this just legalizes what's alrsady happening.
Correct.
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
131–140 of 374 posts
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#132Imagine 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.
You mean when Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of protesters? It's not even something you have to imagine, it already happened in Canada.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#133The 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…
Silence? Didn't Canada's prime minister give some very loud speeches regarding the US and the changing geopolitical landscape, and start making deals in response to such?
Speeches are just talk. If I understand this bill, it makes it illegal for service providers that operate in Canada to avoid gathering unnecessary metadata about end users. It also makes it illegal for them to demand a warrant when the government (or US government) asks for the data.
We don’t have to imagine what this data will be used for. If someone goes through an airport and privately spoke to a Trump critic, CBP will use that to extort or disappear them.
The goal of this bill is to let the US censor private communication overseas.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why 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?
Yes. You can start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...
This is more in line with GamersNexus Community Channel as far as a putting the word out. He is more into this than Linus is IMHO.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Respectfully, whether it "actually happens" is irrelevant. We want to prevent it from happening.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#136all these governments that supposedly prided themselves on their freedoms and fair processes are somehow becoming prisons to their own citizens
They 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.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#137Regarding 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…
How would a wiretap work if you sent the person notice you're listening to their phone?
Clearly some criminal investigations require not notifying the suspect.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#138Regarding 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…
How would a wiretap work if you sent the person notice you're listening to their phone? Clearly some criminal investigations require not notifying the suspect.
Even so, the exceptions don't nullify the rule: find a better way to investigate, citizen rights > all else.
Countries AND the government exist for and at the pleasure of their respective citizens.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#139C=3, so it's bill 322, Skull & Bones.
Just sayin'.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality If the last decade and a half has taught us anything, it's that you can't rely on the state and arms of the state to remain consistent permanently. In the absence of a free media, as in the US where it's controlled by a handful of billionaires, the people can be manipulated to vote in a government that will run roughshod over precedent and norms.
I totally agree, but that's a question aside from the institutional authoritarianism of statist countries. Canada and European nations are not very 'liberal' in the sense a lot of people would like - they are communitarian. We lament Trump breaking norms ... the office of the Canadian PM is almost only bounded by norms, he has crazy amounts of power - on paper. A Trump-like actor in Canada (maybe UK as well) could do…
On paper, there is no Canadian PM. The Constitution reads: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The existence of a Prime Minister and the fact executive powers are delegated to them are customary.
A Trump-like actor in Canada would do far less damage than in USA. There is no position they could held that would give them the power to do lot of damage. The Queen (nowaday King) has no power. If they tried to use it's constitutional powers as written they would be laughed out. The Governor General, who may act on behalf of the Queen would be laughed out too if they tried to take any decision. The Prime Minister seems all powerful but they are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown. When one's become POTUS, they are basically POTUS until the end of their term. The exception is impeachment which is a very complicated process that never worked. In Canada, the House of Common can simply vote the Prime Minister out. The Prime Minister is very powerful, I agree, but only as long as they behave.