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 respect of the person, on
being satisfied that doing so is justified in the circumstances.
That's a pretty big, subjective loophole to bypass civil liberties IMO.
sunir 2 hours ago [-]
Consider: you don’t give a warrant to a wiretap subject. That itself is not that big a loophole. And therefore is unlikely to provoke change.
godelski 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not Canadian, but it seems similarly written to how laws in the US have been exploited to be used to spy on Americans. And despite not being Canadian, as an American I have a horse in this race, as the OP notes...
| many of these rules appear geared toward global information sharing
I see a lot of people arguing that these bounds are reasonable so I want to make an argument from a different perspective:
Investigative work *should* be difficult.
There is a strong imbalance of power between the government and the people. My little understanding of Canadian Law suggests that Canada, like the US, was influenced by Blackstone[0]. You may have heard his ratio (or the many variations of it)
| It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
What Blackstone was arguing was about the legal variant of "failure modes" in engineering. Or you can view it as the impact of Type I (False Positive) and Type II (False Negative) errors. Most of us here are programmers so this should be natural thinking: when your program fails how do you want it to fail? Or think of it like with a locked door. Do you want the lock to fail open or closed? In a bank you probably want your safe to fail closed: the safe requires breaking into to access again. But in a public building you probably want it to fail open (so people can escape from a fire or some other emergency that is likely the reason for failure).
This frame of thinking is critical with laws too! When the law fails how do you want it to fail? So you need to think about that when evaluating this (or any other) law. When it is abused, how does it fail? Are you okay with that failure mode? How easy is it to be abused? Even if you believe your current government is unlikely to abuse it do you believe a future government might? (If you don't believe a future government might... look south...)
A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals. We generally have this philosophy because it is needed to keep a government in check. It doesn't matter if everyone involved has good intentions. We're programmers, this should be natural too! It doesn't matter if we have good intentions when designing a login page, you still have to think adversarially and about failure modes because good intentions are not enough to defend against those who wish to exploit it. Even if the number of exploiters is small the damage is usually large, right?
This framework of thinking is just as beneficial when thinking about laws as it is in the design of your programs. You can be in favor of the intent (spirit of the law), but you do have to question if the letter of the law is sufficient.
I wanted to explain this because I think it'll help facilitate these types of discussions. I think they often break down because people are interpreting from very different mental frameworks. Disagree with me if you want, but I hope making the mental framework explicit can at least improve your arguments :)
> A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals.
I had this view as well until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. At some point you reach a critical mass of crime that is so rampant, and the rule of law has so broken down that it’s basically Mad Max out there, and then these idealistic philosophies start to fall apart.
You can look to parts of SE Asia or the Middle East to see some examples where that happened, and where it was eventually reigned in with extreme measures (Usually broad and indiscriminate capital punishment).
I know your comment is about fixing failure modes in the legal system, and I’m not defending government surveillance, or the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty, but what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism? Much worse things are waiting on the other end of the spectrum when people don’t feel like the government is adequately protecting them.
godelski 50 seconds ago [-]
> until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society.
I don't think it's predicated on that. It's based on low trust of authority. Not necessarily even current authority. And low trust of authority is not equivalent to high trust in... honestly anything else.
> You can look to parts of SE Asia or the Middle East to see some examples where that happened
These are regions known for high levels of authoritarianism, not democracy, not anarchy (I'm not advocating for anarchy btw). These regions often have both high levels of authoritarianism AND low levels of trust. Though places like China, Japan, Korea etc have high authoritarianism and high trust (China obviously much more than the other two).
> but what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism?
It's a good question and you're right that the results aren't great. But I don't think it's as bad as the failure modes of high authoritarian countries.
High authority + low trust + abuse gives you situations like we've seen in Russia, Iran, North Korea. These are pretty bad.
High authority + high trust + abuse is probably even worse though. That's how you get countries like Nazi German (and cults)
None of the outcomes are good but I think the authoritarian ones are much worse.
> when people don’t feel like the government is adequately protecting them.
But this is also different from what I'm talking about. You can have my framework and trust your government. If you carefully read you'll find that they are not mutually exclusive.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? That implies that the road to hell isn't paved just by evil people. It can be paved even by good well intentioned ones. Just like I suggested about when programming. We don't intend to create bugs or flaws (at least most of us don't), but they still exist. They still get created even when we're trying our hardest to not create them, right? But being aware that they happen unintentionally helps you make fewer of them, right? I'm suggesting something similar, but about governments.
mx7zysuj4xew 16 minutes ago [-]
"He who gives up a little freedom for security deserves neither"
gotwaz 2 hours ago [-]
People are let go off all the time. Not because of the law but because who needs the work of chasing and punishing every law breaker in the land. In your own workplace,family and friend circle, count how many times you have seen some one do something dumb(forget illegal) that has caused a loss or pain to some one else. And then count how many times you have done something about it.
post-it 5 hours ago [-]
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.
