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

Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#101

Post by charlesbarbier »

nothinkjustai wrote: post #99
charlesbarbier wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that the legislators are completely ignorant of the technical implication of weakening the entire chain and the media are just as ignorant. It's actually quite defensible from their perspective. They justify it with reason they decided wire tapping was reasonable for the past decades. It's just that they don't understand the risk and implication.

Yes that’s part of it. “Think of the children” is an effective strategy. You’d just expect the media to do the bare minimum of investigative reporting, especially when the CBC has an entire show dedicated to this kind of thing. But they’d rather show how Lays is shrinking the amount of chips in a bag or whatever.

It's sad because they can do good investigative journalism. They took the lead in the Panama Papers case, the hockey canada and Miller sex scandals, recent Indian and Chinese interference, and many more.

The problem might be that this doesn't even need investigation. It's too boring. Everything is said in the bill. They just lack technical literacy to realize the implication.

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#102

Post by [deleted] »

EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #30

Both the mandatory data retention and encryption backdoor requirements will cause encrypted messaging services like Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Matrix, and others to block both Canadians and Canadian businesses from their services. If you live in Canada or are impacted by this legislation, then you need to tell both your MP and the Minister of Public Safety of Canada to reject this legislation. --- The Canadian Civil…

[deleted]

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#103

Post by denkmoon »

black6 wrote: post #26
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #21

Just keep bringing legislation back eventually it gets through.

The legislative process has a check valve. Vote on it until passes, then it can't be undone ever.

Any new legislation can override old legislation in most countries though? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if your legislature is hostile you need to fix that, not attempt to keep the hostile legislature from passing hostile legislation.

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#104

Post by irishcoffee »

stackedinserter wrote: post #89
dyauspitr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a bill fails to pass it or none like it should be brought up for 5 years. The republicans would bring up a bill for everything they don’t like and ceremonially vote it down which would make it inaccessible to the next round of democratic leadership.

[flagged]

A rose by any other name… :)

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#105

Post by Nasrudith »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #21

Just keep bringing legislation back eventually it gets through.

If they don't get voted out for attempting to pass it. Unfortunately it seems fundamentally destroying ou rights is enough for that, you need to do something truly outrageous like try to raise property taxes on seniors to get that from the electorate.

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#106

Post by gremlinunderway »

Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?

>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability

The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.

>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "

So what exactly is the problem with this definition?

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#108

Post by chadgpt3 »

cgh wrote: post #59
boothby wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my hometown, we're quashing human rights to make room for the world cup! It's not a smokescreen, it's the justification. https://www.pivotlegal.org/city_of_vancouver_s_new_fifa_byla...

From your link: “Further, the enforcement of this Bylaw, like all laws enacted in our current colonial and racist legal system…” Practically no Vancouverite would read this page and take it seriously.

You must not think all the freedom they're taking away with this bylaw was important freedom, since you chose to fixate on some irrelevant piece of text.

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#109

Post by chadgpt3 »

slopinthebag wrote: post #88
HerbManic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major parties are usually just two sides of the same coin. This is a good example of it.

The bill where one party is against it and one keeps trying to ram it through over and over again, is a good example that the parties are actually the same? Pure unadulterated bothsideism. You can't even defend it, your only hope is to try and make it seem like the one party trying to do this isn't uniquely worse than the other choices.

The way it'll happen is that the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it, and then the parties switch, and the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it. You see how this pattern works? To create the impression that the parties aren't the same?

Re: Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

#110

Post by motohagiography »

I worked in privacy and security in canada for decades. We could only hold them off so long. The whole country is being demolished to be reinvented as a technocrat machine levered against human desire.

It means the solutions aren't technical, and nobody votes their way out of this. I've checked out because the demoralization campaign worked, and there is nothing to save. The outs are Alberta separation, US annexation, civil war, or MAID. There is no longer a political solution. If there were, these surveillance controls would not be necessary.

Post reply on HN