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

141–150 of 154 posts

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

#141

Post by tardedmeme »

Bender wrote: post #135
tardedmeme wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. Most spy agencies find having to get a warrant from a judge for each target too cumbersome, so they tap into fiber cables and do unlawful intercept as well.

Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdl…

Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.

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

#143

Post by triceratops »

jrflowers wrote: post #142
triceratops wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the most confusing answer I've ever read.

How so?

Didn't think I needed to spell it out but here goes. If the police can take your things away at gunpoint, a lawyer isn't going to be much use.

(Yes I'm aware of civil forfeiture. This discussion was about places outside the US).

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

#144

Post by triceratops »

mothballed wrote: post #82
triceratops wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would your family do if someone with a gun came and took away their land or their business?

They have tried and failed against some people I'm aware of. Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable going into details of exactly how they failed, but I understand it was quite persuasive. Of course in the USA and Canada, it is illegal to defend property by force, except maybe in Texas. So you will probably just get your things taken and then pray the police help (they probably will not). In any case it's true that y…

Not gonna bother with this Gish gallop.

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

#145

Post by jrflowers »

triceratops wrote: post #143
jrflowers wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Didn't think I needed to spell it out but here goes. If the police can take your things away at gunpoint, a lawyer isn't going to be much use. (Yes I'm aware of civil forfeiture. This discussion was about places outside the US).

Where do you live that armed bandits robbing people of _land_ is an issue but municipal/police corruption is not? And also there is no legal recourse to contest having your land seized?

Obviously it can’t be Canada, where property, including land and businesses, can be seized pending forfeiture being declared by the courts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service...

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

#146

Post by triceratops »

jrflowers wrote: post #145
triceratops wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't think I needed to spell it out but here goes. If the police can take your things away at gunpoint, a lawyer isn't going to be much use. (Yes I'm aware of civil forfeiture. This discussion was about places outside the US).

Where do you live that armed bandits robbing people of _land_ is an issue but municipal/police corruption is not? And also there is no legal recourse to contest having your land seized? Obviously it can’t be Canada, where property, including land and businesses, can be seized pending forfeiture being declared by the courts. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service...

That's exactly my point.

mothballed waxed poetic about how "free" a land without government control is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48114935

I don't see that as a paradise. No matter where you live, someone will come along and take your shit by force. At least in a functioning state with rule of law there are rules about how much they can take, and you get other services in return.

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

#147

Post by motohagiography »

vkou wrote: post #132
motohagiography wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The King is the head of state, it's trivial to switch that to a US appointee. It's the highest likelihood on the list of alternatives to accepting a surveillance state. Canadians don't have the anything for a civil war, nobody who believes in anything will take MAID, Alberta secession has to go through imported "votes" and a process designed to sabotage it. If Canada had any kind of national identity it would not hav…

If you think that Canada can be described as a Chinese puppet by serious people, I'm not sure I can take any of the rest seriously. I'd suggest that you stop listening to MAGA propaganda in the particular, and anglonews in the general.

These serious people you know, do they read primary sources?

- PRC police stations in Canada: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

- Foreign interference in elections: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=comp/m...

You have no serious people.

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

#148

Post by Bender »

tardedmeme wrote: post #141
Bender wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdl…

Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.

Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.

Not when a company volunteers to perform the intercept without telling anyone. It's technically illegal and governments give the company immunity. Something is only a law to everyone if it is enforced on everyone. I did countless wiretaps in the 90's at the behest of my boss. Once in a while there would be a warrant and sometimes there wasn't. I've seen this behavior all throughout my former careers both in wireless and internet and that's even before we get into the equipment that dials out to clouds to create an ad-hoc bi-directional VPN into the data-center.

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

#149

Post by jrflowers »

triceratops wrote: post #146
jrflowers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live that armed bandits robbing people of _land_ is an issue but municipal/police corruption is not? And also there is no legal recourse to contest having your land seized? Obviously it can’t be Canada, where property, including land and businesses, can be seized pending forfeiture being declared by the courts. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service...

That's exactly my point. mothballed waxed poetic about how "free" a land without government control is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48114935 I don't see that as a paradise. No matter where you live, someone will come along and take your shit by force. At least in a functioning state with rule of law there are rules about how much they can take, and you get other services in return.

Your point is that no matter where you are somebody with guns (police/bandits) can take your land and unrelatedly in some places there are also public services?

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

#150

Post by triceratops »

jrflowers wrote: post #149
triceratops wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point. mothballed waxed poetic about how "free" a land without government control is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48114935 I don't see that as a paradise. No matter where you live, someone will come along and take your shit by force. At least in a functioning state with rule of law there are rules about how much they can take, and you get other services in return.

Your point is that no matter where you are somebody with guns (police/bandits) can take your land and unrelatedly in some places there are also public services?

Let me try one last time.

Tl;dr you either pay taxes to a legitimate state (hopefully) with rule of law. Or you don't live in a (well-)functioning state and pay criminals.

"Police take your stuff" can happen in either kind of place. In only the first kind will "call a lawyer" be helpful, and only if it was done illegally.

This whole discussion is about places with weaker government and rule of law. "Call a lawyer" won't necessarily help in such places in getting your property back from corrupt police.

Post reply on HN