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.

Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.

Do these warrants have a fixed maximum duration of secrecy?

This is the normal thinking, normal brained, route. It’s what we should all strive towards. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs therapy. There should be a window of discovery. 30 days, 90 maybe. But if you don’t have enough to justify notification of investigation, that’s it. No more resources spent. This is how normal precincts work. If they suspect, enough times, to build a large enough case file, to connect the dots and prove you are guilty, they issue a warrant.

Normal, brained, behavior.

All legislative change is interpreted by courts. So to answer your questions:

# look to see how the legislation is written for phone taps

# know that this new legislation is changing things, the code is being modified

# now look at judicial decisions, and you will have your answer

Seeing as you have no idea how other warrants work, when they expire, you're really just looking for the worst case scenario, without even attempting to see what would happen, and has happened for 100+ years.

Yes?

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.

The police regularly lie to and manipulate people about their rights in order to coerce them into consent. If you believe the officer is in the wrong, push back.

> You then get the lawyers involved and sort it out afterwards. Comparing the timestamp on the warrant to the time of the police action should hopefully determine whether parallel construction is taking place.

Parallel construction means they are using the opportunity to go on a fishing expedition. Dealing with it later is too late, they've already gone fishing.

This is a much bigger issue regarding the metadata of a wireless carrier. They're not issuing the warrant to you, they're issuing it to the carrier, who has a duty to reject overly broad searches. If they don't even get to see the warrant, they can't reject the search based on the merits. So now the police get to collect everyone's metadata. Who cares if we look at the warrant after? They've already got the data. Even if they "delete it" after, they already got to go fishing.

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.

The warrant is the receipt. Even if you believe it's fine most of the time I'm pretty certain most people would feel uncomfortable if they went to the grocery store and weren't offered one. You throw it away most of the time, but have you never needed it? Mistakes happen.

The stakes are a lot higher here. The cost of mistakes are higher. The incentives for abuse are higher. The cost of abuse is lower.

And what's the downside of the person being searched having the warrant? Why does it need to be secret?

Seriously though. If you trust the law enforcement that much, why even require a warrant from a judge at all. May as well go to the Soviet model of search warrants being issued by the district attorney.

There may well be reasonable scenarios a majority of people would agree that providing a warrant isn't feasible, but that needs to be codified in law in more detail than whenever the judge deems it so.

And everyone should be skeptical enough of government power that they mentally switch out "can" with "will".

  | many of these rules appear geared toward global information sharing

  Investigative work *should* be difficult.

  | It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

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.

The question isn't about idealism or the realistic possibility of said idealism. The question, in my opinion, is whether we can only succeed as a species if a small number of people are entrusted with creating and enforcing laws by force when necessary.

That isn't to say we never need some level of hierarchy or that laws, social norms, etc aren't important. Its to say that we need to keep a tight reign on it and only push authority and enforcement up the ladder when absolutely necessary.

It will end poorly if we continue down the road of larger and larger governments under the fear of Mad Max, and this idea many people have that "someone has to be in charge."

Building down these high trust scenarios has been the consequence of active policies. You don't just miss these trends and correlations. Not to this extent.

I see "High Trust Society" so much as a weird racist dogwhistle, but feel free to disabuse me of that notion.

I live in an extremely high crime area. Because cops abuse the law to keep their numbers up. If someone checked they would see that my local McDonalds car park is one of the biggest crime hotspots in the country because of administrative detections made on minor drug deals there.

It just so happens that my area is also where the government dumps migrants, refugees and poor people. Its also the case that they test welfare changes here.

I haven't had a single incident here in 6 years. We often forget to lock our doors. My wife takes my toddler walking around the neighborhood at night. I wave hello to the guy across the road who I have like 99% certainty is dealing drugs (Or just has a lot of friends with nice cars who visit to see how long it has been since he trimmed his lawn).

That said, if you turn on the tv 2 things are apparently happening. 1. We are under attack by hordes of immigrants tearing the country apart. 2. We are under attack by kids on ebikes mowing kids down in a rampage of terror.

Politicians, in order to be seen to be doing things, bring laws in to counter these threats. People bash their chests and demand more be done.

