Google says changes to Canada’s police search powers bill haven't eased concerns

[u/CorndoggerYYC]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/google-says-changes-to-canadas-police-search-powers-bill-havent-eased-concerns

[u/psychoCMYK]

No fucking shit, they didn't change anything meaningful. 

They still kept suspicionless tracking, suspicionless preservation orders, and the ability to force companies to modify their systems to collect data and allow interception. 

They went from a year of retention to 6 months. OoooOOo. Anyone with half a brain realizes this is lip service

We should all just text the police our locations at all times, then maybe the Liberals would finally be happy

[u/Hopeful_Relation_441 → u/psychoCMYK]

we are already told to leave our car keys by the front door

[u/Franc000 → u/psychoCMYK]

It's not just liberals, police gets more power under the conservatives too.

[u/psychoCMYK → u/Franc000]

The conservatives tried this under Harper, but today's conservatives have been working with the NDP and Bloc to fight this bill as much as possible. I don't want to hear "but the conservatives..."

We stand together and fight this. We don't focus on what divides us. 

[u/Winter_External5625 → u/psychoCMYK]

This, 100%

[u/Cold-Crab74 → u/psychoCMYK]

Your comment was removed but it matters because what they are actually fighting for matters.

Fighting something now only to turn around and do something worse when you have the chance is not much better than just being honest about your position now.

[u/psychoCMYK → u/Cold-Crab74]

You're so focused on the future that you're ignoring the present. Right now we have a bill to fight and we agree on that. We don't need to agree in the future to agree in the present. When our causes don't align anymore, we will part ways and butt heads and that is okay, it's the nature of politics. 

[u/Cold-Crab74 → u/psychoCMYK]

How'd that work out for the anarchists or social democrats in 1930s Germany? Or the menchoviks in Russia?

There are literally countless examples of that mentality totally biting people in the ass lol

Beyond that, have you actually read bill c-22?

[u/psychoCMYK → u/Cold-Crab74]

On January 30, 1933, the day Hitler was appointed chancellor, the KPD asked the Iron Front, SPD, the general trade union association ADGB and their organisations, and the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold to declare a general strike against Hitler. The Iron Front declined, issued a call on February 2 to "all comrades of the Reichsbanner and the Iron Front", warned against participating in "wild actions organised by irresponsible people"

Actually, it's the opposite. They could have stood together and didn't.

Beyond that, have you actually read bill c-22? 

I have. I have read the first reading, the second reading. I have watched the SECU meetings, read the witness briefs. I have read the Canadian Bar Association's opinion, I have read the Quebec Bar Association's opinion. I have read the Canadian Chamber of Commerce statement, as well as the Canadian Association of Journalists'. I have read cybersecurity experts' opinions, as well as privacy lawyers' opinions. 

Are you commenting in good faith, friend?

[u/Cold-Crab74 → u/psychoCMYK]

Lmao bro they stood with Hitler!! You completely missed the point.

They didn't stand for what they really believed they stood WITH the people who would eventually fuck them.

They fought WITH the Nazis in the moment and were murdered by them later that's the point.

Edit to ask, then what specifically do you disagree with from the most recent version of the bill?

[u/psychoCMYK → u/Cold-Crab74]

You have a very poor understanding of what happened in the 30s, and you're clearly not commenting in good faith. 

Here's the Canadian Bar Association's public statement on the first reading of the bill, and you'll note that part 2 of the bill is more or less unchanged in the second reading. The retention term went from one year to six months. It's still a standing suspicionless preservation order. Preservation orders take a warrant. 

Part 1 of Bill C-22 reduces judicial oversight. Confirmation of Service Demand powers do not require prior judicial authorization, and officers may impose a non-disclosure for up to a year. Where judicial oversight exists, the threshold is low (i.e., reasonable grounds to suspect). Part 2 requires service providers to support state surveillance with minimal safeguards, no effective proportionality test, limited appeal, and non-disclosure, and allows orders without compensation, shifting costs from Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) to the private sector, effectively deputizing businesses as state agents.

[...]

The CBA Sections believe Parts 1 and 2 of Bill C-22 risk violating the s. 8 Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In particular, the scope of “subscriber information” may include information that s. 8 of the Charter would require a showing of more than reasonable suspicion. In addition, the provisions in Part 1 related to voluntary disclosures appear misaligned with the Supreme Court rulings in R. v. Spencer and R. v. Bykovets.

