13 ms·
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r...
- ArchieScrivener 7mo agoIt is beyond time for a Representation Reconciliation. If the People do not control their destiny then tyranny reigns. There is no debate.
- TutleCpt 7mo ago[flagged]
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- emkoemko 7mo ago"That the country's lack of a self-defense law.".... what on earth are you talking about
- Marsymars 7mo agoGenerally speaking, if using force in self-defense, you're limited to a reasonable response. Some people a) believe that the limit is actually "no force legally allowed" or b) are opposed to any limit on the force used. I think that's a pretty charitable reading of their position.
- Grum9 7mo ago[dead]
- cwillu 7mo agoAn excerpt from a story that takes place in the UK, which is illustrative to an american audience that frankly doesn't know much about how things work in the rest of the world. “““ […] But this is the United Kingdom, and a muggee can't straight-up kill a mugger in self-defence and simply return home to unified rapturous applause. Very large, very serious questions have to be asked, questions to which "But he was trying to kill me!" doesn't qualify as an acceptable answer. When her solicitor first explains this to her, Laura sits there in the chair unable to actually comprehend what he is telling her, incapable of even a bewildered "Huh?", let alone a full sentence of rebuttal. They are found guilty, of course: the two-and-a-half people who were left after she'd finished with them. They go away, very quickly. But there is a serious chance that she has broken the law in turn, by having been a victim of attempted murder. "No. That's not how it is. You've broken no law. That's something you're going to have to keep a firm grip on. It's just going to take a little time and effort and preparation and training to get to the point where a court of law is convinced. It's going to take some reasoning. ””” --https://qntm.org/sufficiently https://qntm.org/sufficiently [replied to you only because the comments I want to reply to are dead, but still readable, and their nonsense needs response]
- mygooch 7mo ago[flagged]
- JohnnyLarue 7mo ago[dead]
- natas 7mo agoQuick summary for the impatient (the original looks like an extract from Orwell's 1984): Bill C-22 (Canada, 2026) updates laws to give police and security agencies faster and clearer access to digital data during investigations. It expands authorities to obtain subscriber information, transmission data, and tracking data from telecom and online service providers and from foreign companies. The bill also creates a framework requiring electronic service providers to support access requests.
- ranger_danger 7mo agoSounds like a Canadian version of CALEA to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
- mhurron 7mo agoYou missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important. The push by the government here is because Canada is the only one of the Five-Eyes countries that doesn't have these powers, and for the government that's a bad thing.
- downrightmike 7mo agoThat access has produced nothing for the USA, the director of the program has stated such to congress. Complete waste of time and money
- like_any_other 7mo ago> You missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important. Less than you would hope: https://web.archive.org/web/20140718122350/https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://web.archive.org/web/20140718122350/https://www.popeh... Notably, a single secret warrant authorized the surveillance of everyone on the Verizon network: That warrant orders Verizon Business Network Services to provide a daily feed to the NSA containing "telephony metadata" – comprehensive call detail records, including location data – about all calls in its system, including those that occur "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#2013_NSA_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... I know those are about the US and this law is Canada, but the same things can happen.
- napierzaza 7mo ago[dead]
- IAmGraydon 7mo agoIs this one also the work of Meta?
- nitinreddy88 7mo agoYou forgot to add /s! As a foreigner, It would be near impossible for one company to ask every govt in that world to make this happen (with current political weather conditions). HN people will always find someway to connect this to their most hated companies (be it Meta, Google, Microsoft)
- chalupa-supreme 7mo agoThat might be because the biggest tech companies have the most skin in the game where legislation is concerned. Money and lobbying is essential if you want the market share and the market hold that they have. Doesn’t matter their political stance towards the US anymore when they companies are willing to compromise and host data centers within any govt’s jurisidction.
- jeromegv 7mo agoMeta is definitely lobbying in Canada, I don't know why you think this is so far fetched. Near impossible? No, meta is frequently making themselves part of conversation on various regulations in the country.
- morserer 7mo agohttps://tboteproject.com/ https://tboteproject.com/ https://tboteproject.com/git/hekate/attestation-findings https://tboteproject.com/git/hekate/attestation-findings https://web.archive.org/web/20260314094348/https://tboteproject.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260314094348/https://tboteproj...
- shwaj 7mo agoWhy do you say that, did Meta sponsor similar legislation in another country? It doesn't seem like they have strong incentives to push for this. How does it make them more money?
