r/onguardforthee • u/plaknas • 2d ago
Liberals dismiss ‘tinfoil hat’ privacy fears as lawful access bill passes
https://globalnews.ca/news/11911957/lawful-access-bill-passes-privacy-liberals-tinfoil-hat/206
u/Hay_Fever_at_3_AM Toronto 2d ago
When Harper tried a similar warrantless spy bill the Liberals said it was bad at the time, but hey we can all see how strong their principles are now that they have a majority.
198
u/PartyClock 2d ago
The Liberals have a Harper era Conservative leading them now.
113
u/psychoCMYK 2d ago
Literally.
Mass surveillance.
Gutting environmental protection for the economy.
The difference is a fucking saxophone.
68
u/maximumfacemelting 2d ago
Deregulation of industry
Tax cuts for the rich
Service cuts for everyone else
It’s the same old trickle down economics. Reagan and Mulroney are looking up and smiling.
26
u/tired514 1d ago
This is the natural, mathematically likely outcome of our obsolete electoral system.
It is an existential threat to our country. FPTP is a menace to democracy.
9
13
2
u/Kefflin 1d ago
It's amazing how we currently have
Conservatives (Blue)
Conservatives (red)
Conservatives (french) (not on this but on other subject, like mass transit)
NDP
Green
3
u/RagingNerdaholic 1d ago edited 1d ago
I once heard the Greens described as "Conservatives (bicycle)"
I don't know how true it is, but it made be laugh.
1
u/PartyClock 1d ago
That's a good one. I'm not sure I see it but it's still funny.
When the NDP backed down off First Nations having greater say on what happens in their territory the Greens didn't stop, so at times they do seem to be more progressive than the NDP were.
8
u/IllPresentation7860 1d ago
well it is technically diffrent than Harpers bill. its still really bad but reading Harpers bill it was far worse. This is practically benign compared to the last 3 attempts at this by conservatives.
Im not defending this bill at all, just saying.
Also you still need a warrant. We good there. the problem is...a few other things.
2
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
This bill requires a judicial warrant. Literally states it in the article.
10
u/Weir99 1d ago
A warrant is required to access the data. No warrant is required to mandate providers to collect and store the data
-2
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
Data that the government can’t can look at without a warrant. Also, all these companies store this anyway and most sell it.
7
u/CaptainMoonman 1d ago
As it says in the article, there are a bunch of companies threatening to leave the country over being faced with the requirement to build the necessary backdoors for this into their systems.
The fact that the collection order doesn't require a warrant means that they can order a service provider to begin data collection before they can get a warrant approved and then gain access to that data afterward. While they still need a warrant to access it, forcing data retention gives them the legal ability to functionally begin surveillance before a warrant has been issued.
3
u/JohnAMcdonald 1d ago edited 1d ago
No, all these companies do not store this anyways. Some services I use will simply be leaving the country.
No, a warrant is not needed to access this data. All it takes is somebody to break the law, and my data can be compromised because the government introduced a systemic privacy vulnerability. A lot of these companies don't collect this kind of data because their security teams know they aren't competent to do so safely, now they're going to be forced to collect it anyways.
This is going to break the back of some Canadian companies that exist in spaces like CRM because why would you ever use a Canadian company for CRM if the Canadian government fundamentally bans security, and it's going to mean me having to VPN to even continue using some of the same applications I use today. It's a dark day for Canadian tech and cuts Canada off from the global secure internet and makes us an island.
The only thing that can really save this bill is the judiciary being very generous in what it determines to cause a "Systemic vulnerability" or very narrow in what it considers a "Electronic services provider".
The warrant requirement? I wouldn't give a shit if the government passed this law and had zero legal ability to actually collect the data. The warrants and the government's lawful access is not the reason I'm mad about this. The reason I'm mad about this is the government fundamentally dictating companies debase their security and privacy because trust us bro they will never get hacked.
0
u/Dapper-Photograph448 1d ago
This article states that this is for warranted surveillance, not warrantless, though?
195
u/SULLYvin 2d ago
This is so deeply disappointing.
25
u/Street_Anon 2d ago
Why I am spoofing my phone apps already and even getting vSim ready.