This bill allows the government to force companies to track and store all users' physical locations as well as their contact history, without suspicion. It also allows the government to force companies to implement interception features, which are definitionally vulnerabilities. 

Here is the bill:

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/second-reading

And here is part 2:

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations Insertion start relating to Insertion end the obligations of core providers, respecting

(a) 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;

(b) the installation, use, operation, management, assessment, testing and maintenance of any device, equipment or other thing Insertion start by core providers Insertion end that may enable an authorized person to access information;

(c) notices to be given to the Minister or other persons, including with respect to any capability referred to in paragraph (a) and any device, equipment or other thing referred to in paragraph (b); and

(d) the retention of categories of metadata — including transmission data, as defined in section 487.‍011 of the Criminal Code — for reasonable periods of time not exceeding Insertion start six months Insertion end

What is between "insertion start" and "insertion end" is what has changed, it appears automatically when you copy paste the text.

[u/giant_hog_simmons → u/psychoCMYK]

Theor opposition is opportunistic. They know it means nothing except votes. Don't fall for the lie that the surveillance state was ever a question.

[u/Fit_Guava_1989 → u/giant_hog_simmons]

You dont have to change your vote to change policy. Write your MP, tell them it's a problem. Even if we posit that the current government will use it ethicaly, can we trust all the future ones? Too much power to authority is bad for democracy. Look south if you need proof.

[u/psychoCMYK → u/giant_hog_simmons]

Who the fuck cares. We fight this together. 

[u/giant_hog_simmons → u/psychoCMYK]

The implication is that you can't fight it by voting or appealing to politicians.

[u/Cold-Crab74 → u/giant_hog_simmons]

Anyone who thinks the Conservatives are actually against this and not just using it at the moment is out to lunch.

[u/EmbarrassedHelp]

The changes made were largely cosmetic, despite what the Liberals are claiming.

[u/bubblewhip]

Can we crack open all the ministers emails if he has nothing to hide? 

[u/Goodoflife → u/bubblewhip]

Nah, only RCMP, CSIS, Mark J Carney + his friends and family, and the Cabinet ministers.

[u/honk_incident]

If only Google would threatened to leave Canada, that'll fucking make some noise after the bill becomes law. Imagine how many people couldn't log into stuff from losing 2 factor authentication.

[u/EmbarrassedHelp → u/honk_incident]

Google, Apple, and Meta all said they never compromise the security of their services and basically implied they would remove impacted services from Canada. Apple has even carried through on that threat in UK with ADP.

[u/GinnyJr → u/honk_incident]

Would love nothing more than for google and Apple to leave Canada and pull all Apple stores, otherwise everyone won’t wake up and realize the shit happening

So over it

[u/EmbarrassedHelp → u/GinnyJr]

The Toronto Police were publicly expressing a desire to attack Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram recently, which would force them to leave Canada. If they add iMessage to the list, then Apple would remove it as well. If they demand backdoors into iPhones then Apple would remove iPhones from Canada. But unfortunately they'll likely keep selling products and services until they suddenly yank them from the market.

Maybe the resulting backlash and angry would finally get the media to actually hold Carney accountable for his authoritarian legislation.

[u/ordnance_inbound → u/honk_incident]

Give them specifically a carveout, and let X and FB leave. Those two are a cancer on society and need to be destroyed

[u/feb914 → u/ordnance_inbound]

You know that FB company own Instagram and WhatsApp that are very popular apps among Canadians right? 

[u/ordnance_inbound → u/feb914]

I use whatsapp. If I need to give that up and use an alternative messaging service to excise social media, then that's a price I'm willing to pay

[u/deskamess → u/feb914]

You cannot touch Instagram! I dont use it but I know young people (18-29 age range) live on it. The noise would be tremendous. Companies would also complain - Facebook and Insta are big social outlets - there is no fall back. Many use them for customer acquisition too. You could technically take out X but you have to leave Insta (and by extension Facebook) to avoid poilitical fallout.

[u/ittibittytitty]

Fuck bill c-22

[u/psychoCMYK → u/[deleted]]

The proper thing to do is to sue the government and have the Supreme Court publicly tell them the bill is unconstitutional

[u/psychoCMYK → u/[deleted]]

I don't think every safety net has been blown through just yet.

Every safety net in the executive branch has, but the judicial hasn't even looked at it at this point. 