0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago [-]
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) evidence to accuse you of a crime, and they can win, even if you didn't commit a crime, but it looks like you did. And now they can do it with digital information, automatically, behind the scenes, without your knowledge. (or they can take your laptop and phone and do it then)
8note 3 hours ago [-]
i know this is an american thing, but does it actually happen in Caanda?
raydev 57 minutes ago [-]
Respectfully, whether it "actually happens" is irrelevant. We want to prevent it from happening.
kwar13 3 hours ago [-]
one of those 'does it happen' vs. 'can it happen'. the latter is all that matters.
44 minutes ago [-]
SecretDreams 5 hours ago [-]
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?
freeone3000 4 hours ago [-]
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.
Maybe. Courts aren’t magic machines that do the right thing.
mnkyprskbd 4 hours ago [-]
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.
SecretDreams 3 hours ago [-]
This is a good perspective, thank you.
dataflow 4 hours ago [-]
I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question.
godelski 3 hours ago [-]
There were two commenters that responded 15 minutes prior to your comment. I'd suggest starting there if you want to understand. Then if you disagree with those, you can comment and actually contribute to the conversation ;)
linkregister 4 hours ago [-]
I agree with you. However, talking about downvotes is not interesting and against guidelines.
Improperly down voted comments typically even out in the end anyway.
1123581321 4 hours ago [-]
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.
dataflow 4 hours ago [-]
> 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.
1123581321 3 hours ago [-]
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.
Incipient 2 hours ago [-]
Wouldn't having a warrant, with the purpose redacted - if that's the concern, be a good balance of "proof of legitimacy" but also keeping some presumably sensitive information private?
lazide 4 hours ago [-]
How can you be sure, when no one ever knows it is there to examine it?
layla5alive 3 hours ago [-]
Why... would you think this is unlikely? Have... you seen videos of ICE agents claiming to have warrants when they don't?
b00ty4breakfast 5 hours ago [-]
why even allow for the possibility of misuse? what is the utility of this little addendum?
mpalmer 4 hours ago [-]
If the statute doesn't lay out exactly where exceptions can be made, it can be abused.
And everyone should be skeptical enough of government power that they mentally switch out "can" with "will".
refurb 51 minutes ago [-]
How would a wiretap work if you sent the person notice you're listening to their phone?
Clearly some criminal investigations require not notifying the suspect.
kaliqt 48 minutes ago [-]
Even so, the exceptions don't nullify the rule: find a better way to investigate, citizen rights > all else.
Countries AND the government exist for and at the pleasure of their respective citizens.
ActorNightly 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
airstrike 4 hours ago [-]
you should probably add a SPOILER alert on your most recent comment
hrimfaxi 5 hours ago [-]
> 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
ActorNightly 5 hours ago [-]
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 to control every citizen and suppress free speech", which all contributed to Trumps victories, and consequently Republicans proved that they were the ones anti free speech in the first place.
lovich 4 hours ago [-]
Yea, I like how quickly they moved to jailing people over stuff as trivial as jokes once they got in power.[1]
Why would you think Canada is fine when the government can freeze your accounts at will?
Why should Trump's actions be the measure to okay to Canada's measures against personal freedom? Trump and Canada can both take away personal freedoms and both are bad.
nucleardog 3 hours ago [-]
> Why would you think Canada is fine when the government can freeze your accounts at will?
Can we stop with this nonsense at any point?
The government can declare an emergency. Certain actions can be taken during an emergency which are outside what is typically allowed or bypass normal processes. The actions are subject to a mandatory judicial review within 60 days. The judicial review happened. The government was found to have acted out of line. It's current working its way through appeal courts.
The way you phrase this is, imo, intentionally implying "the government is ALLOWED to freeze your accounts at will". The reality is more in line with "I can murder someone at will.". Yes, yes I can. Because we don't have precogs and a pre-crime division. That doesn't mean it's allowed or accepted.
Direct your energy at this law. This is _actually_ a huge fucking problem.
diacritical 5 hours ago [-]
> 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 if we let such bills pass. One day it will be too late to do anything, as mass surveillance will be so entrenched as to not be able to form any kind of opposition or to do any kind of serious journalism without getting squished in the beginning before you even get started.
Grum9 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ActorNightly 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
blackqueeriroh 3 hours ago [-]
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.
transcriptase 5 hours ago [-]
“Canada is doing just fine”
Found the federal govt employee or boomer who bought real estate in the 90s
SecretDreams 5 hours ago [-]
Even people who bought up til like 2015 are doing well. Housing in Canada really imploded 2015-2023 or so. Before that, it was still very frothy, but low rates and high immigration and poor policy around speculation and flipping of homes really turned the whole country tits up re: housing.
brailsafe 4 hours ago [-]
What, $600k for a 1 bedroom condo on a busy arterial road doesn't seem reasonable to you!?