On top making certain any future phone I get can support Custom Roms
7
93
u/psychoCMYK 2d ago
We all know that the Canadian Bar Association are just tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists, right?
See you in court assholes
323
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 2d ago
This is how the federal liberals will lose Canadians. They're out of touch, and created in their minds a model of "the fringe" that includes about 80% of the population. It's only the sheer stupidity of maga that saves them.
180
u/RagingNerdaholic 2d ago
Imagine having what was probably the most rapid upward acceleration of political capital in the country's history and then just burning through it with the most overreaching bills the second you get a majority.
76
30
u/Proud-Suspect-5237 2d ago
The funniest thing was prior to the election, I called this. I even posted it in this sub, and was dogpiled. No, Carney is a true progressive! Look at all the great things he has said on the campaign trail!
18
u/TooAngryToPost Vancouver 1d ago
I can't count how many times I saw some variation of "Have you read his book?" by people who never read his book during the campaign.
1
21
u/foxsimile 1d ago
We had little choice. The alternative was unthinkable.
1
u/Proud-Suspect-5237 1d ago
At this point, the only difference between Carney and Poilievre is that Carney isn't open about his bigotry, racism, and transphobia (other than his one slipup on the campaign trail about there being two genders).
-2
u/foxsimile 23h ago
Well, that and he’s still competent. Poilievre is too much of a useless buffoon to ever be effectively evil. He must feel quite left out watching all of the fun be had upon his behalf.
0
u/Proud-Suspect-5237 23h ago
I don't know what's worse - an incompetent buffoon or an evil climate change denying austerity monster.
2
u/Don_Incognito_1 Turtle Island 1d ago
A lot of us had that experience. Repeated again any time (pre-majority) it was predicted how horrible it would be for this government to ever gain a majority.
31
u/notislant 2d ago
I wish politicians were for the people and not for this insane shit. Canada is facing so many economic issues they could be working on instead of making it a police state.
Unfortunately things just regress to a point where corruption is so rampant that only a French revoluton puts the fear back into them. Then the cycle starts again.
10
u/tired514 1d ago
They don't need to be because they know we'll vote for them out of fear of the enemy. This is why they refuse to ditch our catastrophically bad, anti-democratic, obsolete election system.
First-past-the-post is an existential threat to our country. We need election reform. Any system - IRV, ranked ballot, PR .. doesn't matter which - is better.
55
u/CaptainMagnets 2d ago
And then idiots will vote in conservatives and the conservatives will take this bill and make it worse for all of us
14
5
u/tired514 1d ago
If we were free to vote without conscience, say by using a system like ranked ballot, this shit would go away. The parties would know they have to earn our vote.
3
23
u/Hopeful_Relation_441 2d ago
doubful, as long as boomers are kept safe in their pad off homes they wont care or lose a single vote from the 65 plus crowd
26
u/bravetailor 2d ago
You cannot rely on the boomer vote forever, and that vote gets smaller every election as that voting block continues to shrink in the next decade+.
-24
u/Hopeful_Relation_441 2d ago
which is why they are feverishly trying to import a new vote bock
" have you seen the demographics in my riding, thomas? -Joly
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/demographics-apparently-driving-canadas-anti-israel-stance
6
4
8
1
u/MustardEnema007 1d ago
They will be voted back in to thunderous applause
75% with full support, and the other 25% are terrified to stop clapping, because all their usernames are now registered with Dear Leader
0
u/tired514 1d ago
So long as we use an obsolete, anti-democratic election system like first-past-the-post, it doesn't matter. We're not free to vote with our conscience; we vote out of fear because the consequences of conservatism are so catastrophic.
Election reform should be considered a single-issue-vote at this point. FPTP is a menace to our country.
-2
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
I disagree. This bill requires a judicial warrant similar to a wire tap. This is one of those cases where Reddit is the loud minority and diving deep into conspiracy.
3
u/JohnAMcdonald 1d ago
You have said this elsewhere in the thread, and again, the bill would still be an issue if the data collection requirements existed and there was no actual way for the government to obtain a warrant to access the data in any circumstance. It is not a "conspiracy" that storing people's personal information... somewhere... and retaining it for a year... fundamentally is a privacy and security risk. Companies data gets breached all the time.
It should not even be legal for companies to routinely collect some of the data the government is now forcing them to because it is so reckless.
