In the great 1997 movie, Good Will Hunting, the main character, Will Hunting (Matt Damon) – the self-taught super-mathematician – ends up in an interview for the National Security Agency (NSA). At one point, the director says to him “the way I see it, the questions isn’t why should you work for the NSA. The question is why shouldn’t you?” Will’s answer to this question, a moving monologue, does not concern us in this piece. It is the question, or rather asking the question, that we shall dwell upon.
On January 30 Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced Bill C-51: the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act. The Act is introduced as a reaction to the shooting of a military officer in Ottawa last fall and is intended to safeguard Canada from such attacks. The Act amends the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to prevent “home-grown terror attacks.”
Like any legislation meant to “increase national security” Bill C-51 is a blatant attack on civil liberties in Canada. A few changes that the Act makes: security officials will be allowed to gather and share information about passport holders in Canada; sharing a video of a terrorist attack online could be a criminal offence; anyone deemed to be a threat to national security will be prohibited from boarding a plane; the bill also makes it easier for security officials to detain anyone suspected of terrorism without charging them. The bill also does not include any sort of parliamentary oversight so there is no attempt to ensure that these powers are not abused.
But perhaps the most troubling aspects of Bill C-51 are the powers it provides to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). While CSIS is considered an intelligence gathering organization the new bill gives CSIS the freedom to take a variety of actions against an individual they perceive to be a threat to national security. And the definition of threat to national security does not simply include “terrorism” but also anyone who is perceived to be a threat to the economic stability of Canada, critical infrastructure, or a perceived threat to other states. Considering that the bill is being proposed by a government which has previously referred to environmental activists as “foreign radicals” one can imagine the various interpretations of “threat to national security” that can be made under this broad definition. Bill C-51 effectively transforms CSIS from an intelligence gathering agency to another police force, which is extremely troubling when one considers the individual about whom CSIS has been gathering information – which includes students.
There are two types of experiences with CSIS that a UW student may have had. On their FAQ page, CSIS acknowledges that they recruit students to spy on their colleagues on campus is a tactic. And while details on this type of spying is difficult to obtain, most sources seem to believe that despite claiming otherwise CSIS tends to target Muslim students. Without sounding hyperbolic, given the commonality of these tactics, there is no reason to believe why UW may be exempted from this type of intelligence gathering.
But if you aren’t one of those unfortunate students who has been exposed to CSIS through their attempts at intelligence gathering, you may have been exposed to them through a co-op job opportunity. CSIS, under the name of Public Safety Canada (the government department under which CSIS exists) regularly hires co-op students from UW. This means that the same agency which is recruiting students to spy on their colleagues is recruiting students to become current and future employees for them. Can we see the problem with this picture? Let’s go back to the question we posed at the start of the article “the way I see it, the questions isn’t why should you work for the NSA. The question is why shouldn’t you?”
Perhaps some of the information we’ve provided above regarding CSIS’s activities have given you some insight into this question. But perhaps you can’t see the bigger picture of why this means you shouldn’t take a great job if it’s offered to you. After all what’s one co-op in the grand scheme of things?
We think the answer is found in the definition of what an engineer is meant to do in society. Quite simply, they are meant to solve problems. So we ask you, is CSIS solving society’s problems?
It is completely understandable, though not very agreeable, that some engineers would be fine or even enthusiastic about working for employers such as CSIS. What is not acceptable, however, is engineers working for CSIS, or anyone for that matter, without asking what they do and why they do it, etc.
Some might see financial need, aspiration, or similar incentives enough for accepting any offer. It is critical to realize the distinction between being a good “engineer” and an average technician, just getting the job done. A good engineer does not sell their expertise in return for monetary compensation only. Good engineers to approach life, including their job, as an engineering problem, applying their critical thinking and engineering judgment.
In the end, we do not wish to preach about whom to work for (or not), because, if nothing else, nobody is going to listen to our sermon. But we would like to remind everybody of the distinction between good and average engineers, and those simple questions that make the difference while considering a job.
Watch that movie: Good Will Hunting.
Leave a Reply