/s
The federal housing minister literally 2 days ago stood up in the House of Commons and associated the housing cost catastrophe with the war in Iran that's been happening for a week.
Thankfully prices on that front are slowly declining. Another $200k to go at least before they make any sense.
bluegatty 4 hours ago [-]
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 authoritarianism - not arbitrary or political or regime driven, but kind of an inherent orientation towards 'rules' etc. where the system can tilt wayward, but that's completely different than regime, or 'deep institutional' issues and state actors that do wild things.
R_D_Olivaw 3 hours ago [-]
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.
bluegatty 2 hours ago [-]
"though the "vibe" may be as you say, " it's not a vibe so much as a real characteriztion of the law in the context of the system in which it operates.
There is no such thing as a set of 'hard fast rules' like 'software' which governs us.
It's always going to depend on the quality, characteristic and legitimacy of institutions, among other things.
'The Slippery Slope' can be applied in almost anything and I don't think that it is a reasonable rhetorical posture without more context.
'Written Laws' is not going to really stop anywhere from 'becoming like Texas'
markdown 2 hours ago [-]
> Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality
If the last decade and a half has taught us anything, it's that you can't rely on the state and arms of the state to remain consistent permanently.
In the absence of a free media, as in the US where it's controlled by a handful of billionaires, the people can be manipulated to vote in a government that will run roughshod over precedent and norms.
bluegatty 2 hours ago [-]
I totally agree, but that's a question aside from the institutional authoritarianism of statist countries.
Canada and European nations are not very 'liberal' in the sense a lot of people would like - they are communitarian.
We lament Trump breaking norms ... the office of the Canadian PM is almost only bounded by norms, he has crazy amounts of power - on paper.
A Trump-like actor in Canada (maybe UK as well) could do way more damage.
I think that the quality of the judiciary is subjective but real, it can be characterized.
I don't have a problem with this law as it is written, to the extent it's used judiciously, which I generally expect in Canada - but that's only because of an understanding of the system as a whole, not as it is written.
ghssds 45 minutes ago [-]
On paper, there is no Canadian PM. The Constitution reads: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The existence of a Prime Minister and the fact executive powers are delegated to them are customary.
A Trump-like actor in Canada would do far less damage than in USA. There is no position they could held that would give them the power to do lot of damage. The Queen (nowaday King) has no power. If they tried to use it's constitutional powers as written they would be laughed out. The Governor General, who may act on behalf of the Queen would be laughed out too if they tried to take any decision. The Prime Minister seems all powerful but they are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown. When one's become POTUS, they are basically POTUS until the end of their term. The exception is impeachment which is a very complicated process that never worked. In Canada, the House of Common can simply vote the Prime Minister out. The Prime Minister is very powerful, I agree, but only as long as they behave.
bluegatty 23 minutes ago [-]
"are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown." - so this is a form of political constraint, which we can see in the US doesn't work very well if the ruling party wants to ignore concerns and acts at the behest of the Executive.
If the PM holds enough popular support and has even a narrow majority that he can effectively whip, he's almost above reproach.
Everything at the top in Canada is 'convention' even the Constitution and there's barely any real constraint at someone driving a truck through all of it.
JohnnyLarue 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
zouhair 2 minutes ago [-]
And the preparation for the arrival of the fascist governments continues.
r2vcap 43 minutes ago [-]
It feels like many democratic leaders are starting to think the CCP model—mass surveillance of citizens—is the right direction, with growing demands for chat control, facial verification, age verification, and more. Fxxk any politician who thinks they are above the citizens in a democracy.
eucyclos 14 minutes ago [-]
I've been in mainland China for the past year and I wish western politicians would get it through their skulls that most of the ccp model's upsides come from CCTVs in public areas and a police force that prioritizes stopping street crime.
hsyehbeidhh 30 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
natas 6 hours ago [-]
Quick summary for the impatient (the original looks like an extract from Orwell's 1984):
Bill C-22 (Canada, 2026) updates laws to give police and security agencies faster and clearer access to digital data during investigations. It expands authorities to obtain subscriber information, transmission data, and tracking data from telecom and online service providers and from foreign companies. The bill also creates a framework requiring electronic service providers to support access requests.
mhurron 5 hours ago [-]
You missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important.