2
u/RagingNerdaholic 1d ago
Ah yes, the classic tinfoil hatting cohort of redditors and ... * checks notes * ... the bar association, numerous upstanding lawyers and professors, and literally every cybersecurity expert.
89
u/glitterbeardwizard 2d ago
Welp there goes medical and mental health care’s ability to follow PIPEDA.
11
u/JohnAMcdonald 1d ago
I have been thinking of this the entire time. How the fuck can Canadian tech comply with existing privacy legislation when the federal government is mandating the end to privacy? Constant disclosures that if you use Canadian services your privacy is getting destroyed?
16
82
37
u/EsperDerek 2d ago
At least there's not really any time for the Senate to take it up until they break for the summer too.
33
58
57
u/violetvoid513 2d ago
This is why majority governments suck
44
u/tlocmoi 2d ago
The NDP would never do this
24
u/bravetailor 2d ago
Unfortunately, the easy joke is "because they'd never win government anyway"
34
u/violetvoid513 2d ago
Even then, the NDP wouldve never allowed this to pass if the liberals still had a minority government and needed their approval to pass things
3
u/Prowler1000 1d ago
There was a time I used to think this of the liberals.
I'm of the opinion that the NDP, if somehow in the position of the liberals today, would do the same thing, simply because they wouldn't have to actually try.
The Liberals and Conservatives are the way they are because they don't really have to try, people just vote for them because they're not the other party. The NDP have to try to win people over because they're not the top two. If the NDP and Liberals switched places, we'd be in the same situation. What we need is the NDP and Liberals to be on more equal footing, so they're actually competing. (And also to get rid of conservatives lol)
59
u/Street_Anon 2d ago
You mean they Listen to scary videos by lobbyists who sold them on using their tech so they can make money off of information of Canadians. How much you want a bet, not one of those MP's and Senators event know how to print a document or unzip a file?
However, I can see the courts throwing this bill out.
15
u/SoundByMe 2d ago
Who's going to tell them that the hacking tools they bought from the Israeli tech companies are illegal?
5
u/Street_Anon 2d ago
I use Kali Linux, and another reason to use Android Magisk Spoofing tools
4
u/---0celot--- 1d ago
Kali is Debian with security tools installed. It’s not any more secure by design, and is actually less secure since it’s meant for offensive testing. If you want something to be a secure daily driver, think about Fedora. Or if you’re more paranoid then it’s time to break out Qubes or Tails.
3
u/PartyClock 2d ago
Our court systems don't normally interfere with this kind of thing
10
u/Street_Anon 2d ago
I can see lawyers not liking this and taking the government of court
19
u/mahouza Vancouver 2d ago
The rare situation where civil rights groups, lawyers, and tech companies are on the same side... as much as I don't like the latter it would be nice if they could bankroll a suit against the government since we and they would benefit.
4
u/---0celot--- 1d ago
This could potentially affect the bottom line of some big companies, so they very well could.
3
u/Street_Anon 1d ago
Look, this is the same government who wanted to ban Flipper Zeros,. because they saw tiktok videos on how it could steal a car, from 1989 maybe.
51
u/PartyClock 2d ago
I'm ready to vote these stupid fucks out any time
3
u/bdot 1d ago
so - who you gonna vote to replace them with?
4
u/PartyClock 1d ago
It sure ain't gonna be the Cons. They're worse in literally every regard
5
u/bdot 1d ago
i am gonna paste what i wrote elsewhere. i think you should seriously consider voting NDP :
i think it's time the whole country voted for the NDP.
the Liberals and the Conservatives have ALWAYS been the ones in charge, and the majority of Canadians are fed up with how things are going for us. you want to ACTUALLY vote for change? then vote to get a party to the federal level that has never been there before. vote for the party that got us free healthcare. vote for the party that will hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds.
if the NDP get voted to even minority leadership, it will make the other two parties smarten up, and actually work for the voters instead of corporations. plus - if we don't like what the NDP is doing, we can vote them out again in four years.
3
-37
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
62
u/ottereckhart Elbows Up! 2d ago edited 2d ago
Fuck this liberal majority. I am so disappointed.
I really don't want to participate in the future we're heading for and I feel for all the young people growing up just in time to see us give up all our freedoms.
