Is this one also the work of Meta?
You forgot to add /s! As a foreigner, It would be near impossible for one company to ask every govt in that world to make this happen (with current political weather conditions). HN people will always find someway to connect this to their most hated companies (be it Meta, Google, Microsoft)
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
171–180 of 374 posts
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how evidence works in Canada. Illegally obtained evidence is still evidence - you simply also have a tort against the officer for breaching your rights.
It would be inadmissible if the court deems it to impact the fairness of the trial, no? https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...
You used a conditional so I assume you also know how such a system can fail. It's not hard to figure out how that can be exploited, right? You can't rely on that conditional being executed perfectly every time, even without adversarial actors. But why ignore adversarial actors?
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#173Why are things getting worse and not better
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#174Regarding 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…
This makes police indistinguishable from thugs.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 author…
This and the previous post is well thought out, thank you for the clarity.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a huge problem. The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know something wrong is being done to them. A warrant is not just a term for judicial approval. The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work.
> The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know Er, the warrant is still there to be examined later, no? It's just not necessarily shown to the subject at the time of investigation.
A warrant usually isn't a free pass to search everything. They are often narrow.
The warrant is the receipt. Even if you believe it's fine most of the time I'm pretty certain most people would feel uncomfortable if they went to the grocery store and weren't offered one. You throw it away most of the time, but have you never needed it? Mistakes happen.
The stakes are a lot higher here. The cost of mistakes are higher. The incentives for abuse are higher. The cost of abuse is lower.
And what's the downside of the person being searched having the warrant? Why does it need to be secret?
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#177Earlier 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…
I think a practical argument against what you're saying here is simply that solving the mad max stuff doesn't require anything at all like this. The type of crime that's scary and impactful (e.g. terrorism is scary, but so extremely rare that it can't really be considered impactful) is generally trivial to bust.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#178It 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 n…
There is also plenty of social media and politicians telling you that because of some statistic that the knife wielding gang you yourself saw in the shopping centre in east London in fact does not exist
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#179https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/a-tale-of-two-bills-lawf...
Thanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.
Can you change the title? It's far more inflammatory than the content, and people here are reacting solely to it.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown." - so this is a form of political constraint, which we can see in the US doesn't work very well if the ruling party wants to ignore concerns and acts at the behest of the Executive. If the PM holds enough popular support and has even a narrow majority that he can effectively whip, he's almost above reproach. Everything at the top in Canada is 'convention…
Yes but that's marginal because support is entirely contingent on whether the legislative branch members believe that support won't get them voted out.
The US executive is very different because it's an independent election: it's almost impossible to get rid of a President, and relatively easy to deflect blame.
Australia's round of axing prime ministers had some essential logic to it despite the move being relatively unpopular with the electorate: it wasn't about whether the party would lose power, it was about whether replacing the prime minister would let them retain seats they faced otherwise losing.
It's a mammoth difference when the election for executive power and legislative power are linked and it shows.