14 comments

  • emptybits 35 minutes ago
    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.
    • post-it 27 minutes 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 19 minutes 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)
        • SecretDreams 2 minutes 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?
      • b00ty4breakfast 0 minutes ago
        why even allow for the possibility of misuse? what is the utility of this little addendum?
    • ActorNightly 20 minutes ago
      Its kinda funny how every time this comes up, and certain kind of people make a big deal about it, nothing ever happens. Remember when Canada froze funds of the "Freedom Convoy" participants, and everyone was up in arms that this was the end of "freedom"?

      Well, turns out Canada is doing just fine. Meanwhile in US, everyone who had the same "freedom" sentiment got swindled hard and voted for Republicans, which actually do implement measures against personal freedoms, and now US is circling down the drain.

      Given the fact that 7/10 people in US of eligible voting status didn't see a problem with a guy who literally tried to overthrow the government, its pretty clear that the general population can no longer be trusted. Personally Id rather have less civil liberties instead of getting blown up by a terrorist cell, which is now going to be a real danger with the stuff in the middle east.

      • transcriptase 5 minutes ago
        “Canada is doing just fine”

        Found the federal govt employee or boomer who bought real estate in the 90s

        • SecretDreams 0 minutes 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.
      • hrimfaxi 14 minutes 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 1 minute 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.

      • diacritical 13 minutes 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.

        • ActorNightly 0 minutes ago
          > 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.

          This has been the sentiment since early days of patriot act, and we have plenty of history that shows this is absolutely not the case.

          You can't keep fear mongering with the same bullshit over and over and then expect people to believe it every time.

  • natas 1 hour 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.

  • shirro 33 minutes ago
    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 7 minutes 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?
    • halJordan 27 minutes 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.
  • briandw 52 minutes 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.
  • bethekidyouwant 24 minutes ago
    https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/index.html

    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.

  • throwatdem12311 56 minutes ago
    Canadians have gleefully voted themselves into tyranny.
    • thinkingkong 49 minutes ago
      By all means please expand.

      This lazy comment behaviour is for reddit where you’ll be welcomed with open arms.

      • Joel_Mckay 34 minutes ago
        Be kind, most of the US can longer differentiate between tyranny and despotism.

        The poster does have a point with a former head of the RCMP busted for spying for China, and 3 senior officers arrested for organized crime activity last year.

        I don't like the idea of such folks bypassing a court warrant threshold review. =3

        "The Story of Mouseland: As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944"

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA

    • Fire-Dragon-DoL 46 minutes ago
      Canadians, Europeans and United States. Also China, Russia.
    • Joel_Mckay 45 minutes ago
      Maybe, but taxpayers did pay >$20m for some really bad advice before the last clown left the circus =3

      https://www.amazon.com/When-McKinsey-Comes-Town-Consulting/d...

    • Kenji 53 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • abenga 1 hour ago
    Is all this nonsense being pushed everywhere now because everyone's eyes are on the war?
    • jonny_eh 1 hour ago
      It’s being pushed all the time
  • napierzaza 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • IAmGraydon 1 hour ago
    Is this one also the work of Meta?
    • shwaj 1 hour 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?
    • nitinreddy88 1 hour 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 36 minutes 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.
  • JohnnyLarue 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • markus_zhang 47 minutes 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.

  • newsclues 1 hour ago
  • paseante 48 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • recursivegirth 41 minutes 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 37 minutes ago
      This poster is an obvious LLM lol
  • TutleCpt 21 minutes ago
    It's just another reason not to live in Canada. That the country's lack of a self-defense law. Coupled with the hell that's going on in the US, all of North America is basically a no-go zone. Europe has never looked so good.