- newsclues 7mo agohttps://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/a-tale-of-two-bills-lawful-access-returns-with-changes-to-warrantless-access-but-dangerous-backdoor-surveillance-risks-remains/ https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/a-tale-of-two-bills-lawf...
- dang 7mo agoThanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.
- opengrass 7mo agoI am OK with this.
- newsclues 7mo agoThanks he has been consistently awesome on the topic!
- heresie-dabord 7mo agoGeist's headline is "A Tale of Two Bills: Lawful Access Returns With Changes to Warrantless Access But Dangerous Backdoor Surveillance Risks Remain" not "Canada's bill C-22 mandates mass metadata surveillance of Canadians (michaelgeist.ca)"
- jml7c5 7mo agoCan you change the title? It's far more inflammatory than the content, and people here are reacting solely to it.
- dang 7mo agoYes, sorry I didn't get to this when the article was on the front page. The problem is that HN's title limit is 80 chars and it's not obvious how to shorten that one. I've taken a crack at it now.
- 7mo ago
- abenga 7mo agoIs all this nonsense being pushed everywhere now because everyone's eyes are on the war?
- jonny_eh 7mo agoIt’s being pushed all the time
- throwatdem12311 7mo ago[flagged]
- Kenji 7mo ago[dead]
- thinkingkong 7mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Grum9 7mo ago[dead]
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 7mo agoCanadians, Europeans and United States. Also China, Russia.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- tempestn 7mo agoUnfortunately we don't have the luxury of voting for a political party that matches every one of our priorities. I don't support this bill; I do support some other aspects of the Liberal platform. Likewise with the other major parties. I vote for the one that best reflects my overall views.* *Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.
- 8note 7mo agothis legislation comes around with the conservatives as well. as long as there's a minority government though, public outrage will kill the bill
- briandw 7mo agoThe bill claims that it doesn’t grant any new powers. Then it goes on to explain that if you don’t collect meta data and retain it for up to a year, that you can be fined or jailed.
- markus_zhang 7mo agoAh, really glad that we are keeping up with the fashion. /s I expect we will see more and more of these things and people agreeing to them with the world plunged into more chaos.
- paseante 7mo ago[flagged]
- recursivegirth 7mo agoThe American's are none-the-wiser. We are fighting terrorist's after all, we need to ease-drop into every domestic household to make sure those "cells" aren't planning anything awful.
- pram 7mo agoThis poster is an obvious LLM lol
- MegaDeKay 7mo agoYep. em-dashes everywhere.
- emptybits 7mo agoRegarding warrantless searches and access ... reading the text of the bill (OP link) warrants seem to be required. Simple, right? Well, no, this is a recently inserted block of text in the bill (confirm at the link above): Exception (2. 7)(b) However, a copy of the warrant is not required to be given to a person under subsection (2. 6) if the judge or justice who issues the warrant sets aside the requirement in respect of the person, on being satisfied that doing so is justified in the circumstances. That's a pretty big, subjective loophole to bypass civil liberties IMO.
- post-it 7mo agoI don't really see an issue with this section. A judge still needs to issue a warrant, they can also additionally waive the requirement that the cop gives you a copy right away, in special circumstances. Like are you envisioning a "I totally have a warrant but I don't have to give it to you" type situation? I think it's fairly unlikely, and you would likely be able to get the search ruled inadmissible if a cop tried it.
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agoAre you familiar with parallel construction? That's what this is for. If they have a warrant and show it to you, it says what they can search and why. If they don't tell you what they're searching for and why, they can look for anything, and then construct a separate scenario which just happens to expose the thing they knew would be there from the first fishing expedition. They then use this (usually circumstantial) evidence to accuse you of a crime, and they can win, even if you didn't commit a crime, but it looks like you did. And now they can do it with digital information, automatically, behind the scenes, without your knowledge. (or they can take your laptop and phone and do it then)
- SecretDreams 7mo agoBut the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out?
- shirro 7mo agoThe problem for all 5 eyes (or 9 or 14) is that our co-operation dates back to the cold war and the institutions and thinking have not caught up to current geo-political and technical changes. If anything we are accelerating our co-operation at a time when many voters are seriously questioning the future of the US alliance. I wish some of our leaders would be more forthcoming about the amount of foreign pressure their governments are under. We talk about the negative influence on social media and politics of countries we are not allied with often but there is an astonishing silence when it comes to the biggest player. There is a very real threat to local values and democracy.