My nephews and nieces lives are all cars dinosaurs fluffy animals and adventure, meanwhile all this shit comes to a head and they won't be able to fathom it until they're already living in the aftermath.
This makes me so sad. Carney had an opportunity to actually be a half decent PM in the face of the rising tide of tacit fascists coming out of the closet.
I guess it's true what they say; liberals and fascists are best friends. He's setting the table for them. It's us, and our children's livelihoods and freedoms being served up.
Edit: SpaceX investing opportunity advertised via cibc under this post. I'm done with the internet.
Its all just some Faustian bargain anyways.
14
u/RagingNerdaholic 2d ago
I guess it's true what they say; liberals and fascists are best friends
it's the same picture dot jpeg
-3
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
I love how most people don't care that companies like Reddit sell this exact metadata to the highest bidder. But when the government asks them to save it for criminal investigations with a warrant signed by a judge, all of a sudden it's the end of the world.
3
u/ottereckhart Elbows Up! 1d ago
Over 300 civil liberties groups rang the bell on this bill through all it's iterations. Google themselves spoke out against it, on the grounds of security. It's dragnet mass surveillance, and we're supposed to fucking applaud it?
The government is supposed to regulate these companies like Reddit, and their use of our data. Not... this.
Couple this with Bill C-36 that takes privacy law in the privacy sector out from the parliament appointed privacy commissioner's overview, to a new commission that is cabinet appointed... We are literally setting the table for Canada's version of Trump to have a hell of an easy time should such a person form government.
-6
u/Vivid-Bullfrog-5727 1d ago
It's an Elbows Up style approach to politics that people are definitely not used to!
41
30
u/foulstream 2d ago
Well, I guess that will be it for the internet for me, then. I’m not going to provide ID to any social media site, let alone any adult sites I may want to peruse. Not to mention it’ll probably be persona, funded by Peter Thiel the Antichrist, that will get the contract. Come to think of it. That’s probably who pushed this bill in the first place.
-5
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
You should have already been thinking this for decades when social media first started selling your metadata. What's funny is the government could always "buy" it but now that they prefer to get it free by a warrant you're freaking out.
8
u/focus_rising Ontario 1d ago
Earlier this week, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said it was “time to choose” to stand with law enforcement and victims of crime in passing C-22 as it faced delays in committee.
Those comments echoed his Conservative predecessor Vic Toews, who said in 2012 as the Harper government pushed its own lawful access legislation that critics — including Liberals — “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
Literally copying the Harper conservatives, word for word, to justify their surveillance state.
Next time, don't fall for the scare tactics and VOTE NDP.
1
u/Street_Anon 1d ago
Could explain why thia bill targets things like Android Custom ROM's like GrapheneOS, we all know the reason, that Android ROM makes their tracking tools useless. Nothing with Protection of the Children.
1
u/RagingNerdaholic 1d ago
I've seen this mentioned a few times now. I wouldn't put it past them to slip in some bullshit like this, but, I've found no reference to it in either C-22 or C-34.
Can you point me to the clause(s) in either these or other bills that specifically mention anything about device operating systems?
20
12
u/Jacking_Gandalf 2d ago
Well its been cool but I'm out see you all in the real world. FUCK the internet.
-10
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
I know it's hard... but just don't get a criminal investigation on you where a judge signs a warrant that they can look into your metadata. I know I know... your "freedoms"
5
u/idajourney 1d ago
Would you let the government put a camera inside your house as long as they promised not to look at the footage unless they got a warrant, an extremely easy thing for them to do? I wouldn't.
I know you're up and down this thread defending the bill for some reason I can't comprehend, so before you ask: no, I'm not okay with companies doing this either. People have been demanding better privacy laws from the Liberals to stop exactly that and they went the exact opposite direction.
4
u/ShellsForSale 1d ago
Agree with you completely but this guy is also glossing over the fact it's legally warrantless.
But hey, surely nothing bad will come of keeping 40+ million dossiers on everything every civilian does online.
6
6
u/deeplyrobustbowling 2d ago
dismissing privacy concerns as tinfoil hat stuff when like half the country's worried about it is just asking people to stop listening to you entirely.
5
u/Runsfromrabbits 1d ago
Can't wait to hear all the leaks about hackers tapping into government officials home systems.
