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

291–300 of 374 posts

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

#291

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

mnw21cam wrote: post #255
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you familiar with parallel construction? That's what this is for. If they have a warrant and show it to you, it says what they can search and why. If they don't tell you what they're searching for and why, they can look for anything, and then construct a separate scenario which just happens to expose the thing they knew would be there from the first fishing expedition. They then use this (usually circumstantial)…

I don't see the problem with this. It's inadvisable to try to stop the police from doing whatever they want to do if they assert that they have the right to do it. You then get the lawyers involved and sort it out afterwards. Comparing the timestamp on the warrant to the time of the police action should hopefully determine whether parallel construction is taking place.

> It's inadvisable to try to stop the police from doing whatever they want to do if they assert that they have the right to do it.

The police regularly lie to and manipulate people about their rights in order to coerce them into consent. If you believe the officer is in the wrong, push back.

> You then get the lawyers involved and sort it out afterwards. Comparing the timestamp on the warrant to the time of the police action should hopefully determine whether parallel construction is taking place.

Parallel construction means they are using the opportunity to go on a fishing expedition. Dealing with it later is too late, they've already gone fishing.

This is a much bigger issue regarding the metadata of a wireless carrier. They're not issuing the warrant to you, they're issuing it to the carrier, who has a duty to reject overly broad searches. If they don't even get to see the warrant, they can't reject the search based on the merits. So now the police get to collect everyone's metadata. Who cares if we look at the warrant after? They've already got the data. Even if they "delete it" after, they already got to go fishing.

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

#292

Post by freediddy »

dleslie wrote: post #290
freediddy wrote: post #289

Canadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. Bu…

While it's true that Section 33 of the Charter can override other sections, it cannot override _all_ of them; and the Emergencies Act is roughly equivalent in effect to the USA's ability to deploy the National Guard. It allows the Federal Government to deploy our military to handle emergencies when it is apparent that Provincial and local services are unable to handle them.

No. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that.

What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.

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

#293

Post by JimmaDaRustla »

freediddy wrote: post #289

Canadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. Bu…

Ya, how's that constitution concept working out for the USA?

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

#294

Post by freediddy »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #293
freediddy wrote: post #289

Canadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. Bu…

Ya, how's that constitution concept working out for the USA?

The difference between the US and every other country in the world is that in other countries, citizens believe they are given rights by their government, whereas Americans believe their rights are God-given and protect them from their government. The distinction is very different and powerful.

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

#295

Post by himata4113 »

I believe that this is actually a good thing because when the government is infringing on the rights it is what brings resistance to life.

If you really think about it, if the government can collect the data that means some entity is ALREADY collecting that data which more often than not goes to advertisers.

Another benefit is that it creates real use-cases for things such as I2P, (god forbid) crypto currency and matrix. I know crypto can be a hot topic and lacking in terms of true decoupling from the government these days, but coins like TRX have been great at this especially in china where yuan is an extremely controlled currency. Although it seems that most of the usage is in illegal activities rather than liberty or/and activist reasons.

And lastly, if the government can't get their hands on the data neither can the hackers and state sponsored entities.

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

#296

Post by dleslie »

freediddy wrote: post #292
dleslie wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's true that Section 33 of the Charter can override other sections, it cannot override _all_ of them; and the Emergencies Act is roughly equivalent in effect to the USA's ability to deploy the National Guard. It allows the Federal Government to deploy our military to handle emergencies when it is apparent that Provincial and local services are unable to handle them.

No. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that. What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.

It really doesn't allow _any_ rights to be overridden. It's rather clear in its scope,[0] and while it's true that our justice system has taken the Government to task when it has exceeded the scope[1] it's not as though this is a regular occurrence or that those harmed by the excess are without legal recourse.

0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html

1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emerge...

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

#298

Post by therealpygon »

TheJoeMan wrote: post #285
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”.

This is an interesting perspective, because from my point of view, the criminals ceasing their illegal activity would be a "win". Whereas, the alternative is the government knowingly allowing illegal activity to continue as they build their case with the goal of a "big bust" and larger jail sentences.

If their co-conspirators were also to cease, I would agree. But if that were realistically the case, arresting a single person would stop all crime.

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

#299

Post by freediddy »

dleslie wrote: post #296
freediddy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that. What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.

It really doesn't allow _any_ rights to be overridden. It's rather clear in its scope,[0] and while it's true that our justice system has taken the Government to task when it has exceeded the scope[1] it's not as though this is a regular occurrence or that those harmed by the excess are without legal recourse. 0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html 1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/o…

How was Trudeau held accountable besides a small slap on the wrist? And regardless the Notwithstanding clause is more than enough to extinguish anything in the CoR.

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

#300

Post by sodacanner »

freediddy wrote: post #294
JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, how's that constitution concept working out for the USA?

The difference between the US and every other country in the world is that in other countries, citizens believe they are given rights by their government, whereas Americans believe their rights are God-given and protect them from their government. The distinction is very different and powerful.

The belief of 'where' your rights come from has very little impact on reality - and in reality, it's the government (those that control the police, military) that grant you any rights whatsoever. The distinction between where your rights come from doesn't matter much when the people in power are willing to trample them either way.
Post reply on HN