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

Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#11

Post by techjamie »

transcriptase wrote: post #9
petermcneeley wrote: post #8

> To combat money laundering and financing terror, there are new restrictions imposed on cash transactions over $10,000 and cash deposits by one person into someone else’s account. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/liberals-introduce-s...

Interesting how that $10,000 threshold never gets adjusted for inflation. $10,000 has been the trigger/limit for a number of financial things since the 90s.

I did a little research. The $10,000 threshold was set in 1970 in the US as part of the Bank Secrecy Act and, as far as I can tell, wasn't updated since then to reflect inflation.

According to an inflation calculator, $10,000 at the time that threshold was set is worth $82,679.12 today.

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#12

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rayiner wrote: post #3
redm wrote: post #2

These types of legal shenanigans, sadly, usually work; Politicians just keep attempting to pass the same provisions in different forms with slightly different language over a period of years until they slip, whatever it is, through.

Our countries are too big. The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on.

> The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on

Are you sure you aren’t proxying something else for size? Plenty of local politics in America, for example, is plenty despotic.

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#13

Post by JumpCrisscross »

techjamie wrote: post #11
transcriptase wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how that $10,000 threshold never gets adjusted for inflation. $10,000 has been the trigger/limit for a number of financial things since the 90s.

I did a little research. The $10,000 threshold was set in 1970 in the US as part of the Bank Secrecy Act and, as far as I can tell, wasn't updated since then to reflect inflation. According to an inflation calculator, $10,000 at the time that threshold was set is worth $82,679.12 today.

> $10,000 at the time that threshold was set is worth $82,679.12 today

Huh. A reporting requirement on $100,000 cash transactions sounds way more reasonable.

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#14

Post by pixxel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13
techjamie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a little research. The $10,000 threshold was set in 1970 in the US as part of the Bank Secrecy Act and, as far as I can tell, wasn't updated since then to reflect inflation. According to an inflation calculator, $10,000 at the time that threshold was set is worth $82,679.12 today.

> $10,000 at the time that threshold was set is worth $82,679.12 today Huh. A reporting requirement on $100,000 cash transactions sounds way more reasonable.

[dead]

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#15

Post by armchairhacker »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our countries are too big. The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on.

> The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on Are you sure you aren’t proxying something else for size? Plenty of local politics in America, for example, is plenty despotic.

I think local politics varies between incredibly moral/functional and unbelievably corrupt/incompetent, depending on location (same for startups or any other group).

Larger groups are more consistent, they all have “bureaucratic” problems. One of these problems is too much happening and not enough (moral and competent) oversight*. Hence text sneaked into government bills, funds embezzled from big companies, etc.

* Ironically as other commenters point out, this text isn’t avoiding discovery, because the bill is public and there are enough concerned citizens to provide the necessary oversight. A better example is government contracts, if they were published and voted on like bills I suspect contractors would be way better (except they’d be more political unless we solve that…)

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#17

Post by rayiner »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our countries are too big. The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on.

> The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on Are you sure you aren’t proxying something else for size? Plenty of local politics in America, for example, is plenty despotic.

I’d say size is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. The county Annapolis sits in has about half a million people, and it seems like it’s possible for the Karens to keep abreast of everything that’s going on. It helps we have a local paper.

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#18

Post by JumpCrisscross »

armchairhacker wrote: post #15
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on Are you sure you aren’t proxying something else for size? Plenty of local politics in America, for example, is plenty despotic.

I think local politics varies between incredibly moral/functional and unbelievably corrupt/incompetent, depending on location (same for startups or any other group). Larger groups are more consistent, they all have “bureaucratic” problems. One of these problems is too much happening and not enough (moral and competent) oversight*. Hence text sneaked into government bills, funds embezzled from big companies, etc. * Ir…

> government contracts, if they were published and voted on like bills I suspect contractors would be way better

I'd guess the opposite. As evidence I present CEO pay, which went up with more transparency.

I like the idea of making public contracts searchable. But absent controls it will just lead to the partisan poisoning and context-free excerpting that characterises our low-brow political discourse.

Re: Canadian Government Buries “Lawful Access” Provisions in New Border Bill

#19

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #3
redm wrote: post #2

These types of legal shenanigans, sadly, usually work; Politicians just keep attempting to pass the same provisions in different forms with slightly different language over a period of years until they slip, whatever it is, through.

Our countries are too big. The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on.

> Our countries are too big. The only way for the public to police this stuff is with small polities like the Scandinavian countries, where there isn’t too much going on.

In armed conflict, having a large polity can pay off — big time — while having a small one can be fatal. To name just a few examples: Belgium 1914 and 1940; (the Scandanavian) Norway and Denmark 1940; Tibet 1950; Kuwait 1990; and Chechnya 1999-2000.

Post reply on HN