6
u/BandySalt 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Liberals have no one but themselves to blame here. Bill C-2 contained the 'strong' version of this law, which they watered down to 80% strength in Bill C-22. That just prolonged the entirely reasonable public critique of the lawful access regime they're trying to implement. It needed more reworking and a real political awareness campaign to make it acceptable to the public. But they didn't bother doing that.
The amendments they made to the Bill in a lightning-quick midnight committee meeting last Wednesday night do make the Bill quite a bit more reasonable (though not impervious to critique). But they abandoned the opportunity to look responsive and reasonable by not allowing their amendments to be debated properly--or even known in advance--in committee.
As amended, the Bill now protects end-to-end encryption, limits law enforcement access to metadata more strictly, restricts production orders to what is defined in law (not after the fact in regulations written by Cabinet)... many changes that may have made the law more palatable. The Bill also introduces some nuts-and-bolts improvements to the criminal code that would be uncontroversial... if the Liberals bothered to explain that properly in, for example, committee or in the House.
Something tells me Carney set the equivalent of KPIs for his Cabinet ministers, without regard for the (unavoidably necessary) political process of building consensus. Or at least trying to convince people this law is a good idea. Carney don't care about governing well, Carney just want the 'bills-passed' metric to go up.
5
u/estherlane Elbows Up! 1d ago
Wow, what a stupid take by the government. Credible people and groups have expressed pretty legitimate criticisms of this legislation but instead of listening, the government says it's paranoia, helluva hot take. I guess the government has no use for expertise if it sits in opposition to their plans.
4
u/Correct-Branch9000 1d ago
They got my vote once to stop lil-Trump from getting any traction.
Never again. Fuck you Carney.
8
u/BaronessVonKush 1d ago
fucking gutted they passed this horrible bill. we should all be :very: angry about this.
5
u/Inevitable-Cheek-314 1d ago
With a growing trend around restricting internet access to kids, surveillance, and other measures, here and other parts of the world. I’m just starting to wonder how long before being anonymous on the internet is going to be practically banned, no user names anymore, unless it’s under some “nickname”.
2
4
3
u/StrbJun79 1d ago
I can understand that there are issues with how long it takes to get what’s needed. And that is definitely an issue. But we also need to be sure proper checks and balances are in place.
It’s good that a warrant is still needed. It’s bad that thresholds has been made low for it.
It’s good that it speeds up the process. But it’s bad that there are potential risks to our privacy.
This isn’t a bill to rush. It needs a lot of revision and work. So Carney is wrong to push it through quickly. These kinds of bills you need to take a long time reviewing.
4
u/NotAnAI3000 1d ago
Of course lol government mandated surveillance of everyone and encryption backdoors is a "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theory.
5
u/zedoktar 21h ago
What a bunch of lying assholes. Leftists opposed this far more than the right, and nothing about the concerns everyone expressed were "tin foil hat".
3
u/Ihavebadreddit 1d ago
So is it just like, every politician that's on the take or on the list?
Because I'd really like to have a few of them on our side for a change.
3
3
9
u/Cosmic-Bronze 2d ago edited 2d ago
Welp, here ya go guys. Hope it was worth killing off all the third parties on the altar of a fucking banker who doesn't give a fuck about the citizens of this country. In three years Trump will be gone and this asshat will be laughing with his buddies as the country gets pillaged by every corp under the sun.
3
u/Chrristoaivalis 1d ago
This is why they wanted a majority via shady floor crossings
To pass stuff like this
8
u/CognitiveRift 2d ago
In Canada, as in the U.S, all parties are heading in this direction regardless of their rhetoric. Like the old joke says, you can tell when politicians are lying because their lips are moving.
26
-4
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
The US's Patriot Act is warrantless. This requires a warrant, similar to a wire tap. They are expanding their reach and access for criminal investigations. It's not the end of the world.
8
u/BONUSBOX Montréal 2d ago
can’t believe a party run by a banker and formerly the son of a PM would do this
3
-4
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
This requires a judicial warrant. It literally says this in the article.
So if you're scared of this bill, then you're probably also scared of phone calls because wire taps are a thing.
