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

151–160 of 374 posts

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

#151

Post by mx7zysuj4xew »

oceanplexian wrote: post #129
godelski wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Canadian, but it seems similarly written to how laws in the US have been exploited to be used to spy on Americans. And despite not being Canadian, as an American I have a horse in this race, as the OP notes... | many of these rules appear geared toward global information sharing I see a lot of people arguing that these bounds are reasonable so I want to make an argument from a different perspective: Investiga…

> A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals. I had this view as well until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. At some point you reach a critical mass of crime that is so rampant, and the rule of law has so broken down that it’s basically Mad Max out there, and then these idealistic philosoph…

"He who gives up a little freedom for security deserves neither"

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

#152

Post by eucyclos »

r2vcap wrote: post #142

It feels like many democratic leaders are starting to think the CCP model—mass surveillance of citizens—is the right direction, with growing demands for chat control, facial verification, age verification, and more. Fxxk any politician who thinks they are above the citizens in a democracy.

I've been in mainland China for the past year and I wish western politicians would get it through their skulls that most of the ccp model's upsides come from CCTVs in public areas and a police force that prioritizes stopping street crime.

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

#153

Post by jamala1 »

gruez wrote: post #71
IAmGraydon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You can start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

"Meta is heavily lobbying for Linux age verification" is true but incomplete. So far as I can tell, in the case of them lobbying for age verification, they're trying to get ahead of public sentiment souring on them and wanting age verification and/or social media bans. Your own source admits that they're specifically pushing for bills that require verification by the OS itself, which conveniently offloads the burden…

Why don't they lobby against it altogether if the don't like being responsible?

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

#154

Post by mx7zysuj4xew »

jdlyga wrote: post #121

The endgame is clear. Mass surveillance combined with AI agents. Would almost be like having a personal government spy watching each individual person.

Yup, it makes living in stalinist Russia seem like a libertarian paradise

People don't seem to understand how incredibly oppressive society is becoming

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

#156

Post by godelski »

oceanplexian wrote: post #129
godelski wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Canadian, but it seems similarly written to how laws in the US have been exploited to be used to spy on Americans. And despite not being Canadian, as an American I have a horse in this race, as the OP notes... | many of these rules appear geared toward global information sharing I see a lot of people arguing that these bounds are reasonable so I want to make an argument from a different perspective: Investiga…

> A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals. I had this view as well until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. At some point you reach a critical mass of crime that is so rampant, and the rule of law has so broken down that it’s basically Mad Max out there, and then these idealistic philosoph…

  > until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society.
I don't think it's predicated on that. It's based on low trust of authority. Not necessarily even current authority. And low trust of authority is not equivalent to high trust in... honestly anything else.

  > You can look to parts of SE Asia or the Middle East to see some examples where that happened
These are regions known for high levels of authoritarianism, not democracy, not anarchy (I'm not advocating for anarchy btw). These regions often have both high levels of authoritarianism AND low levels of trust. Though places like China, Japan, Korea etc have high authoritarianism and high trust (China obviously much more than the other two).

  > but what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism?
It's a good question and you're right that the results aren't great. But I don't think it's as bad as the failure modes of high authoritarian countries.

High authority + low trust + abuse gives you situations like we've seen in Russia, Iran, North Korea. These are pretty bad. The people have no faith in their governments and the governments are centered around enriching a few.

High authority + high trust + abuse is probably even worse though. That's how you get countries like Nazi German (and cults). The government is still centered around enriching a few but they create more stability by narrowing the targeting. Or rather by having a clearer scale where everyone isn't abused ad equally. (You could see the famous quotes by a famous US president about keeping the white population in check by making them believe that at least they're not black)

None of the outcomes are good but I think the authoritarian ones are much worse.

  > when people don’t feel like the government is adequately protecting them.
But this is also different from what I'm talking about. You can have my framework and trust your government. If you carefully read you'll find that they are not mutually exclusive.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? That implies that the road to hell isn't paved just by evil people. It can be paved even by good well intentioned ones. Just like I suggested about when programming. We don't intend to create bugs or flaws (at least most of us don't), but they still exist. They still get created even when we're trying our hardest to not create them, right? But being aware that they happen unintentionally helps you make fewer of them, right? I'm suggesting something similar, but about governments.

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

#157

Post by like_any_other »

mhurron wrote: post #17
natas wrote: post #3

Quick summary for the impatient (the original looks like an extract from Orwell's 1984): Bill C-22 (Canada, 2026) updates laws to give police and security agencies faster and clearer access to digital data during investigations. It expands authorities to obtain subscriber information, transmission data, and tracking data from telecom and online service providers and from foreign companies. The bill also creates a fra…

You missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important. The push by the government here is because Canada is the only one of the Five-Eyes countries that doesn't have these powers, and for the government that's a bad thing.

> You missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important.

Less than you would hope: https://web.archive.org/web/20140718122350/https://www.popeh...

Notably, a single secret warrant authorized the surveillance of everyone on the Verizon network:

That warrant orders Verizon Business Network Services to provide a daily feed to the NSA containing "telephony metadata" – comprehensive call detail records, including location data – about all calls in its system, including those that occur "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

I know those are about the US and this law is Canada, but the same things can happen.

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

#158

Post by 1123581321 »

Incipient wrote: post #117
1123581321 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence my second paragraph. “Don’t worry, we have a warrant” leaves the public vulnerable to misconduct, actions that potentially cannot be reversed or sufficiently compensated.

Wouldn't having a warrant, with the purpose redacted - if that's the concern, be a good balance of "proof of legitimacy" but also keeping some presumably sensitive information private?

I don't think so, no. The purpose is essential.

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

#159

Post by _heimdall »

oceanplexian wrote: post #129
godelski wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Canadian, but it seems similarly written to how laws in the US have been exploited to be used to spy on Americans. And despite not being Canadian, as an American I have a horse in this race, as the OP notes... | many of these rules appear geared toward global information sharing I see a lot of people arguing that these bounds are reasonable so I want to make an argument from a different perspective: Investiga…

> A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals. I had this view as well until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. At some point you reach a critical mass of crime that is so rampant, and the rule of law has so broken down that it’s basically Mad Max out there, and then these idealistic philosoph…

Are you of the opinion that peoples' default state is a Mad Max-like existence?

The question isn't about idealism or the realistic possibility of said idealism. The question, in my opinion, is whether we can only succeed as a species if a small number of people are entrusted with creating and enforcing laws by force when necessary.

That isn't to say we never need some level of hierarchy or that laws, social norms, etc aren't important. Its to say that we need to keep a tight reign on it and only push authority and enforcement up the ladder when absolutely necessary.

It will end poorly if we continue down the road of larger and larger governments under the fear of Mad Max, and this idea many people have that "someone has to be in charge."

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

#160

Post by throwawaysleep »

r2vcap wrote: post #142

It feels like many democratic leaders are starting to think the CCP model—mass surveillance of citizens—is the right direction, with growing demands for chat control, facial verification, age verification, and more. Fxxk any politician who thinks they are above the citizens in a democracy.

Look at what social media considers to be safe countries.

You are absolutely bombarded with messaging about how Dubai and Chinese cities are the safest places in the world. I have friends who live in each who consider North America and Europe crime ridden shitholes because theft is possible to get away with.

If society believes that crimes is utterly rampant despite it collapsing over the past few decades, there is nowhere else to go but mass surveillance to make sure that even the smallest of visible crimes are stamped out.

Post reply on HN