Live data from Hacker News

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

michaelgeist.ca

371–374 of 374 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Canada (greatly) defunct? Many canucks around the world that I met seem to be of this opinion, but I've never been there and only know Canadians as hard workers.

Meeting expats from any nation will hold a bias untoward the place they're from, so you're asking a poisoned well how thirsty it is.

Oh I really didn't think about this, that makes a lot of sense to be honest. But a good portion of them were also just tourists from Canada.

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

#372
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

precisely. Especially without warrant. Any blanket surveillance techniques should be banned and penalised

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be inadmissible if the court deems it to impact the fairness of the trial, no? https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

You used a conditional so I assume you also know how such a system can fail. It's not hard to figure out how that can be exploited, right? You can't rely on that conditional being executed perfectly every time, even without adversarial actors. But why ignore adversarial actors?

This is such a weird attitude. We can't rely on anything being perfectly executed every time, so why have warrants at all?

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personally, I am rarely concerned about the crime private citizens are committing relative to the crime the government routinely commits. Cumulative historical negative effects are not even close on the two. Also, the vast majority of private crime with broad effects is economically motivated, almost always by laws passed by government making some act people want to do illegal (i.e. drugs, prostitution, gambling) and the solution that is sensible legalization with a focus on making it too inexpensive to be illegally profitable in the context of ensuring product safety (yes, I am aware Canada has already utterly failed at this with marijuana). The solution to those crimes is not more government surveillance and therefore more data to assist the government in doing the crime its representatives appear to be fond of.
Post reply on HN