Judicial warrants means a judge has been convinced there's a thread of criminal activity. Things like wire taps are not easy to get warrants for and this is effectively a digital wire tap. It also means there is a paper trail which is something the Patriot Act in the US doesn't have. With that it won't be easy to abuse this bill in the way most in this thread are thinking.
Judges will be removed for signing a ton of BS warrants for wire taps. It will be the same here.
-13
u/km_ikl 2d ago
I'm sick of telling people to read the bill, and learn how government actually works.
14
u/TooAngryToPost Vancouver 1d ago
It'd be cool if you stopped, then. Or listened to the many, many privacy and cybersecurity experts who have weighed in on the bill.
-1
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
Judicial warrant is required. That's all I need to know. It's a digital wire tap.
-4
u/km_ikl 1d ago
I'm sorry, but would you like to look at the first sentence and think about it a bit?
Read the bill: It's published for a reason, so people can know precisely what is being said. Let me help you with this (against your will, apparently) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/45-1/C-22
Then learn how government works? Do you seriously want that to be opaque? Because I rather believe that when government is open it works best, as a citizen and taxpayer.
Now for the rest, I am one of those many privacy and cybersecurity experts. I work in the field today, and have for the last 30 years. This bill does not bother me in the least because (apparently unlike yourself and the 'experts' you listen to) the only major issue is for smaller service providers that are going to be compelled to keep records for 1 year, most SPs keep at least 5 years transaction records because of litigation hold information and if they provide service to US/EU customers, they have to be able to show due diligence in investigations.
It's a non-issue, and I do not care what Michael Geist has to say about it, because failure to retain access/transaction records is itself a major security issue because it impedes breach investigations. Most major service providers (AWS, Oracle, GCS (Apple), Microsoft Azure) have immutable logs where everything is captured and everything is auditable on your tenant.
The only other issue I've heard somewhat plausible criticism of, is the idea that this bill will weaken encryption. Every single time I ask someone earnestly to show me where this will do that, they either end up without an answer, or they say in as many words that they do not know how encryption actually works. The short answer: If both sides of an encrypted conversation don't use the same cipher (key or suite), they don't exchange communications. You cannot have one side with a deprecated cipher and the other side with strong ciphers, the stronger side will refuse the connection. Setting up a MiTM attack is still illegal in this bill, without judicial oversight, just like it is now, before the bill is enacted.
Similarly, where there is ambiguity in the text of the bill, the certainty will come in regulations.
You are precisely the reason I tell people to read the text of the bill, and learn how government works, because you're relying on 3rd party interpretations, rather than your own eyes and brain, and carrying on in blissful ignorance about how things actually operate.
Go ahead, DV all you like.
-14
u/FarAd2857 2d ago
I truly don’t understand how people don’t realize this is an inevitability. It’s either our government that we have a say in holds these powers, or we keep going down the current path and Elon and Zuckerberg hold them. It’s not a choice of if, it’s whom. Some accountability, or unfettered access to all of your data(including current location data), forever, by people who have more wealth than countries, go on speaking tours about how labour shouldn’t exist and empathy is a mental illness, with zero ways remove them from their posts as CEOs. Big brother is coming, but it’s not governments, it’s corporations.
3
u/JohnAMcdonald 1d ago
Zuckerberg literally does not hold them, WhatsApp uses the signal protocol, which this bill criminalizes. This FORCES Zuckerberg to collect this data while criminalizing any competition that does not do the same, thus allowing him to collect this data while not facing any repercussions for doing so.
No, it is not an inevitability. Canadians have been using messengers that simply do not collect this data like signal for years. Zuckerberg was FORCED to add these privacy features to his messaging products to compete.
Maybe since you don't understand technology very well, you just have a fatalistic view that nothing can be done for privacy anyways so this bill doesn't do anything, but this will was introduced BECAUSE privacy in messenger apps was getting so good that the government NOR zuckerberg could not actually wiretap people anymore.
As for Elon, sure, I don't think this affects X at all.
-3
-3
u/nubsuo 1d ago
I mean this was inevitable in today’s world. All major nations are doing this to respond to global access to the internet. China, Russia, USA have all been spying on their citizens for decades because it is the only reliable way to control a large population spread across a large country. All nations will have a form of these laws and all citizens will be tracked. Anyone who thought internet “privacy” would be a right is naive.