The push by the government here is because Canada is the only one of the Five-Eyes countries that doesn't have these powers, and for the government that's a bad thing.
downrightmike 40 minutes ago [-]
That access has produced nothing for the USA, the director of the program has stated such to congress. Complete waste of time and money
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 their governments are under. We talk about the negative influence on social media and politics of countries we are not allied with often but there is an astonishing silence when it comes to the biggest player. There is a very real threat to local values and democracy.
dataflow 5 hours ago [-]
Silence? Didn't Canada's prime minister give some very loud speeches regarding the US and the changing geopolitical landscape, and start making deals in response to such?
eucyclos 24 minutes ago [-]
Carny seems like two people when talking about trade vs security/military
hedora 1 hours ago [-]
Speeches are just talk. If I understand this bill, it makes it illegal for service providers that operate in Canada to avoid gathering unnecessary metadata about end users. It also makes it illegal for them to demand a warrant when the government (or US government) asks for the data.
We don’t have to imagine what this data will be used for. If someone goes through an airport and privately spoke to a Trump critic, CBP will use that to extort or disappear them.
The goal of this bill is to let the US censor private communication overseas.
halJordan 5 hours ago [-]
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.
shirro 4 hours ago [-]
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.
BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago [-]
Less so if the US is going to try to request current (prior?) allies to assist in a war against Iran which has already been declared 'won' and was recommended against by pretty much everyone outside of current participants.
Spivak 3 hours ago [-]
I think you can justify this logic only in the case you sincerely believe that the current admin is a fluke and things will return to roughly the previous status quo on the order of a few years. And that isn't unreasonable to think, but you might also want to have a backup plan.
nanobuilds 3 hours ago [-]
If 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.
jdlyga 2 hours ago [-]
The endgame is clear. Mass surveillance combined with AI agents. Would almost be like having a personal government spy watching each individual person.
mx7zysuj4xew 9 minutes ago [-]
Yup, it makes living in stalinist Russia seem like a libertarian paradise
People don't seem to understand how incredibly oppressive society is becoming
nickvec 2 hours ago [-]
Yep. Everyone can have their own “AI FBI agent” following their every move.
briandw 5 hours ago [-]
The bill claims that it doesn’t grant any new powers. Then it goes on to explain that if you don’t collect meta data and retain it for up to a year, that you can be fined or jailed.
ArchieScrivener 32 minutes ago [-]
It is beyond time for a Representation Reconciliation. If the People do not control their destiny then tyranny reigns. There is no debate.
ojbyrne 33 minutes ago [-]
How can I not be flippant? I lived in Canada for a large part of my life (30 years-ish, 15 years ago). The bills are introduced, not passed.
pharos92 4 hours ago [-]
Worth mentioning that Canadian PM Mark Carney is the ex-head of the Bank of England and has a long list of pro-uk/globalist affiliations. Given the globalist aligned states and territories are the most on-board in progressing mass surveillance currently, it's sadly not a surprise.
ebiester 4 hours ago [-]
It isn't as if the non-globalist affiliations are any less interested in this kind of control. This is frankly ad-hominem.
rkagerer 4 hours ago [-]
Canadian 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 talk to, and when and where you interacted - not because there's any suspicion upon you, but simply to collect and preserve all the metadata they might need to find that person up to a year later - "just in case" - to question them about your conversations? Because that's more or less what's being proposed here. The only difference is it happens opaquely within the technical systems of ISP's and service providers where it isn't as apparent to the general public.
It gets even worse if you presume the information will be stored by private contractors, who will inevitably be victims of data breaches, and will be sitting on a vast new trove of records subject to civil discovery, etc.
> The SAAIA ... establishes new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities .... The bill introduces a new term – “electronic service provider” – that is presumably designed to extend beyond telecom and Internet providers by scoping in Internet platforms (Google, Meta, etc.).
As the article points out, jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada has taken a dim view of warrantless disclosure of personal information. What precisely is insufficient in regard to existing investigative powers of law enforcement and their prerogative to pursue conventional warrants? Why do they need to deputize the platforms who you've (in many people's cases) entrusted with your most personal data?
To be frank, this is the sort of network I would expect in an authoritarian country, not here. The potential for abuse is too high, the civil protections too flimsy, and the benefits purported don't even come close to outweighing the risks introduced to our maintaining a healthy, functioning democracy.
YZF 3 hours ago [-]
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.
akomtu 3 hours ago [-]
I think it's a preparation for wildly unpopular measures in the next ~10 years. There will be dissent, and they need a way to catch dissidents at scale.
nxm 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
goodroot 4 hours ago [-]
Source? Rationale?
This is - at best - ignorant hyperbole.
storus 3 hours ago [-]
Wrt politicians trying to enact privacy-destroying laws in a permanent Ralph Wiggum loop - how about creating an agent monitoring incoming proposals and immediately spamming representatives and opposition the moment anything shows up?