- halJordan 7mo agoLetting a few cold feet throw away your relationship with the US is absolutely just as stupid as Trump throwing away the US's relationship with Europe/whoever.
- BLKNSLVR 7mo agoLess so if the US is going to try to request current (prior?) allies to assist in a war against Iran which has already been declared 'won' and was recommended against by pretty much everyone outside of current participants.
- shirro 7mo agoI think it is very clear from the way all US allies have reacted to various provocations that we are taking a long term view. That is the reason we are still spying on our domestic populations for the US despite our reservations about the current executive and their actions.
- Spivak 7mo agoI think you can justify this logic only in the case you sincerely believe that the current admin is a fluke and things will return to roughly the previous status quo on the order of a few years. And that isn't unreasonable to think, but you might also want to have a backup plan.
- protocolture 7mo ago
- bethekidyouwant 7mo agohttps://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/index.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/index.html The ‘meta-data’ seems to be run off the mill things that telcos and isps already collect. I’m not seeing the tyranny of the police being able to ask bell if this number they have is a customer of theirs so they can ask a judge to get the list of people buddy called.
- rkagerer 7mo agoCanadian here. I'm frustrated our governments keep trying to foist essentially the same garbage upon us that has already been rejected over and over before. Why do we need what amounts to a massive, state-level surveillance apparatus, steeped in legislated secrecy, plugged directly into the backbone of every internet provider? Would you be OK if police officers followed you around everywhere you go, recording who you talk to, and when and where you interacted - not because there's any suspicion upon you, but simply to collect and preserve all the metadata they might need to find that person up to a year later - "just in case" - to question them about your conversations? Because that's more or less what's being proposed here. The only difference is it happens opaquely within the technical systems of ISP's and service providers where it isn't as apparent to the general public. It gets even worse if you presume the information will be stored by private contractors, who will inevitably be victims of data breaches, and will be sitting on a vast new trove of records subject to civil discovery, etc. > The SAAIA ... establishes new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities .... The bill introduces a new term – “electronic service provider” – that is presumably designed to extend beyond telecom and Internet providers by scoping in Internet platforms (Google, Meta, etc.). As the article points out, jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada has taken a dim view of warrantless disclosure of personal information. What precisely is insufficient in regard to existing investigative powers of law enforcement and their prerogative to pursue conventional warrants? Why do they need to deputize the platforms who you've (in many people's cases) entrusted with your most personal data? To be frank, this is the sort of network I would expect in an authoritarian country, not here. The potential for abuse is too high, the civil protections too flimsy, and the benefits purported don't even come close to outweighing the risks introduced to our maintaining a healthy, functioning democracy.
- chaostheory 7mo agoI have a feeling that a large of portion of Meta's revenue lies with helping mass surveillance efforts in the West. Is it in their financials?
- pharos92 7mo agoWorth mentioning that Canadian PM Mark Carney is the ex-head of the Bank of England and has a long list of pro-uk/globalist affiliations. Given the globalist aligned states and territories are the most on-board in progressing mass surveillance currently, it's sadly not a surprise.
- ebiester 7mo agoIt isn't as if the non-globalist affiliations are any less interested in this kind of control. This is frankly ad-hominem.
- myHNAccount123 7mo agoPosted for 2 hours and almost half the takes are pretty unhinged and downvoted. I'd say this is pretty disappointing that they keep pushing these kinds of mass surveillance laws "just in case". A preferable alternative is to have the hosts moderate the content they serve that is publicly available. But there are cons to that too - what content should be reported etc.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- goldylochness 7mo agoall these governments that supposedly prided themselves on their freedoms and fair processes are somehow becoming prisons to their own citizens
- layla5alive 7mo agoSeriously, and more than that, "by the people and for the people" are increasingly becoming hollow words contrasted with the reality of daily life. Corruption is increasingly rampant, and it's "rules for thee but not for me" everywhere you look (where thee are normal citizens, and me is corporations and government).
- gorgeWashington 7mo ago[dead]
- kypro 7mo agoThey don't pride themselves on those values though. Claims of democracy, tolerance, freedom, and rule of law are selectively used as justifications for whatever crap Western governments want to do. If they actually believed in these things they would act differently.
- unsupp0rted 7mo agoThey're right to do that: they filled their country with criminals and gave them citizenship. The natural next step is to make them prisons.