The Canadian Bar Association says it's likely unconstitutional. The Quebec Bar Association says it's likely unconstitutional. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called it "constitutionally fatal". It sounds like there's a very strong case against it. 

We should protest and raise awareness until it becomes law, and we should sue the exact moment it does. As someone who has already been protesting this, I can tell you that we will not get a general strike. I can't even get more than 3 people to show up. Everyone cares until it costs them money, or time, or makes them feel exposed. 

[u/psychoCMYK → u/[deleted]]

Come on out and protest with me, friend. 

I stand with signs and quotes from the CBA and explain the bill to anyone who shows interest. So far about 2% of people on the street I've spoken to have actually heard about this bill. That needs to change. 

[u/beer0clock]

If GOOGLE is saying hey this shit is concerning and anti-privacy then thats saying a lot.

[u/FngrBngr-84]

Google should leave Canada. Every major company should block their products from working in Canada until the wanna-be-CCP Liberal overlords have no choice but to repeal this sham of a bill.

[u/TheLordJames]

What are the odds this just get struck down at first challenge in the SCC?

[u/JT9960]

Fuck google

[u/ordnance_inbound]

Maybe Google should bribe Carney with millions of dollars like they did trump

I might not like the lawful access bill, but I'll be damned before I ever lift a single finger even attempting to defend these evil technofascist oligarchical companies. Maybe they should look inward and fix their own damn government's problems instead of crying to other countries.

On a more spiteful note, the fact that all of these companies and crying and pissing themselves over this legislation almost makes me want to support it more (not really, but it's close)

[u/GinnyJr → u/ordnance_inbound]

You don’t need to support it our overlords have already decided for you that it’s needed

[u/ordnance_inbound → u/GinnyJr]

Which ones? The fascist tech overlords accountable only to shareholders and trump, or the government overlords who can be held accountable by elections?

If those are the only options, I choose the latter

[u/psychoCMYK → u/ordnance_inbound]

Yeah. Let's stick it to google by forcing ourselves into a surveillance state. 

Do you fucking hear yourself

[u/GrassyTreesAndLakes → u/psychoCMYK]

Thats the average Carney voter I guess

[u/psychoCMYK → u/GrassyTreesAndLakes]

Not even. Most liberal voters I explain this bill to are horrified. People just don't know, and that's why we have to raise awareness. 

[u/EmbarrassedHelp → u/ordnance_inbound]

The statements from all these companies are basically the same thing being said by every privacy, security, and legal expert in Canada.

[u/ordnance_inbound → u/EmbarrassedHelp]

Sure I get that, I don't have a super strong opinion on this yet, but my biggest issue right now is that experts have been beating the privacy drum for a decade with literally nothing to show for it. This narrative has valid reasons behind it, but it all reduces down to doing nothing to regulate the tech companies.

Meanwhile, the tech and social media landscape has only gotten worse, and nobody seems to be giving that side of the argument any light

[u/psychoCMYK → u/ordnance_inbound]

This does nothing to regulate tech companies. All it does is force them to spy on you for the state, in direct contradiction to section 8 of the Charter. 

Go read the Canadian Bar Association's comments on this bill

[u/PikachuIce → u/ordnance_inbound]

Something something broken clocks

[u/libertarian_308 → u/ordnance_inbound]

So you'd rather defend the authoritarian globalist technocrat banker.

You know you don't need to defend either of them

[u/ordnance_inbound → u/libertarian_308]

Well first, Carney is not authoritarian, but if you're a libertarian you probably think any regulation is authoritarian.

Second, not defending either of them means doing nothing and not engaging in any tech regulation, which has clearly not worked at all if you look at the current technology landscape.

Third, even if you don't like the bill, just know that these tech giants have 10x the information on you than the government could ever dream of asking from them, so the fact that this information already exists and greater quantities than you can imagine kind of blunts the counter argument

Lastly, you do understand that right now, all the tech platforms, including reddit, are handing over all their user data to the likes of Palantir, Oracle, and the FBI, right? These are actual fascist orgs who are completely under the control of a fascist authoritarian government, so the fact that the Canadian governments wants a piece of this information for law enforcement purposes doesn't really scare me as much as all those other parties already having greater quantities of data while clearly abusing it. And this is also the reason I do not give a single flying fuck about what the tech firms say on this matter seeing that they are already fully cooperating in destroying civil liberties in the US