2 hours ago [-]
nout 38 minutes ago [-]
Never vote for the politicians that even remotely support this.
rdevilla 3 hours ago [-]
I don't actually see a problem with this bill. Law enforcement should have access to as many tools as possible to improve their solve rates. In Canada, the police can walk you to the shipping containers confirmed to contain your stolen vehicle, but do not "have the authority to open the containers." [0] I am all for expanding the authority of law enforcement if it means justice is served and people get their (for example) stolen vehicles, wallets, bank accounts, etc. back.
Everyone in opposition of this bill simply has something to hide and is afraid that perfectly lawful legislation such as this will expose their criminal activity.
Imagine people you disagree with, politically and ideologically, have come into power and they intend to abuse this new capability to harm you directly. That’s where you should want to draw the line at government restraint. Expect abuse and ill will, and you’ll see where the boundaries ought to be. Even if you agree with those in power now, expect power to shift and define potential for harm on that basis.
rdevilla 2 hours ago [-]
> Imagine people you disagree with, politically and ideologically, have come into power and they intend to abuse this new capability to harm you directly.
I don't need to imagine, it's already the case; Toronto is a neo-Stasi city. I am simply asking that these capabilities now be applied fairly, across the whole populace, and not just towards people those in power disagree with. Torontonians demonstrate they will sacrifice freedom for safety, and now should obtain neither.
Privacy and rule of law are illusions. On a national level, the invocation of the Emergencies Act to squash the trucker convoy protesters (those deplorables) was recently found "unreasonable:"
> While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy
all these governments that supposedly prided themselves on their freedoms and fair processes are somehow becoming prisons to their own citizens
layla5alive 2 hours ago [-]
Seriously, and more than that, "by the people and for the people" are increasingly becoming hollow words contrasted with the reality of daily life. Corruption is increasingly rampant, and it's "rules for thee but not for me" everywhere you look (where thee are normal citizens, and me is corporations and government).
gorgeWashington 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
kypro 54 minutes ago [-]
They don't pride themselves on those values though. Claims of democracy, tolerance, freedom, and rule of law are selectively used as justifications for whatever crap Western governments want to do. If they actually believed in these things they would act differently.
0ckpuppet 2 hours ago [-]
this just legalizes what's alrsady happening.
nout 36 minutes ago [-]
The "just" is underplaying how invidious this is.
rdevilla 1 hours ago [-]
Correct.
anonym29 2 hours ago [-]
The people proposing these kinds of infringements on civil liberties need to start being criminally tried for treason. Not just in this case, or this country, or this hemisphere.
agreetodisagree 3 hours ago [-]
From browsing through the linked text of the bill, this sounds reasonable and in line with the lawful access to records granted to the security services in other western democracies, so that they can fulfil their duties.
Without diving into hyperbole and far-fetched dystopic speculation, what exactly is the problem?
layla5alive 2 hours ago [-]
Government overreach isn't far-fetched dystopic speculation and privacy is important to freedom.
chaostheory 4 hours ago [-]
I have a feeling that a large of portion of Meta's revenue lies with helping mass surveillance efforts in the West. Is it in their financials?
myHNAccount123 4 hours ago [-]
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.
4 hours ago [-]
wartywhoa23 45 minutes ago [-]
C=3, so it's bill 322, Skull & Bones.
Just sayin'.
tamimio 4 hours ago [-]
So no need to beat around the bush like other countries and bring the kids and age of verification as a justification, just straight up mass surveillance and call it a day.. the only time the Canadian government is being efficient and direct without the bureaucratic BS is when a mass surveillance is implemented, bravo!
varispeed 3 hours ago [-]
Imagine what this could be used for when a fascist/communist/genocidal maniac gets elected and make full use of such data to single out groups of people for persecution.
Mere proposals of such a thing should be illegal and people engaged in development imprisoned and banned from holding public office.
layla5alive 2 hours ago [-]
+1, democracies really need to start establishing some serious red lines that are not to be crossed. Mass surveillance of citizens by any means (including purchasing it from corporations or obtaining it from other governments). Corporations should not have the rights of citizens, monopolies should be dismantled, and politicians should be able to be ejected and tried for crimes when they're committing them in office (qualified immunity should not only not be an excuse - but we should hold anyone working for the government to a HIGHER STANDARD, not a lower one!). As a start!
slopinthebag 1 hours ago [-]
You mean when Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of protesters? It's not even something you have to imagine, it already happened in Canada.
