Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

ourcommons.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#41

Post by EmbarrassedHelp »

alephnerd wrote: post #5
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

There is not enough noise about this bill. It's horrific. If you're Canadian, call your MP and raise a stink. The Liberals need to be shown quite explicitly by people in our profession how this will harm our industry, in addition to harming the privacy rights of our citizens; and it seems like conservatives are not planning on opposing this bill (just want it split in half) and the NDP is the only party raising real…

[flagged]

That is a lie. None of those countries other than maybe China have laws requiring encryption backdoors.

Suspicionless bulk metadata retention is also illegal in the EU, and no such law existing in many of those other democracies you listed.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#42

Post by EmbarrassedHelp »

EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #39

There will be a SECU Committee meeting on C-22 later today, where the committee will be performing a clause by clause review of Bill C-22, and voting on amendments. It may be the final meeting. You can watch it live by clicking the "Watch on ParlVu" button on the meeting notice page: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/SECU/meetin... Direct link to the upcoming live ParlVu video: https://parlvu.parl.gc.c…

The Liberal party members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) are:

* Jean-Yves Duclos: jean-yves.duclos@parl.gc.ca

* Sima Acan: sima.acan@parl.gc.ca

* Marianne Dandurand: marianne.dandurand@parl.gc.ca

* Anthony Housefather: anthony.housefather@parl.gc.ca

* Marcus Powlowski: marcus.powlowski@parl.gc.ca

* Jacques Ramsay: jacques.ramsay@parl.gc.ca

* Amandeep Sodhi: amandeep.sodhi@parl.gc.ca

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#43

Post by giantg2 »

alephnerd wrote: post #20
giantg2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the Indian tech industry is really just the tech industry from other countries being outsourced to there.

Sure foreign players do play a role, yet it still has the 4th largest VC dealflow [0] in the world ($9.3B) at 2x the size of Canada's entire market which highlights a significantly larger market. And unlike Canadian startups, most Indian startups IPO domestically [1] thus building a self-sustaining capital market [0] - https://dealroom.co/guides/global [1] - https://internationalbanker.com/finance/india-is-undergoing…

I didn't realize the VC market was that strong there. A lot of the stuff I read on here had previously pointed to it being a tough startup market.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#44

Post by anamax »

alephnerd wrote: post #5
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

There is not enough noise about this bill. It's horrific. If you're Canadian, call your MP and raise a stink. The Liberals need to be shown quite explicitly by people in our profession how this will harm our industry, in addition to harming the privacy rights of our citizens; and it seems like conservatives are not planning on opposing this bill (just want it split in half) and the NDP is the only party raising real…

[flagged]

> even in the US you "cannot yet fire in a crowded theatre".

Actually, you can yell "fire" if there is a fire.

Note that the "can't yell fire" quote comes from a decision involving folks who were distributing pamphlets opposing the WWI draft. It was written by Holmes, who also wrote "three generations of idiots are enough" to justify a eugenics law, in a case that didn't involve any idiots.

Moreover, the "fire" decision was overturned by Brandenberg v Ohio.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#45

Post by __turbobrew__ »

EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #42
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #39

There will be a SECU Committee meeting on C-22 later today, where the committee will be performing a clause by clause review of Bill C-22, and voting on amendments. It may be the final meeting. You can watch it live by clicking the "Watch on ParlVu" button on the meeting notice page: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/SECU/meetin... Direct link to the upcoming live ParlVu video: https://parlvu.parl.gc.c…

The Liberal party members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) are: * Jean-Yves Duclos: jean-yves.duclos@parl.gc.ca * Sima Acan: sima.acan@parl.gc.ca * Marianne Dandurand: marianne.dandurand@parl.gc.ca * Anthony Housefather: anthony.housefather@parl.gc.ca * Marcus Powlowski: marcus.powlowski@parl.gc.ca * Jacques Ramsay: jacques.ramsay@parl.gc.ca * Amandeep Sodhi: amandeep.sodhi@parl…

3 from Ontario and 4 from Quebec. As a western Canada resident it has been real old that we have been steamrolled by the east for the past decade.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#46

Post by glitchc »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21
alephnerd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then will act surprised as Canada's tech sector finds it even harder to create any consumer facing businesses... That's not why an indigenous Canadian tech industry is non-existent. Heck, China, Israel, India, South Korea, and Taiwan all have larger tech industries than Canada and have much stricter internet speech requirements (and in Israel and Taiwan's case are much smaller than Canada population wise). Canadian…

> Canadian tech is nonexistent because every Canadian pension fund, family office, and bank prefers to invest in American equities over Canadian equities. Off-topic but I suspect it's also that oil and gas and real estate are the "easy" money in Canada and that's where investment goes. Canadian investors are risk adverse because they can be. That and there's a colonial-descended cultural bias towards credentials and…

Canada definitely has a "first buyer problem" which makes it hard to get liftoff. A great many Canadian startups end up going to the US to get funding to get around this issue.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#47

Post by stackghost »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #45
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Liberal party members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) are: * Jean-Yves Duclos: jean-yves.duclos@parl.gc.ca * Sima Acan: sima.acan@parl.gc.ca * Marianne Dandurand: marianne.dandurand@parl.gc.ca * Anthony Housefather: anthony.housefather@parl.gc.ca * Marcus Powlowski: marcus.powlowski@parl.gc.ca * Jacques Ramsay: jacques.ramsay@parl.gc.ca * Amandeep Sodhi: amandeep.sodhi@parl…

3 from Ontario and 4 from Quebec. As a western Canada resident it has been real old that we have been steamrolled by the east for the past decade.

It's the tyranny of the majority.

Ontario and Quebec together are like 65% of Canadians. I'm in BC and have made my peace with that. I would imagine people in PEI feel a similar way.

Probably people living in Hope or Quesnel also feel similar about being steamrolled by Metro Vancouver and Victoria.

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#48

Post by llm_nerd »

zuzululu wrote: post #25

what is bill c 22 in a nutshell for non canadians like me ? is this like the patriot act in usa ?

It's online and easy to read, and is a modernizing of laws around online systems. It is a deeply imperfect bill -- personally I think it is basically DOA and will not receive assent -- but a lot of the reaction to it are classic partisan hysterics (you can already see a bunch of those people throughout this discussion).

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r...

The parts that are garnering a lot of negative feedback is

1) requiring core providers (a list as yet undefined), and any others if specifically directed to, to maintain a rolling year of metadata that the government can request on a targeted individual with a warrant. This is obviously at odds with "no log" VPNs in particular. And let's be real: 99% of the industry already logs everything.

2) "the development, implementation, assessment, testing and maintenance of operational and technical capabilities, including capabilities related to extracting and organizing information that is authorized to be accessed and to providing access to such information to authorized persons;"

The #2 could potentially imply secondary decryption keys and the like, though the bill explicitly says the requirement cannot impose a systematic vulnerability, and the government has pointed to that and said they want no such thing.

So VPN providers are saying "we don't want to log", and encryption providers are saying "be much clearer in what you mean by systematic vulnerability. Define this explicitly".

Re: Petition to Withdraw Canada's Bill C-22

#49

Post by [deleted] »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #31
zuzululu wrote: post #25

what is bill c 22 in a nutshell for non canadians like me ? is this like the patriot act in usa ?

Basically the same idiocy that the British gov't has also tried to enact around making actually encrypted communication impossible, and giving them the rights to access metadata on the public's communications without warrant, etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN