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

71–80 of 374 posts

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

#71

Post by gruez »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #35
shwaj wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that, did Meta sponsor similar legislation in another country? It doesn't seem like they have strong incentives to push for this. How does it make them more money?

Yes. You can start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

"Meta is heavily lobbying for Linux age verification" is true but incomplete. So far as I can tell, in the case of them lobbying for age verification, they're trying to get ahead of public sentiment souring on them and wanting age verification and/or social media bans. Your own source admits that they're specifically pushing for bills that require verification by the OS itself, which conveniently offloads the burden off of them. It also pokes a hole in the (presumed) conspiracy theory, which is that meta is lobbying for the bill so they have an excuse to collect even more info on its users. However, if the verification is done by the OS, it won't have that info.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

myHNAccount123 wrote: post #65

Posted for 2 hours and almost half the takes are pretty unhinged and downvoted. I'd say this is pretty disappointing that they keep pushing these kinds of mass surveillance laws "just in case". A preferable alternative is to have the hosts moderate the content they serve that is publicly available. But there are cons to that too - what content should be reported etc.

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by dataflow »

freeone3000 wrote: post #58
SecretDreams wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out?

That’s not how evidence works in Canada. Illegally obtained evidence is still evidence - you simply also have a tort against the officer for breaching your rights.

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...

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

#74

Post by lovich »

ActorNightly wrote: post #44
hrimfaxi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The truth is, most of the time when people complain about surveillance state or privacy, its because they just want to spout of a bunch of baseless propaganda like race realism or anti vax. Normal people aren't affected by this - nobody cares enough about politics, and most people aren't intelligent enough to form a dangerous opinion. Where did you get that idea? edit: it seems the comment I replied to was edited

Because that has literally been the history of the past 10 years. When people criticized the left, nobody was arrested, nobody got put in jail. During Obamas term, despite the fact that the Patriot act was renewed, nobody ever went to Its only when right wing people started getting deplatformed for anti vax or race realism rhetoric is when this whole idea started that "liberal governments are actually evil and want t…

Yea, I like how quickly they moved to jailing people over stuff as trivial as jokes once they got in power.[1]

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jailed-o...

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

#75

Post by dataflow »

SecretDreams wrote: post #43
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)…

But the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out?

I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question.

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

#76

Post by dataflow »

1123581321 wrote: post #56
post-it wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see an issue with this section. A judge still needs to issue a warrant, they can also additionally waive the requirement that the cop gives you a copy right away, in special circumstances. Like are you envisioning a "I totally have a warrant but I don't have to give it to you" type situation? I think it's fairly unlikely, and you would likely be able to get the search ruled inadmissible if a cop tried…

It’s a huge problem. The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know something wrong is being done to them. A warrant is not just a term for judicial approval. The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work.

> The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know

Er, the warrant is still there to be examined later, no? It's just not necessarily shown to the subject at the time of investigation.

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

#77

Post by tempestn »

throwatdem12311 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of voting for a political party that matches every one of our priorities. I don't support this bill; I do support some other aspects of the Liberal platform. Likewise with the other major parties. I vote for the one that best reflects my overall views.*

*Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.

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

#78

Post by globalnode »

should have kept the internet open and free, govts and big business trying to control people is a missed opportunity for catching stupid people blabbing all their plans online. now the stupid people are going to think twice before sharing online.

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

#79

Post by shirro »

halJordan wrote: post #32
shirro wrote: post #29

The problem for all 5 eyes (or 9 or 14) is that our co-operation dates back to the cold war and the institutions and thinking have not caught up to current geo-political and technical changes. If anything we are accelerating our co-operation at a time when many voters are seriously questioning the future of the US alliance. I wish some of our leaders would be more forthcoming about the amount of foreign pressure thei…

Letting a few cold feet throw away your relationship with the US is absolutely just as stupid as Trump throwing away the US's relationship with Europe/whoever.

I think it is very clear from the way all US allies have reacted to various provocations that we are taking a long term view. That is the reason we are still spying on our domestic populations for the US despite our reservations about the current executive and their actions.

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

#80

Post by airstrike »

ActorNightly wrote: post #36
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…

[flagged]

you should probably add a SPOILER alert on your most recent comment
Post reply on HN