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

A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#21

Post by firefax »

failbuffer wrote: post #3

When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them? For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks. Wit…

>With all the libertarian millionaires and billionaires swirling around silicon valley and the venture capital space, why can't we make that happen?

Maybe because they're full of shit? (Sorry to swear, but I'm struggling for a better way to phrase this.)

I ran into a lot of open source projects that needed donations that would be considered tiny in any other nonprofit space, but despite all their talk about cipherpunk stuff, they don't seem to put their money where their mouth is.

The "lolbertarians", as I like to call them, seem to want a world where the state has a monopoly on violence and a monopoly on data -- and if you get on their radar, they're just being neutral. (Forgive me if I roll my eyes so hard my retinas nearly detach.)

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#22

Post by firefax »

Teever wrote: post #20
failbuffer wrote: post #3

When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them? For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks. Wit…

As a Canadian user of HN it's really frustrating to see a rare post about a Canadian subject be immediately dominated by a thread about American politics. Twenty words into your post and you've pivoted to the US. What mechanism or discussion can we have to encourage the users to show some restraint on this?

Do you have any thoughts on the bill?

One thing we can do is try to upvote the citizens of the country being discussed.

Or calls to action -- who does someone who's Canadian call to complain about this? (Their MP I presume?)

I'd also be curious, given you have a multiparty system and not our peculiar two party one, why you struggle so hard to get candidates from NDP elected who would probably not push such terrible legislation?

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#23

Post by Avicebron »

airstrike wrote: post #13
Iolaum wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree this is the case, I think this is a consequence of low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse. If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(

Unfortunately, both low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse exist by design. The only possible way to remedy this is to maximize your own ability to exert power, possibly by becoming massively rich, and then hope it doesn't corrupt you enough along the way such that you can still enact good in the end.

> Unfortunately, both low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse exist by design.

Absolutely. Bread and circuses isn't a new idea.

>The only possible way to remedy this is to maximize your own ability to exert power, possibly by becoming massively rich, and then hope it doesn't corrupt you enough along the way such that you can still enact good in the end.

Points for the doing good in the end. But it's a rule in hell/serve in heaven issue, if you first need to create hell with your quest for power you have failed the objective of doing good in the end.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#24

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Iolaum wrote: post #12
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…) I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the he…

While I agree this is the case, I think this is a consequence of low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse. If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(

>I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(

Entropy. Things will dissolve enough that eventually someone will make changes. It takes a long time though, this is likely a feature.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#25

Post by sunshine-o »

About "cybercrime" in general my feeling is there is a status quo between the criminals and countries. Something like we do not take down your economy and you do not go after us.

I know for a fact that even the most powerful organizations are powerless to have some relatively unsophisticated group caught and put behind bar.

The idea we would need conventions to start acting is a joke.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#26

Post by inigyou »

nostrademons wrote: post #18
failbuffer wrote: post #3

When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them? For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks. Wit…

The libertarian technologist space specifically prefers technological solutions because they don't depend upon fallible and corruptible humans implementing the laws. This is the ideological wing that gave us the PC, encryption, the Gnu project, free software, the Internet, P2P filesharing, Bittorrent, social media, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tor, Freenet, Mullvad and other VPNs, Monero, etc. When it comes to laws, libertaria…

And yet the company can afford to spend an extra $0.10 per sale on marketing, which quickly drives the free option to the fringes because marketing drives almost all purchasing decisions.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#27

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Cider9986 wrote: post #8
failbuffer wrote: post #3

When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them? For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks. Wit…

Thomas Massie introduced the best privacy bill I have seen. I know nothing about political strategy but i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor. Will it even get voted on if the house speaker doesn't want it? https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ >Warrant required Government must go before a judge to access your metadata, location, or financial records — just like searching your home. >No Da…

>i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor

Why? Where is any equivalent measures coming from the US left?

It is because that’s how people identify as Democrats want them to behave? There seems to be a rift there.

Post reply on HN