- smashah 7mo ago[flagged]
- cwillu 7mo ago[dead]
- globalnode 7mo agoshould have kept the internet open and free, govts and big business trying to control people is a missed opportunity for catching stupid people blabbing all their plans online. now the stupid people are going to think twice before sharing online.
- tamimio 7mo agoSo no need to beat around the bush like other countries and bring the kids and age of verification as a justification, just straight up mass surveillance and call it a day.. the only time the Canadian government is being efficient and direct without the bureaucratic BS is when a mass surveillance is implemented, bravo!
- agreetodisagree 7mo agoFrom browsing through the linked text of the bill, this sounds reasonable and in line with the lawful access to records granted to the security services in other western democracies, so that they can fulfil their duties. Without diving into hyperbole and far-fetched dystopic speculation, what exactly is the problem?
- layla5alive 7mo agoGovernment overreach isn't far-fetched dystopic speculation and privacy is important to freedom.
- bethekidyouwant 7mo agoBut did you read the bill? The meat of it is the police want to be able to ask a carrier if they have any information on you at all and the carrier has to answer a yes or no and if it’s a yes, then the police can go to a judge and ask for a warrant.. right now the carrier doesn’t have to answer at all so it’s difficult for the police to do their job at all because they have to get the judge to sign off for every carrier just to find out if that carrier even has any information.
- storus 7mo agoWrt politicians trying to enact privacy-destroying laws in a permanent Ralph Wiggum loop - how about creating an agent monitoring incoming proposals and immediately spamming representatives and opposition the moment anything shows up?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- nanobuilds 7mo agoIf you're upset about this bill: - Call your MP (find yours at ourcommons.ca). - Back organisations that fight back (OpenMedia and CCLA have killed surveillance bills in the past - Submit written opposition. The Cannabis Act angle is interesting.. extends full computer search-and-seizure powers to cannabis enforcement.
- unsupp0rted 7mo agoJust don't back those organizations too publicly or too loudly if you don't want your bank account summarily frozen
- 16mb 7mo agoDo you have a source of people’s bank being frozen for backing those orgs?
- unsupp0rted 7mo ago"I'll grant that dozens were imprisoned for protesting on a Tuesday, but do you have a source proving that anybody was imprisoned for protesting on a Wednesday?"
- poncho_romero 7mo agoSo no?
- I-M-S 7mo agoThe government has demonstrated it is perfectly willing to forcibly remove non-violent protesters and unbank anyone protest-adjacent when they don't conveniently go away. Local councillors have orchestrated firing people for voicing their opposition towards the genocide in Gaza [1]. I for one don't understand the goodwill and benefit of doubt a lot of Canadians still seem to exhibit towards the government. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-region-paramedic-politician-comment-1.7598487 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-region-paramedic...
- rdevilla 7mo agoI don't actually see a problem with this bill. Law enforcement should have access to as many tools as possible to improve their solve rates. In Canada, the police can walk you to the shipping containers confirmed to contain your stolen vehicle, but do not "have the authority to open the containers." [0] I am all for expanding the authority of law enforcement if it means justice is served and people get their (for example) stolen vehicles, wallets, bank accounts, etc. back. Everyone in opposition of this bill simply has something to hide and is afraid that perfectly lawful legislation such as this will expose their criminal activity. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-man-finds-stolen-truck-in-uae-1.7083615 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-man-finds-stolen-truc...
- rngfnby 7mo agoIn East Germany typewriters were fingerprinted so police knew exactly who to look for. Just solving crimes.
- vnchr 7mo agoImagine people you disagree with, politically and ideologically, have come into power and they intend to abuse this new capability to harm you directly. That’s where you should want to draw the line at government restraint. Expect abuse and ill will, and you’ll see where the boundaries ought to be. Even if you agree with those in power now, expect power to shift and define potential for harm on that basis.
- rdevilla 7mo ago> Imagine people you disagree with, politically and ideologically, have come into power and they intend to abuse this new capability to harm you directly. I don't need to imagine, it's already the case; Toronto is a neo-Stasi city. I am simply asking that these capabilities now be applied fairly, across the whole populace, and not just towards people those in power disagree with. Torontonians demonstrate they will sacrifice freedom for safety, and now should obtain neither. Privacy and rule of law are illusions. On a national level, the invocation of the Emergencies Act to squash the trucker convoy protesters (those deplorables) was recently found "unreasonable:" > While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-appeal-9.7046769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-...
