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

81–90 of 374 posts

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

#81

Post by lazide »

dataflow wrote: post #76
1123581321 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a huge problem. The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know something wrong is being done to them. A warrant is not just a term for judicial approval. The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work.

> The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know Er, the warrant is still there to be examined later, no? It's just not necessarily shown to the subject at the time of investigation.

How can you be sure, when no one ever knows it is there to examine it?

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

#82

Post by tamimio »

So 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!

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

#83

Post by linkregister »

dataflow wrote: post #75
SecretDreams wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But 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?

I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question.

I agree with you. However, talking about downvotes is not interesting and against guidelines.

Improperly down voted comments typically even out in the end anyway.

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

#84

Post by JohnnyLarue »

bluegatty wrote: post #64
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…

[dead]

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

#85

Post by heresie-dabord »

dang wrote: post #10
newsclues wrote: post #9

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/a-tale-of-two-bills-lawf...

Thanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.

Geist'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)"

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

#86

Post by akomtu »

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…

I think it's a preparation for wildly unpopular measures in the next ~10 years. There will be dissent, and they need a way to catch dissidents at scale.

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

#87

Post by agreetodisagree »

From 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?

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

#88

Post by godelski »

dataflow wrote: post #75
SecretDreams wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But 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?

I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question.

There were two commenters that responded 15 minutes prior to your comment. I'd suggest starting there if you want to understand. Then if you disagree with those, you can comment and actually contribute to the conversation ;)

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

#90

Post by 8note »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #37
post-it wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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…

Are 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)…

i know this is an american thing, but does it actually happen in Caanda?
Post reply on HN