseas.

yes,but only if they use key words that would trigger it to record the call

Yes but only on immigrants from the middle east.

Not unless there is someone breaking the law. Must prevent government surveillance of citizen communications.

Yes but only if the person is involved in a criminal case and by court order

If its for a criminal investigation then yes. Otherwise no.

Only f that person pause a threat to our nation!

Yes, but only by court order on a case by case basis (one court order per individual)

Yes but Only with Warrant and reasonable cause

yes but only in extreme circumstances. the government should not be allowed to survey private citizens conversations and interactions

Yes, to combat terrorism and criminal backgrounds and court order.

The government can track all calls and e-mails, but they cannot access the content unless given permission by a court order.

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.

Yes, but only when it concerns national security.

No, unless they have a good reason to

If its absolutely necessary but it should be transparent about how much information is being collected, why, and who is collecting it.

Yes but it should have to be approved by a commission made up by MPs senators, judicatory officials, executive branch offices, and representatives of the ideas of small government, human rights, open government, and civil rights groups.

No, unless it's permitted by the Supreme Court.

Yea only if it is an issue with warrant and probable cause

No as it is our conversations unless national matter or an attack

yes BUT only to try and prevent terrorism and people who have a criminal background's and in court

Not without a warrant

No, but they do anyways aha

Can listen if the person is accused of murder or a manger crime. If they listen to people just at home talking on their phone with their mom no! If people were to find that out then the people who are listening to others people conversations besides the police for investigation purposes, should go to jail!

No, but add resources to eliminate fraud attempts from foreign nations, starting with the #1 front they use…make offshore call-centres illegal.

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

Yes, but only by court order in the case of criminal issues or in the interest of national security

With a legally issued warrant

Only if there is a suspected threat to the country.

Key words only. But taking people's concerns seriously would be better

No, only law enforcement with proper court approval.

Yes, but only to build intelligence and parties are notified after.

Yes, but only for those with serious criminal offences.

Only to prevent serious criminal activity and terrorism

No, unless you are suspected of any wrongdoing, and it is needed for an investigation.

Don’t they already?

Yes, if there is probable cause.

no they should not even if they already are witch they are.

No, that creepy, i need my privacy

Yes but only with a court order or a percieved threat

No, and all Espionage (CSIS, CSE, et al...) should be banned.

I feel like the federal government should be allowed to monitor emails and phone calls that are flagged with key words that insinuate a possible terrorist or illegal act.

if this was an ironclad method to reduce terrorism, then yes. otherwise, this is an invasion of privacy

No. This is a violation of privacy.

When, if ever, do you believe the benefits of surveillance outweigh the right to privacy?

How would you feel if your personal conversations were listened to without your consent for national security?

Have you ever felt like your privacy was compromised, and if so, what should be the limits of that invasion?

Yes, but only under the scrutiny of the courts where necessary to protect citizens either collectively or individually

No, not at all. I think phone calls and emails should be private. It is not other peoples business and they don't need to know what we are talking about.

Only in severe circumstances where national security is threatened.

They should only be able to monitor people who have been identified as a threat, and only by court order

I find this to be a ridiculous notion. Under certain circumstances it would be permissible but its a blatant intrusion of privacy and completely unnecessary. A acceptable situation is someone suspected for crimes, but just monitoring people for the sake of doing so is completely illogical.

No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, It is the citizens responsibility to protect the country in this case since the government cannot possibly handle everything and proper education provided on the subject in schools on a side note they are taught in a way that does not create future paranoia. Once a threat is flagged by citizens only then should authority intervene. Immigrants will have to be under surveillance for as long their education into citizenship is provided, and Immigrants with a history of violence or fraud will not be allowed into the country.

I say 'no', but only because I see a growing society that has less and less respect for the 'Honour system' and I believe that even though this may be an important tool to protect against suspected crimes of terrorism, it will be abused and misused.

I'm torn...I am concerned with the federal government having cart blanche access to private information, yet I am for being able to prevent acts that negatively harm groups of innocent people.

In a digital age filled with threats, should privacy still be considered an unalienable right?

How does the possibility of having your digital footprint monitored affect your sense of freedom and trust in the government?

Would you accept more government surveillance if it significantly decreased acts of terror?

If your safety was at stake, would you be willing to give up some privacy, and where do you draw the line?

Does the thought of being watched or listened to by someone you don't know make you uncomfortable, and why?

Imagine your life as an open book; how would that change the way you communicate online?

What would you do if you found out your personal messages were being monitored to prevent potential crimes?

Yes, after proving that the act is necessary for National security, and combating organized crime and child pornography

Yes but only for proven terrorists