The ‘meta-data’ seems to be run off the mill things that telcos and isps already collect. I’m not seeing the tyranny of the police being able to ask bell if this number they have is a customer of theirs so they can ask a judge to get the list of people buddy called.
smashah 4 hours ago [-]
Why do the Epsteinists want to invade our privacy? It's like they're addicted to it. If the "State" can be so easily co-opted then it's time to consider abolishing it so we can go back to being autonomous tribes.
globalnode 4 hours ago [-]
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.
abenga 6 hours ago [-]
Is all this nonsense being pushed everywhere now because everyone's eyes are on the war?
jonny_eh 6 hours ago [-]
It’s being pushed all the time
rngfnby 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
napierzaza 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
JohnnyLarue 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
IAmGraydon 6 hours ago [-]
Is this one also the work of Meta?
shwaj 6 hours ago [-]
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?
This is more in line with GamersNexus Community Channel as far as a putting the word out. He is more into this than Linus is IMHO.
gruez 4 hours ago [-]
"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.
jamala1 12 minutes ago [-]
Why don't they lobby against it altogether if the don't like being responsible?
chaostheory 4 hours ago [-]
It's not just me thinking this. I do want more data on this though. It is in their financial statements in terms of a revenue source?
nitinreddy88 6 hours ago [-]
You forgot to add /s!
As a foreigner, It would be near impossible for one company to ask every govt in that world to make this happen (with current political weather conditions).
HN people will always find someway to connect this to their most hated companies (be it Meta, Google, Microsoft)
chalupa-supreme 5 hours ago [-]
That might be because the biggest tech companies have the most skin in the game where legislation is concerned. Money and lobbying is essential if you want the market share and the market hold that they have. Doesn’t matter their political stance towards the US anymore when they companies are willing to compromise and host data centers within any govt’s jurisidction.
jeromegv 4 hours ago [-]
Meta is definitely lobbying in Canada, I don't know why you think this is so far fetched.
Near impossible? No, meta is frequently making themselves part of conversation on various regulations in the country.
markus_zhang 5 hours ago [-]
Ah, really glad that we are keeping up with the fashion. /s
I expect we will see more and more of these things and people agreeing to them with the world plunged into more chaos.
"A Tale of Two Bills: Lawful Access Returns With Changes to Warrantless Access But Dangerous Backdoor Surveillance Risks Remain"
not
"Canada's bill C-22 mandates mass metadata surveillance of Canadians (michaelgeist.ca)"
opengrass 5 hours ago [-]
I am OK with this.
newsclues 5 hours ago [-]
Thanks he has been consistently awesome on the topic!
TutleCpt 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
emkoemko 4 hours ago [-]
"That the country's lack of a self-defense law.".... what on earth are you talking about
Marsymars 3 hours ago [-]
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.
Grum9 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cindyllm 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
throwatdem12311 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tempestn 4 hours ago [-]
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.
thinkingkong 5 hours ago [-]
By all means please expand.
This lazy comment behaviour is for reddit where you’ll be welcomed with open arms.
Grum9 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
5 hours ago [-]
8note 3 hours ago [-]
this legislation comes around with the conservatives as well.
as long as there's a minority government though, public outrage will kill the bill
Fire-Dragon-DoL 5 hours ago [-]
Canadians, Europeans and United States.
Also China, Russia.
5 hours ago [-]
Kenji 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mygooch 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gpm 4 hours ago [-]
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.
yourgooch 3 hours ago [-]
Therefore OP is literally correct
paseante 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
recursivegirth 5 hours ago [-]
The American's are none-the-wiser. We are fighting terrorist's after all, we need to ease-drop into every domestic household to make sure those "cells" aren't planning anything awful.
pram 5 hours ago [-]
This poster is an obvious LLM lol
MegaDeKay 2 hours ago [-]
Yep. em-dashes everywhere.
Rendered at 04:33:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Well, no, this is a recently inserted block of text in the bill (confirm at the link above):
That's a pretty big, subjective loophole to bypass civil liberties IMO.This frame of thinking is critical with laws too! When the law fails how do you want it to fail? So you need to think about that when evaluating this (or any other) law. When it is abused, how does it fail? Are you okay with that failure mode? How easy is it to be abused? Even if you believe your current government is unlikely to abuse it do you believe a future government might? (If you don't believe a future government might... look south...)
A lot of us strongly push against these types of measures not because we have anything to hide nor because we are on the side of the criminals. We generally have this philosophy because it is needed to keep a government in check. It doesn't matter if everyone involved has good intentions. We're programmers, this should be natural too! It doesn't matter if we have good intentions when designing a login page, you still have to think adversarially and about failure modes because good intentions are not enough to defend against those who wish to exploit it. Even if the number of exploiters is small the damage is usually large, right?
This framework of thinking is just as beneficial when thinking about laws as it is in the design of your programs. You can be in favor of the intent (spirit of the law), but you do have to question if the letter of the law is sufficient.
