Very few people know that in order for the intelligence community to be able to set up wire taps or any type of electronic gadgets to intercept messages that they would need to have a warrant.  In Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is the one in charge of the country’s surveillance while the Federal Court takes care of the issuance of warrants for espionage.  This has been the setup since the 80’s.

Recently, though, leaders of the intelligence community are asking to be permitted to go beyond domestic monitoring up to the level of international espionage.  Their reason: if the ‘bad guys’ leave Canadian shore, then the threat could extend to the global community.  This is exactly what they feared when the intelligence group asked to spy on a foreigner and his nine Canadian comrades.

The Canadian Wiretapping Communications Security Establishment remains restricted from setting up any type of electronic ‘eavesdropping’ among Canadians.  This restriction results into situations that are not closely watched by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (or the CSIS) and the National Cryptologic Agency.  The CSIS is adamant in asking for a warrant for a telecommunications intercept and also an explanation from the Federal Court why their request remains denied.  Until now, the suspects remain unrevealed and any information regarding them remains vague. 

Looking at this issue, it is very hard to determine who is right and who is wrong.  Both the intelligence people and the Federal Court have their own points.  The Federal Court’s refusal to give out a warrant establishes the privacy of every Canadian citizen.  The intelligence community, on the other hand, has its own point, too.  With a warrant given to them to check on the suspects, they will be able to determine whether the suspects are a threat to national security or not. 

The 9/11 bombing in the US is believed to have happened because of the lack of surveillance.  Canada’s surveillance people should also be concerned whether the threat comes from their own people or from without.  The question should be asked: should they also look at Canadians as probable suspects, too?  When lives go to waste because of a worthless tragedy, turning a blind eye to persons of the same skin is not a justifiable act.

There have been long debates as to the two, opposing sides’ individual stand on the issue.  Which of these two could be more important?  Which of the sides exists for greater good?  Don’t guess, the discussion will just go on and on.

Re-Tweet This Post