Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 374 posts

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#61

Post by BLKNSLVR »

halJordan wrote: post #32
shirro wrote: post #29

The 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 thei…

Letting 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.

Less 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.

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#62

Post by ebiester »

pharos92 wrote: post #52

Worth 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.

It isn't as if the non-globalist affiliations are any less interested in this kind of control. This is frankly ad-hominem.

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#64

Post by bluegatty »

emptybits wrote: post #27

Regarding 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 respe…

It's not bad. Judges are not crazy and they'll require a reason for this. It could mean 'fraying at the edges' of the law but this is not bad at all.

You can tell where things will land with this generally it's not bad.

If it were Texas or the South where the justice dept. leans a different way it could be a problem.

Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality, kind of hints of lawful, bureaucratic authoritarianism - not arbitrary or political or regime driven, but kind of an inherent orientation towards 'rules' etc. where the system can tilt wayward, but that's completely different than regime, or 'deep institutional' issues and state actors that do wild things.

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#65

Post by myHNAccount123 »

Posted 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.

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#67

Post by nxm »

rkagerer wrote: post #49

Canadian 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…

[flagged]

Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain

#70

Post by goodroot »

nxm wrote: post #67
rkagerer wrote: post #49

Canadian 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…

[flagged]

Source? Rationale?

This is - at best - ignorant hyperbole.

Post reply on HN