[flagged]
It's a play on the two different names for the Parliament of Canada (Parlement du Canada en français) - everyone agrees how to spell the words in both English and French though.
Therefore OP is literally correct
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
91–100 of 374 posts
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#92Earlier 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. That's not the truth. Everyone's affected and the risk will only continue to rise…
[flagged]
The Prisoner’s Dilemma has been shown to have significantly limited applicability in real-world scenarios. This has been covered again and again and again.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#93If you're upset about this bill:
- Call your MP (find yours at ourcommons.ca). - Back organisations that fight back (OpenMedia and CCLA have killed surveillance bills in the past - Submit written opposition.
The Cannabis Act angle is interesting.. extends full computer search-and-seizure powers to cannabis enforcement.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#94[flagged]
this legislation comes around with the conservatives as well.
as long as there's a minority government though, public outrage will kill the bill
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#95Canadian here. I'm frustrated our governments keep trying to foist essentially the same garbage upon us that has already been rejected over and over before. Why do we need what amounts to a massive, state-level surveillance apparatus, steeped in legislated secrecy, plugged directly into the backbone of every internet provider? Would you be OK if police officers followed you around everywhere you go, recording who you…
Maybe there need to be some adjustments but we also have to acknowledge that the world has evolved and there have to be some response to that.
In the "old days" when all we had is telephone law enforcement could wiretap your phone with a warrant. As I understand it with an order from a judge your phone could be tapped or your mail could be read. You wouldn't (obviously) be served that warrant or even be aware of it. This was part of a few existing laws/acts. I.e. that's the status quo. If we were a surveillance state back then, we'll be that again.
The other difference from the "old days" is that some of the communication companies are global and not Canadian. I.e. your encrypted conversations go perhaps [to] a Meta data-center in California.
If we remove the ability of law enforcement to monitor and access evidence of criminal activity with a warrant from a judge we are increasing the ability of criminal organizations to operate and coordinate. That is the balance here.
It is true there are other important differences. E.g. the amount of information, its persistence, the ability of hackers and other actors to potentially access it. This isn't easy. But doing nothing is also not great?
I'm also Canadian and I have to admit I haven't been following the details here. It's hard to separate signal from noise and it seems everyone cries wolf all the time over everything. I will read it in more detail and try to form an opinion.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hence my second paragraph. “Don’t worry, we have a warrant” leaves the public vulnerable to misconduct, actions that potentially cannot be reversed or sufficiently compensated.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#97Earlier 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)…
i know this is an american thing, but does it actually happen in Caanda?
one of those 'does it happen' vs. 'can it happen'. the latter is all that matters.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#98Earlier 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?
The existence of a category of warrants that allows operation that is indistinguishable from warrantless searches creates a kind of legal hazard and personal risk that is hard to overlook. Police lie on the regular.
This is a good perspective, thank you.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#99[flagged]
"That the country's lack of a self-defense law.".... what on earth are you talking about
Generally speaking, if using force in self-defense, you're limited to a reasonable response.
Some people a) believe that the limit is actually "no force legally allowed" or b) are opposed to any limit on the force used.
I think that's a pretty charitable reading of their position.
Re: Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act: Dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain
#100Regarding 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…
It's not bad. Judges are not crazy and they'll require a reason for this. It could mean 'fraying at the edges' of the law but this is not bad at all. You can tell where things will land with this generally it's not bad. If it were Texas or the South where the justice dept. leans a different way it could be a problem. Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality, kind of hints of lawful, bureaucratic…
While this might be true and we'll and good (for now) isn't it still a worry and a threat that the law is written as such?
That is to say, though the "vibe" may be as you say, the law now permits, if not now, at some future instance people with different perspectives or vibes can use the law as written, to other ends.
In short, yeah it may not be Texas now, but a "Texas-like" vibe could germinate and use the laws in the books later.