- varispeed 7mo agoImagine what this could be used for when a fascist/communist/genocidal maniac gets elected and make full use of such data to single out groups of people for persecution. Mere proposals of such a thing should be illegal and people engaged in development imprisoned and banned from holding public office.
- layla5alive 7mo ago+1, democracies really need to start establishing some serious red lines that are not to be crossed. Mass surveillance of citizens by any means (including purchasing it from corporations or obtaining it from other governments). Corporations should not have the rights of citizens, monopolies should be dismantled, and politicians should be able to be ejected and tried for crimes when they're committing them in office (qualified immunity should not only not be an excuse - but we should hold anyone working for the government to a HIGHER STANDARD, not a lower one!). As a start!
- slopinthebag 7mo agoYou mean when Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of protesters? It's not even something you have to imagine, it already happened in Canada.
- 0ckpuppet 7mo agothis just legalizes what's alrsady happening.
- rngfnby 7mo ago[dead]
- anonym29 7mo agoThe people proposing these kinds of infringements on civil liberties need to start being criminally tried for treason. Not just in this case, or this country, or this hemisphere.
- jdlyga 7mo agoThe endgame is clear. Mass surveillance combined with AI agents. Would almost be like having a personal government spy watching each individual person.
- nickvec 7mo agoYep. Everyone can have their own “AI FBI agent” following their every move.
- HerbManic 7mo agoJust have to worry about the AI hallucinations.
- mx7zysuj4xew 7mo agoYup, it makes living in stalinist Russia seem like a libertarian paradise People don't seem to understand how incredibly oppressive society is becoming
- anal_reactor 7mo agoThey do and they like it. That's what libertarians don't get. Majority of people do support such measures.
- wartywhoa23 7mo agoC=3, so it's bill 322, Skull & Bones. Just sayin'.
- r2vcap 7mo agoIt feels like many democratic leaders are starting to think the CCP model—mass surveillance of citizens—is the right direction, with growing demands for chat control, facial verification, age verification, and more. Fxxk any politician who thinks they are above the citizens in a democracy.
- hsyehbeidhh 7mo ago[dead]
- eucyclos 7mo agoI've been in mainland China for the past year and I wish western politicians would get it through their skulls that most of the ccp model's upsides come from CCTVs in public areas and a police force that prioritizes stopping street crime.
- throwawaysleep 7mo agoEh, if you see the reaction to Flock Safety, people object to that one as well.
- eucyclos 7mo agoNot familiar with that conversation, but is the concern that it will be used to raise ticket revenue from victimless crimes without doing much to prevent the other kind?
- kvuj 7mo agoFrom what I've seen, it's simply an aversion to mass scale surveillance, even in public setting. The worry being how easy it could slide into a tool used by the state for nefarious purposes (punish political dissidents, etc).
- lesuorac 7mo agoIs there actually evidence of flock being used to stop street crime? I've never heard anything about Flock (or Shotspooter) stopping street crime. Where I am, the local speed cameras have annual documents about the street their on detailing pre-camera vehicle speeds and fatal (pedestrian) accidents and the decreases in both of them since the usage. Afaik, the concern isn't that it "could slide" its that flock _is used_ by say Texas to monitor out of state abortions. That isn't solving street crime and certainly didn't benefit the local residents.
- nout 7mo agoNever vote for the politicians that even remotely support this.
- ojbyrne 7mo agoHow can I not be flippant? I lived in Canada for a large part of my life (30 years-ish, 15 years ago). The bills are introduced, not passed.
- zouhair 7mo agoAnd the preparation for the arrival of the fascist governments continues.
- everdev 7mo agoWhy are things getting worse and not better
- velocity3230 7mo agoBecause everyone's head is stuck in their phone, doom scrolling.
- nashashmi 7mo agoPolicymakers automatically are assuming that private corporate infrastructure owned by national businesses and/or businesses operating in the country should be made as part of a surveillance apparatus. This is peak ignorance. The US cloud act makes this assumption without explicitly claiming such. And I think here lies the opportunity for challenging this in court.
- october8140 7mo agoThe future is self hosted encrypted invite only networks of trusted individuals.
- cwillu 7mo agoNobody who needs to see this will see it, unfortunately, but as a (woefully incomplete) bar: if you're an american who wasn't aware of the “not withstanding clause”, and its use, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have no business talking about this bill.
