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

311–320 of 374 posts

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

#311

Post by mikestorrent »

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.

Speaking as a Canadian: the general belief up here is that something like freedom of speech is not God-given, but is rather something we have built for ourselves using the mechanisms of civilization. I'm aware this is a long-term debate, philosophically, in America; but most folks I've talked to up here believe that rights are something we carve out of the world through our justice and policing systems, not something pre-existing that we're just recognizing.

Consider what freedom of speech means, in practice: to me, it means "you can say whatever you want, and you will retain all of your other rights, including the right to have police protection from those who would attack you for your words".

It doesn't mean "freedom from consequences" in some magical sense where people won't react to what you say or try to punch you in the face. It does mean you can engage the system to punish them for assault, though, and that you haven't given up those legal protections with your words.

I don't think it really means that you can't be fired / deplatformed over it, either. It's a relationship between you and the government, who agrees that they won't withdraw their other supports from you for your words. It also has exceptions: we've got hate speech laws here, though what most folks don't know is that you have to be posing a pretty credible threat, inciting groups to violence, etc (so you're actually still allowed to say a wide range of things that will anger others).

Now, we can imagine a stronger free speech protection - a second layer on top of the first - that says "you can say whatever you want, and your employer is forbidden from firing you over it" - but that kind of thing hasn't been created yet. I'd support it, personally, but I can see why it's a contentious concept.

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

#312

Post by SunshineTheCat »

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?

I don't really think you understand how profound (and incredibly rare) it is to have enshrined into law that every citizen has the right to criticize and protest their government.

It may not always lead to major change, but you have no idea how many people are currently sitting in prison around the world for doing exactly this.

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

#313

Post by dallen33 »

joshlemer wrote: post #308
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.

It's not just the Notwithstanding clause. There's a general judicial tradition in Canada of utterly ignoring or dismissing or excusing blatant, objective violations of the constitution itself. Some examples: 1. in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v... ), where a private clinic challenged the province's ban on any private care whatsoever for p…

#2 - Not sure why you think this is a violation. You join a workplace with a union and gain all the benefits from collective bargaining, so yeah, you should pay for union dues.

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

#314

Post by sodacanner »

freediddy wrote: post #309
sodacanner wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're wrong. The Constitution is there to limit the government, not the other way around. And Americans are very willing to stand up to defend their rights. Regardless of which way you lean politically everything we have seen in the last year in terms of political activism are people using their God-given rights as Americans.

The constitution isn't some divine sacrament that they'll respect any more than the laws being rewritten in other countries. They'll step over it all the same when the time comes.

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

#315

Post by realo »

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.

So ... does that mean that under a thin veneer of democracy the USA are actually a theocracy like Iran, but christian-affiliated?

That would explain a lot of the recent actions by your current administration.

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

#316

Post by piekvorst »

Defletter wrote: post #310
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…

Except that's not really true, is it? It may be the flavour-text of US tradition that the government is protecting your rights rather than bestowing them, but the outcome is the same. Nor is the US government particularly fastidious about protecting them: one need only ask the average person of colour whether they feel equally protected under the law. It is your Declaration of Independence that recognises inalienable…

Any president can go insane and go against the country’s principles. Nobody is perfectly safe from that. The issue with the constitution and declaration is intellectual: it takes centuries to completely override them. And when the president does go insane, you have the whole intellectual apparatus working against him. It is something, not just a nonexistent “remedy.”

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

#317

Post by joshlemer »

dallen33 wrote: post #313
joshlemer wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the Notwithstanding clause. There's a general judicial tradition in Canada of utterly ignoring or dismissing or excusing blatant, objective violations of the constitution itself. Some examples: 1. in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v... ), where a private clinic challenged the province's ban on any private care whatsoever for p…

#2 - Not sure why you think this is a violation. You join a workplace with a union and gain all the benefits from collective bargaining, so yeah, you should pay for union dues.

You say that I gain all the benefits from collective bargaining but I had no other choice. Maybe I don't even like the contract very much and would have bargained for other things than what the union negotiated for. The union claims to negotiate on my behalf but if they really respected me they would give me the ability to opt out.

Your hypothetical isn't even always the case. When unions form, usually there are employees there that don't want to subject themselves to the union, but are forced to, so they didn't "join a workplace with a union" at all.

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

#318

Post by poncho_romero »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #280
16mb wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"I'll grant that dozens were imprisoned for protesting on a Tuesday, but do you have a source proving that anybody was imprisoned for protesting on a Wednesday?"

So no?

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

#319

Post by poncho_romero »

anthonySs wrote: post #304

crazy that we as Canadians get mass surveillance before venmo, robinhood, or any number of good financial tech that the government has been safeguarding to protect the monopoly that our banks have

What is the benefit of something like Venmo over Interac e-Transfer? And everything about Robinhood seems sketchy enough that I am comfortable keeping them firmly south of the border.

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

#320

Post by Defletter »

piekvorst wrote: post #316
Defletter wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not really true, is it? It may be the flavour-text of US tradition that the government is protecting your rights rather than bestowing them, but the outcome is the same. Nor is the US government particularly fastidious about protecting them: one need only ask the average person of colour whether they feel equally protected under the law. It is your Declaration of Independence that recognises inalienable…

Any president can go insane and go against the country’s principles. Nobody is perfectly safe from that. The issue with the constitution and declaration is intellectual: it takes centuries to completely override them. And when the president does go insane, you have the whole intellectual apparatus working against him. It is something, not just a nonexistent “remedy.”

> it takes centuries to completely override them.

To completely override them? Sure, but that's an odd criterion since one of the US's biggest issues is the unequal protection of rights. I have never seen a society so rhetorically obsessed with individual rights and freedoms, and yet so submissive to authoritarianism that failure to "just comply" is enough to justify summary execution in the streets (eg: Alex Pretti and Renée Good).

Again, this post is about Canada attempting to pass a bill to facilitate mass surveillance, which "freediddy" (yikes name btw) responded to by expounding upon the loftiness of American constitutional rights, as if America is not one of the most extreme mass surveillance states. It's as if Canada's attempt to pass the bill is more offensive than the mass surveillance itself, ie, it's just virtue theatre.

Post reply on HN