So when did being a free American mean more limitations on freedoms than in Canada? Years ago, President Bush, denounced to Mr. Bush if you have noticed certain news media, took our verbal freedom away. Having the power to listen in on every word through specified cell phone companies, Bush assured our safety. The problem already starts—the limitation on freedom is itself limited. Knowing which phone line would send your conversation to the government surely allows ways of getting around it. So, Bush allowed a quite un-constitutional form of “security” that has too many holes to be efficient. Bush became Big Brother just to disrespect America if it isn’t foolproof.

Last week, Bush approves a new surveillance bill. According to BBC, this bill protects the phone companies involved in this Big Brother spoof. Fine. This is actually an honorable start; guilt by association can be quite unfair, especially if it’s guilt by government coercion. This protection is that of the law, not economic or even social appeal. The bill starts out quite neutral. If anything, it begins to sound as though it’s trying to fix the past surveillance problems by protecting these associated companies. No.

“The bill also grants the US government the power to continue with the telephone surveillance scheme” to further protect American soil. Note that the article shows no evidence that it has. Because of this, the respect on civil liberties is put to the question, as already mentioned earlier. Overall, the bill allows the continuing of phone conversation surveillance and protection for involved phone companies, to an extent: “telephone companies would not be automatically immune, but courts would be obliged to dismiss a suit against a firm if it was able to produce written certification that the White House had asked it to participate in the programme and had assured the firm it was legal.”