- shevy-java 7mo agoHere you think Canada would be opposing the USA - then suddenly you realise how suspiciously the laws are all the same. This here is not the age verification sniffer, of course, but it falls into a very similar problem domain. Governments increasingly have an addiction to sniff after everyone, without a reasonable suspicion. Everyone is now suspicious to a government. And private companies profit.
- _slih 7mo agothe infrastructure outlasts whoever is in office. that's the part that doesn't get repealed.
- rullelito 7mo agoIt's sad I think we need complete control of "mainstream" internet because most people just scroll TikTok and believe whatever filter bubble they are in, and will vote thereafter. The majority of people have intellectually regressed into sheep.
- concats 7mo ago[dead]
- anthk 7mo agoAfter the Epstein case these lawmaking thugs should be the ones to be put on surveillance cameras 24/7, even when they defecate; as we can see they have no problem to excrete similar stuff from their mouths with these anti-civilian laws.
- metalman 7mo agothe false premise is is that totalitairianism can be written into the fine print and then managed for the better good by corrupt political, and legal entities. As noted in the article, the SAME people are reintroducing legislation that was so blatantly unconstuitional that they withdrew it, NOT that they couldn't get it enacted, but because they would have to then have to procede with full on terror policeing to maintain there grip on power, which as we all know has proven to be unworkable in the recent tests such as in Minnisota or the continueing blowback from the truckers occupation of Ottawa, and suspension of due process, there. Here in Canada the "spring sweep" by the RCMP, deploying a moving wave of police actions is underway, and they are all hungry for more POWER. All in the service of an over riding need for subserviant labour. I know of endless cases of abuse and have seen the actual police, fucking CISIS files, myself, from back in the day when there online system was essentialy wide open, and there only real issue, is not aquiring data, but deploying it in some way that does not result in the full nightmare of killing fields and concentration camps, for which these fucking assholes dont realise, there is no middle ground, and will go ahead with monitising something along the lines of Stallin Light™, in yet one more example of tedious , hubristic nialistic turds marching forward to create the perfect society. fuck them, as "think shield" pops up on my screen,doing it's unbidden, unremovable, changes to my phone, illustrating perfectly that the government is realy concerned with bieng cut out of the institutionalisation of everything, at least for the poor.
- Canada 7mo agoThere isn't the political will to remove the organized criminals who have been running Canada for decades, since the 1960s if not longer. Most people don't see how dire the circumstances are and even if they feel the country is on the wrong path they continue to believe that voting for the other guy can fix it. Same for Australia and New Zealand. There is some hope in the British Isles. To anyone reading this who can see that simply electing this party or that party changes nothing: Take a good look at what Restore Britain is doing there, and consider supporting if you're in a position to do so. Nothing is easy, but they are drawing together more people who understand what it really means to say "no" to this system than I've ever seen organize anywhere else.
- mcintyre1994 7mo agoYou only need to look at the US to see that a government dedicated to mass deportation is more authoritarian and worse for civil liberties.
- cianmm 7mo agoReading what Restore Britain stands for just makes them seem like another set of MAGA wannabes rather than the saviours of the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Britain
- danbolt 7mo agoCan you elaborate on what you mean by “organized criminals”? I hope you’re not poisoning the well! I ask this as someone who has no love or support for the Liberals.
- foldr 7mo agoEven leaving aside the unsavory views of the party you mention, it’s quite misleading (to readers who don’t follow UK politics) to suggest that there’s any hope of it winning an election.
- dijit 7mo agoThis defeatist attitude causes the situation we’re in. Voting against someone rather than for someone is a sure-fire way to get some of the worst politicians in power as possible, they only need to be marginally less bad than the other candidate after all. Restore Britain is a populist joke btw. Greens might be my side of the fence but they’re also populist. Hard to get air time as a small party without some form of sweeping emotional appeals and “common sense” thinking, even if it’s internally inconsistent and very broad.
- mutina 7mo agoSeems the entire west is getting ready for the AI police state dystopia
- everdrive 7mo agoWe're in a very low trust and illiberal era. Everyone is convinced that the other side is evil and cannot be trusted, and they are building to laws and infrastructure to contain the perceived threat. And no one imagines that infrastructure will be used against them.
- someguyiguess 7mo ago> "Everyone is convinced that the other side is evil and cannot be trusted..." And the scary part is that they're both apparently correct.