I wanted to explain this because I think it'll help facilitate these types of discussions. I think they often break down because people are interpreting from very different mental frameworks. Disagree with me if you want, but I hope making the mental framework explicit can at least improve your arguments :)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
I had this view as well until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. At some point you reach a critical mass of crime that is so rampant, and the rule of law has so broken down that it’s basically Mad Max out there, and then these idealistic philosophies start to fall apart.
You can look to parts of SE Asia or the Middle East to see some examples where that happened, and where it was eventually reigned in with extreme measures (Usually broad and indiscriminate capital punishment).
I know your comment is about fixing failure modes in the legal system, and I’m not defending government surveillance, or the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty, but what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism? Much worse things are waiting on the other end of the spectrum when people don’t feel like the government is adequately protecting them.
High authority + low trust + abuse gives you situations like we've seen in Russia, Iran, North Korea. These are pretty bad.
High authority + high trust + abuse is probably even worse though. That's how you get countries like Nazi German (and cults)
None of the outcomes are good but I think the authoritarian ones are much worse.
But this is also different from what I'm talking about. You can have my framework and trust your government. If you carefully read you'll find that they are not mutually exclusive.The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? That implies that the road to hell isn't paved just by evil people. It can be paved even by good well intentioned ones. Just like I suggested about when programming. We don't intend to create bugs or flaws (at least most of us don't), but they still exist. They still get created even when we're trying our hardest to not create them, right? But being aware that they happen unintentionally helps you make fewer of them, right? I'm suggesting something similar, but about governments.
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.
Improperly down voted comments typically even out in the end anyway.
The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work.
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.
And everyone should be skeptical enough of government power that they mentally switch out "can" with "will".
Clearly some criminal investigations require not notifying the suspect.
Countries AND the government exist for and at the pleasure of their respective citizens.
Where did you get that idea?
edit: it seems the comment I replied to was edited
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 to control every citizen and suppress free speech", which all contributed to Trumps victories, and consequently Republicans proved that they were the ones anti free speech in the first place.
[1]https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jailed-o...
Why should Trump's actions be the measure to okay to Canada's measures against personal freedom? Trump and Canada can both take away personal freedoms and both are bad.
Can we stop with this nonsense at any point?
The government can declare an emergency. Certain actions can be taken during an emergency which are outside what is typically allowed or bypass normal processes. The actions are subject to a mandatory judicial review within 60 days. The judicial review happened. The government was found to have acted out of line. It's current working its way through appeal courts.
The way you phrase this is, imo, intentionally implying "the government is ALLOWED to freeze your accounts at will". The reality is more in line with "I can murder someone at will.". Yes, yes I can. Because we don't have precogs and a pre-crime division. That doesn't mean it's allowed or accepted.
Direct your energy at this law. This is _actually_ a huge fucking problem.
That's not the truth. Everyone's affected and the risk will only continue to rise if we let such bills pass. One day it will be too late to do anything, as mass surveillance will be so entrenched as to not be able to form any kind of opposition or to do any kind of serious journalism without getting squished in the beginning before you even get started.
Found the federal govt employee or boomer who bought real estate in the 90s
/s
The federal housing minister literally 2 days ago stood up in the House of Commons and associated the housing cost catastrophe with the war in Iran that's been happening for a week.
Thankfully prices on that front are slowly declining. Another $200k to go at least before they make any sense.
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 authoritarianism - not arbitrary or political or regime driven, but kind of an inherent orientation towards 'rules' etc. where the system can tilt wayward, but that's completely different than regime, or 'deep institutional' issues and state actors that do wild things.
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.
There is no such thing as a set of 'hard fast rules' like 'software' which governs us.
It's always going to depend on the quality, characteristic and legitimacy of institutions, among other things.
'The Slippery Slope' can be applied in almost anything and I don't think that it is a reasonable rhetorical posture without more context.
'Written Laws' is not going to really stop anywhere from 'becoming like Texas'
If the last decade and a half has taught us anything, it's that you can't rely on the state and arms of the state to remain consistent permanently.
In the absence of a free media, as in the US where it's controlled by a handful of billionaires, the people can be manipulated to vote in a government that will run roughshod over precedent and norms.
Canada and European nations are not very 'liberal' in the sense a lot of people would like - they are communitarian.
We lament Trump breaking norms ... the office of the Canadian PM is almost only bounded by norms, he has crazy amounts of power - on paper.
A Trump-like actor in Canada (maybe UK as well) could do way more damage.
I think that the quality of the judiciary is subjective but real, it can be characterized.
I don't have a problem with this law as it is written, to the extent it's used judiciously, which I generally expect in Canada - but that's only because of an understanding of the system as a whole, not as it is written.