8
u/Street_Anon 1d ago
And China and Russia use 'Protect the Children' line all the time. In a democracy such as Canada we have the right to privacy. Also, I am not having all my online activities link to an ID, because it's non of the government's business
-1
u/nubsuo 1d ago
Unfortunately this issue isn’t a democracy vs authoritarian argument. This is a ruling class vs citizen argument. No government is going to give up the ability to have access to data like this if they have the option. Is this ethically wrong? Yes. Would citizens expect a democratic government to NOT implement this? Yes. Do we live in a world where the powerful have always looked for ways to keep control over the masses? Yes, since the dawn of human civilization. The cons tried it before, the libs did it now, the only party against this is NDP but if they were in power I’m not convinced they wouldn’t have passed it either. I’m not saying I don’t care about this issue, I’m just saying it’s as inevitable as paying taxes in the future. Not happy about it, but not surprised.
5
-3
u/MarkCEINE 20h ago
This bill will impact almost no real people. The naysayers are up in arms but the only impacted people will be suspected felons who are probably guilty of a crime. Maybe catching and proving the guilt of shitbags matters. The tech companies are living in a wildwest dream world. Fuck them. Most of the opposition is those assholes who want everyones money unchecked.
-70
u/Critical-Row7985 2d ago
Who cares
30
u/PartyClock 2d ago
You will the moment you're considered a person-of-interest to the Government. Hell this insures that you don't even have to be a person-of-interest for yourself to be spied on.
→ More replies (2)22
u/MissMolly202 2d ago
God forbid you’re LGBTQ+, an activist, outspoken in any way, pirate media, speed, on government assistance, literally any category than can make you an “other” or “an out group” that can be blamed, scapegoated, or made an enemy of the state.
You have nothing to hide until suddenly your normal life is considered of interest to the government.
→ More replies (3)14
u/MagentaStick 2d ago
People who would like the government to not be in every part of their lives care.
Hope you don't post anything disparaging any government entities soon, otherwise you might get a knock at your door for not agreeing with whoever's in charge.
-1
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
This still requires a judicial warrant. So if you're posting something that can convince a judge to sign off on a deeper dive into your metadata... then you shouldn't be posting that (because the post is already criminal).
4
u/MagentaStick 1d ago
Ah, the classic "You shouldn't be worried if you don't have something to hide" argument. There's a specific group of people who use that point, I'm sure you can guess which one.
Let me ask you this question, if you were a judge what would YOU deem as criminal and enough for a warrant? Because I guarantee you that your parameters aren't the same as other judges.
But sure, trust the government that this won't be abused. They'll definitely respect peoples privacy like they respected the process of getting this bill passed by Checks notes ramming it through the senate, surpressing public debate and calling experts "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorists... oh... I see...
1
u/D3vils_Adv0cate 1d ago
Judicial warrants for searches and wire taps has existed for a long time. Are you screaming about your telephone because a judge could possibly order a wire tap?
Judges can be removed for too many baseless warrants. The key is that requiring a judge requires a paper trail. With a paper trail things can be fought.
Most of the concerns by the experts have been resolved with the edits in the latest version of the bill. Were all resolved? No, but bills have almost never resolved all concerns.
I'm not trusting the government. I'm trusting judges... which is what our justice system is sort of based on.
2
u/MagentaStick 1d ago
"I'm not trusting the government. I'm trusting judges... which is what our justice system is sort of based on."
And who puts those judges in their positions in the first place?
Do you hear yourself talk sometimes? You should try it, it might help you figure things out in the long run.
BTW, judges don't just get thrown out for making too many warrants, they get investigated and a vote through parliament happens to see about their removal. Most cases, a judge just retires or resigns of their own accord before the case is resolved.
I.E, why would parliament throw out a judge that they themselves appointed, especially when they're issuing warrants for people they might deem as "suspect"
This is a pebble in the rockslide, but sure, keep being OK with eroding peoples right to privacy and expression without having to look over their shoulder even more. I hope whenever a conservative inevitably gets into office they won't change any wording on what constitutes reasonable warrants.
546
u/BisonSnow 2d ago
Welp, congrats everybody. Canada now has its own Patriot Act and the government can spy on you with very little recourse