- teekert 7mo agoI often wonder these days. When I refuse all this madness, just stick with Linux, put my kids on Linux. Use VPNs that obscure all my traffic, throw key parties (read Cory Doctorow's Little Brother from some suggestions). What are they going to do? Refuse me access? To what then? What if I find a way? What if I work around the madness? Will they fine me? Drag me to jail? I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will treat my device as part of me. You shall not pass my firewalls, you don't have my permission. I use my devices to think, my thoughts are my own.
- qkitzero 7mo ago[dead]
- benvolio 7mo agoThe bill must of course be read in its wider context. The Supreme Court of Canada cases of R v Bykovets [1] and R v Spencer [2] are essential context for interpreting these amendments. From R v Bykovets, paras 6-8: [6] I respectfully disagree. This analysis runs counter to this Court’s jurisprudence under s. 8 of the Charter. We have never approached privacy piecemeal, based on police’s stated intention to use the information they gather in only one way. The right against unreasonable search and seizure, like all Charter rights, must receive a broad and purposive interpretation, reflective of its constitutional source. Since Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, we have held that s. 8 seeks to prevent breaches of privacy, rather than to condemn or condone breaches based on the state’s ultimate use of that information. Privacy, once breached, cannot be restored. [7] To that end, our Court has applied a normative standard to reasonable expectations of privacy. We have defined s. 8 in terms of what privacy should be — in a free, democratic, and open society — balancing the individual’s right to be left alone against the community’s insistence on protection. This normative standard demands we take a broad, functional approach to the subject matter of the search and that we focus on its potential to reveal personal or biographical core information (R. v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 608, at para. 32). [8] Informational privacy is particularly critical — and particularly challenging. Our jurisprudence recognizes that computers are unique and present privacy risks that differ from s. 8’s traditional objects. Thus, this Court has determined that s. 8 generally prevents police from seizing a computer without a warrant — even though the device itself provides no information without judicial permission to search its contents — because seizing the computer gives the state the means through which to access its content (R. v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 56, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 531, at para. 34). (emphasis mine) [1] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20302/index.do https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20302/i... [2] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/index.do https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/i...
- freediddy 7mo agoCanadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. But none of that matters if Canadians just allow politicians to impose laws that strip them of their rights to avoid mass surveillance. Who needs a Charter of Rights if Canadians don't care enough about their rights to protest the government when they try to strip away their rights?
- dleslie 7mo agoWhile it's true that Section 33 of the Charter can override other sections, it cannot override _all_ of them; and the Emergencies Act is roughly equivalent in effect to the USA's ability to deploy the National Guard. It allows the Federal Government to deploy our military to handle emergencies when it is apparent that Provincial and local services are unable to handle them.
- freediddy 7mo agoNo. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that. What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.
- dleslie 7mo agoIt really doesn't allow _any_ rights to be overridden. It's rather clear in its scope,[0] and while it's true that our justice system has taken the Government to task when it has exceeded the scope[1] it's not as though this is a regular occurrence or that those harmed by the excess are without legal recourse. 0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html 1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emergencies3-urgence3/qa-qr.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emerge...
- himata4113 7mo agoI believe that this is actually a good thing because when the government is infringing on the rights it is what brings resistance to life. If you really think about it, if the government can collect the data that means some entity is ALREADY collecting that data which more often than not goes to advertisers. Another benefit is that it creates real use-cases for things such as I2P, (god forbid) crypto currency and matrix. I know crypto can be a hot topic and lacking in terms of true decoupling from the government these days, but coins like TRX have been great at this especially in china where yuan is an extremely controlled currency. Although it seems that most of the usage is in illegal activities rather than liberty or/and activist reasons. And lastly, if the government can't get their hands on the data neither can the hackers and state sponsored entities.
- thfuran 7mo agoYou’re saying that it’s a good thing that the government is infringing on people’s rights because it might motivate activists to convince them to stop doing so?
- himata4113 7mo agoIt's more accurate to say that it gives legitimacy to using things that government has limited to no control over.
- Defletter 7mo agoHave to wonder whether Jordan Peterson will incite as much of a panic about this as he did with C-16.
- anthonySs 7mo agocrazy that we as Canadians get mass surveillance before venmo, robinhood, or any number of good financial tech that the government has been safeguarding to protect the monopoly that our banks have
- poncho_romero 7mo agoWhat is the benefit of something like Venmo over Interac e-Transfer? And everything about Robinhood seems sketchy enough that I am comfortable keeping them firmly south of the border.
- poontunia 7mo ago[dead]