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

321–330 of 374 posts

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

#321

Post by perfect-blue »

freediddy wrote: post #299
dleslie wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This gets at the concept of accountability for those at the top of government. This is an issue in all governments, not just in Canada. A good parallel would be the United States. The list of actions the current administration has taken which have been determined illegal is astounding, yet no one is held accountable in a way that would deter future breaches of the law.

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

#322

Post by p0w3n3d »

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”.

the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...

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

#323

Post by dleslie »

freediddy wrote: post #299
dleslie wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trudeau became so desperately unpopular that he was compelled to step down.

As for legal responsibility and repercussions, that's a process that is still in motion. The law moves slowly in Canada.

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

#324

Post by timbit42 »

whatsupdog wrote: post #243
callamdelaney wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Plus with all the floor crossers recently, the elections just seem moot. You vote for a party because you believe in their agenda, and then the representative joins the other party without any repercussions.

Canadians do not elect parties. We elect Members of Parliament. This is why it is democratic for MPs to cross the floor from one party to another. It has happened over 300 times since Canada became a country.

If an MP is not free to vote in the best interests of their constituents, and rather has to vote along party lines, then the failure of democracy has already occurred. Crossing the floor, in order to act in the best interest of your constituents, is a big move that one doesn't decide on overnight.

We should be more tolerant of individual MPs not always siding with their team, without them having the fear of being removed from their caucus.

Notice how none of the floor crossings happened right after the election. They took time, they saw how government was working, and they took action based on their experience.

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

#325

Post by dleslie »

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…

(1) we have reasonable limits on all our rights, thanks to Section 1; this is rooted in our history of Toryism and ensures that the rights of the individual are balanced against the well-being of society. This is contrasted against how the USA puts the rights of the individual before the well-being of society, no matter what the consequences are and have been.

(2) Again, we balance the well-being of society against individual rights. In this case, defending collective bargaining is a reasonable action when considering that there is _plenty_ of other opportunities for work. Don't like unions, don't join one and find work elsewhere.

(3) Per the court ruling, Canada does not have a guarantee of internal _unlimited_ free trade; it only prohibits tariffs on internal trade. Whether or not that is a good thing is hotly debated, and a matter of current policy.

> Our entire legal system doesn't sit on anything fundamental it's all just vibes and arbitrary whims of the justices of the day.

It's Common Law, not Civil; and so it's based on layers of legislation and court proceedings.

In practice, we have plenty of strong protections for our rights, but those protections break down when our behaviour becomes harmful to broader society. Whether or not you think that's a good thing probably indicates where you are on the line between classical liberalism and toryism.

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

#326

Post by carlosjobim »

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.

Now swap the union for any church of your (dis)liking.

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

#327

Post by j45 »

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…

Would the legislation become worse if any "redeeming" quotes were simply removed in the future?

The thing about laws is they can be made, and changed.

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

#328

Post by gzread »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #322
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”.

the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...

Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?

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

#329

Post by butILoveLife »

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?

Epistein files were released, trump tariffs overturned...

Pretty decent all things considered

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

#330

Post by danlivingston »

gzread wrote: post #328
p0w3n3d wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...

Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?

It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.
Post reply on HN