A Trump-like actor in Canada would do far less damage than in USA. There is no position they could held that would give them the power to do lot of damage. The Queen (nowaday King) has no power. If they tried to use it's constitutional powers as written they would be laughed out. The Governor General, who may act on behalf of the Queen would be laughed out too if they tried to take any decision. The Prime Minister seems all powerful but they are one motion from the House of Common from being overthrown. When one's become POTUS, they are basically POTUS until the end of their term. The exception is impeachment which is a very complicated process that never worked. In Canada, the House of Common can simply vote the Prime Minister out. The Prime Minister is very powerful, I agree, but only as long as they behave.
If the PM holds enough popular support and has even a narrow majority that he can effectively whip, he's almost above reproach.
Everything at the top in Canada is 'convention' even the Constitution and there's barely any real constraint at someone driving a truck through all of it.
Bill C-22 (Canada, 2026) updates laws to give police and security agencies faster and clearer access to digital data during investigations. It expands authorities to obtain subscriber information, transmission data, and tracking data from telecom and online service providers and from foreign companies. The bill also creates a framework requiring electronic service providers to support access requests.
The push by the government here is because Canada is the only one of the Five-Eyes countries that doesn't have these powers, and for the government that's a bad thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
I wish some of our leaders would be more forthcoming about the amount of foreign pressure their governments are under. We talk about the negative influence on social media and politics of countries we are not allied with often but there is an astonishing silence when it comes to the biggest player. There is a very real threat to local values and democracy.
We don’t have to imagine what this data will be used for. If someone goes through an airport and privately spoke to a Trump critic, CBP will use that to extort or disappear them.
The goal of this bill is to let the US censor private communication overseas.
- 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.
People don't seem to understand how incredibly oppressive society is becoming
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 talk to, and when and where you interacted - not because there's any suspicion upon you, but simply to collect and preserve all the metadata they might need to find that person up to a year later - "just in case" - to question them about your conversations? Because that's more or less what's being proposed here. The only difference is it happens opaquely within the technical systems of ISP's and service providers where it isn't as apparent to the general public.
It gets even worse if you presume the information will be stored by private contractors, who will inevitably be victims of data breaches, and will be sitting on a vast new trove of records subject to civil discovery, etc.
> The SAAIA ... establishes new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities .... The bill introduces a new term – “electronic service provider” – that is presumably designed to extend beyond telecom and Internet providers by scoping in Internet platforms (Google, Meta, etc.).
As the article points out, jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada has taken a dim view of warrantless disclosure of personal information. What precisely is insufficient in regard to existing investigative powers of law enforcement and their prerogative to pursue conventional warrants? Why do they need to deputize the platforms who you've (in many people's cases) entrusted with your most personal data?
To be frank, this is the sort of network I would expect in an authoritarian country, not here. The potential for abuse is too high, the civil protections too flimsy, and the benefits purported don't even come close to outweighing the risks introduced to our maintaining a healthy, functioning democracy.
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.
This is - at best - ignorant hyperbole.
Everyone in opposition of this bill simply has something to hide and is afraid that perfectly lawful legislation such as this will expose their criminal activity.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-man-finds-stolen-truc...
I don't need to imagine, it's already the case; Toronto is a neo-Stasi city. I am simply asking that these capabilities now be applied fairly, across the whole populace, and not just towards people those in power disagree with. Torontonians demonstrate they will sacrifice freedom for safety, and now should obtain neither.
Privacy and rule of law are illusions. On a national level, the invocation of the Emergencies Act to squash the trucker convoy protesters (those deplorables) was recently found "unreasonable:"
> While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-...
Without diving into hyperbole and far-fetched dystopic speculation, what exactly is the problem?
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.
Just sayin'.
Mere proposals of such a thing should be illegal and people engaged in development imprisoned and banned from holding public office.
The ‘meta-data’ seems to be run off the mill things that telcos and isps already collect. I’m not seeing the tyranny of the police being able to ask bell if this number they have is a customer of theirs so they can ask a judge to get the list of people buddy called.
https://wicks.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250909-google-meta-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...
As a foreigner, It would be near impossible for one company to ask every govt in that world to make this happen (with current political weather conditions).
HN people will always find someway to connect this to their most hated companies (be it Meta, Google, Microsoft)
Near impossible? No, meta is frequently making themselves part of conversation on various regulations in the country.
I expect we will see more and more of these things and people agreeing to them with the world plunged into more chaos.
"A Tale of Two Bills: Lawful Access Returns With Changes to Warrantless Access But Dangerous Backdoor Surveillance Risks Remain"
not
"Canada's bill C-22 mandates mass metadata surveillance of Canadians (michaelgeist.ca)"
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.
*Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.
This lazy comment behaviour is for reddit where you’ll be welcomed with open arms.
as long as there's a minority government though, public outrage will kill the bill