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

261–270 of 374 posts

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

#261

Post by FpUser »

canadian000 wrote: post #253
therealpygon wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bot? It sounds to me more like the words you’d hear from an astroturfing American who doesn’t understand anything about Canadian laws. I say that as an American familiar with only some Canadian law, but enough to at least be aware of Rights and Freedoms.

Bruh I've lived in Toronto for 30 years. Ask me more about Horseshoe Tavern and Danforth Hall.

I'm in Toronto since 92. And yes. Having Not Withstanding clause makes our Bill Of Rights a mockery. We have some rights until Feds / Provincial government decides that they do not like it. Basically it creates some friction / inconvenience for the government when they want to fuck with people but if they're in a mood than they will do it regardless. Judging by what is happening in the US lately maybe having "real" rights / constitution does not really guarantee protection either.

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

#262

Post by kvuj »

eucyclos wrote: post #191
throwawaysleep wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, if you see the reaction to Flock Safety, people object to that one as well.

Not familiar with that conversation, but is the concern that it will be used to raise ticket revenue from victimless crimes without doing much to prevent the other kind?

From what I've seen, it's simply an aversion to mass scale surveillance, even in public setting. The worry being how easy it could slide into a tool used by the state for nefarious purposes (punish political dissidents, etc).

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

#263

Post by xtiansimon »

augment_me wrote: post #195
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 believe that's it's sadly a necessity for control of the population when you have other superpowers employing this. If you are Europe, and you have democratic elections, you have an informational power asymmetry towards the states that have mass surveillance and control. You are (as we saw last year with the Romanian election that was swung to 60% in 2 weeks over TikTok) susceptible towards influence of other super…

> "control of the population"

Who is doing the controlling in this take? "The Government"? Calling for more government control when some say--at least in the US--too much government is the heart of our current political strife. Unless this argument is for corporate surveillance?

As for elections in the age of social media, why not just pass Blackout laws around the date of the election? One week not sufficient? Make it two.

But instead the answer is mass surveillance? To do what? Arrest & detain people, and let the judicial system incarcerate them for months or years while the process plays out?

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

#264

Post by Meneth »

worldsayshi wrote: post #230
augment_me wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that's it's sadly a necessity for control of the population when you have other superpowers employing this. If you are Europe, and you have democratic elections, you have an informational power asymmetry towards the states that have mass surveillance and control. You are (as we saw last year with the Romanian election that was swung to 60% in 2 weeks over TikTok) susceptible towards influence of other super…

Thank you. Haven't seen this problem framed in quite this way before. I find the point quite persuasive. But, I don't understand how this step could possibly work: > start policing on what opinions those people are allowed to have and what measures to take to them A much more effective counter to this would be to rebalance the information asymmetry by giving citizens the tools to coordinate against state sponsored in…

> A much more effective counter to this would be to rebalance the information asymmetry by giving citizens the tools to coordinate against state sponsored influence.

Which tools, specifically? I know none.

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

#266

Post by lionkor »

therealpygon wrote: post #249
emptybits wrote: post #27

Regarding 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…

Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.

This isn't about criminal organizations. One person somewhere can decide to target you, monitor you for 30 years with all the government's resources, and never need to tell you or anyone about it. I don't like that personally.

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

#267

Post by 16mb »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #239
nanobuilds wrote: post #93

If you're upset about this bill: - Call your MP (find yours at ourcommons.ca). - Back organisations that fight back (OpenMedia and CCLA have killed surveillance bills in the past - Submit written opposition. The Cannabis Act angle is interesting.. extends full computer search-and-seizure powers to cannabis enforcement.

Just don't back those organizations too publicly or too loudly if you don't want your bank account summarily frozen

Do you have a source of people’s bank being frozen for backing those orgs?

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

#268

Post by reactordev »

therealpygon wrote: post #249
emptybits wrote: post #27

Regarding 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…

Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.

What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.

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

#269

Post by reactordev »

armchairhacker wrote: post #258
therealpygon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.

Yes, but the warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time, you should alert them to discourage future crime (they may have already done more crimes during X time; besides public interest, it also forces you to cut your losses when the alternative would be to dig a deeper hole). Do these warrants have a fixed maximum duration of secrecy?

“warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time”

This is the normal thinking, normal brained, route. It’s what we should all strive towards. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs therapy. There should be a window of discovery. 30 days, 90 maybe. But if you don’t have enough to justify notification of investigation, that’s it. No more resources spent. This is how normal precincts work. If they suspect, enough times, to build a large enough case file, to connect the dots and prove you are guilty, they issue a warrant.

Normal, brained, behavior.

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

#270

Post by indiangenz »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #160
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 n…

The streets of Dubai and pretty much any where in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam etc are orders of magnitude safer than UK, US, France, and other western European countries. Crime appears to be tolerated and reporting crimes doesn't do much, and statistics are managed in western Europe. If you get an opportunity to travel to China, do see for yourself how safe the cities feel, and how advanced (and safe) the public transport systems are.
Post reply on HN