But the issue is that its just not happening. My suburb is great. The people are generally lovely, even those in meth related occupations.

When you complain about the trustiness of the society, consider that your lack of trust might actually be the problem? Nothing is necessarily going to break down because you didnt make your neighbors life worse by supporting another dumb as shit law. "Oh no crime is so rampant" buddy you need to get over yourself. Societies don't fail because of socially defined Crime they fail because people prioritise their perceived safety over everyones freedom.

> I’m not defending government surveillance, or the idea of considering someone innocent until proven guilty

Exactly what you are defending.

>what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism?

Its at threat from the idealism that you can just pass one more law to fix society.

>don’t feel like the government is adequately protecting them.

They come up with a bunch of dumbshit laws like the OP. Thats the result.

Collective notions of shame, actual networks of friends and families that reinforce correct behaviour or issue corrections.

Think about simply how credit networks form and function. And why visiting a food truck or medieval travelling doctor for your vial of ointment is different from buying special products from a brick and mortar establishment.

Basically if you or the network has a harder time back propagating defaults and bad credit in a way that prevents future bad outcomes then that is a loss of high trust.

This isn't about race really unless you are operating at the level of some biological or genetic connection to behaviour ... But that is a pretty strange place to be as there a whole host of confounding factors that are much more obvious and believable and I cast serious doubt that even a motivated racist would ever credibly be able to do empirical studies showing causal links between any given genetic population cluster and the emergent societal behaviour. These are such high dimensional systems it just seems insane to even think one could measure this effect.

The invisible substrate is the society unfortunately ... And we are all bad at writing it down and measuring it.

  > until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society.

  > You can look to parts of SE Asia or the Middle East to see some examples where that happened

  > but what happens when the entire system fails due to misplaced idealism?

High authority + low trust + abuse gives you situations like we've seen in Russia, Iran, North Korea. These are pretty bad. The people have no faith in their governments and the governments are centered around enriching a few.

High authority + high trust + abuse is probably even worse though. That's how you get countries like Nazi German (and cults). The government is still centered around enriching a few but they create more stability by narrowing the targeting. Or rather by having a clearer scale where everyone isn't abused ad equally. (You could see the famous quotes by a famous US president about keeping the white population in check by making them believe that at least they're not black)

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.

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.

It's about giving up freedoms you might never get back, because it's not your decision anymore after giving them up.

People do not generally believe a seat belt limits your liberty, but you're not exactly wrong either. But maybe in order to understand what they mean it's better to not play devil's advocate. So try an example like the NSA's mass surveillance. This was instituted under the pretext of keeping Americans safe. It was a temporary liberty people were willing to sacrifice for safety. But not only did find the pretext was wrong (no WMDs were found...) but we never were returned that liberty either, now were we?

That's the meaning. Or what people use it to mean. But if you try to tear down any saying it's not going to be hard to. Natural languages utility isn't in their precision, it's their flexibility. If you want precision, well I for one am not going to take all the time necessary to write this in a formal language like math and I'd doubt you'd have the patience for it either (who would?). So let's operate in good faith instead. It's far more convenient and far less taxing

Moral: don't give up freedoms for temporary gains. It never balances out in the end.

I think a better way to phrase it would be:

> he who gives up a little freedom for a little security ends up with neither

If I'm over that when passing a speed camera in Victoria, AUS, I'll be pinged with a decent fine to arrive shortly.

Imagine if instead of a chime I got fined every single time, everywhere? All this new monitoring makes it a bit like that, at an extreme. I don't want to live in such a society.

Look at the recent report on CRA service inquiries and their accuracy. An amazing 17%. It's not hard work that got us there.

edit: Just one of many examples. People rarely even hold doors anymore, we're a far way from our prime.

The thing about laws is they can be made, and changed.

Clearly some criminal investigations require not notifying the suspect.

Countries AND the government exist for and at the pleasure of their respective citizens.

The ISP can see the warrant. The judge creates a warrant. The court sees the warrant.

Where did you get that idea?

edit: it seems the comment I replied to was edited

[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.

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.

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.

Yes, a PM with a whipped majority is tremendously powerful, but getting that whipped majority is not an easy task and requires significant politicking and negotiating within the party precisely because individual MPs are proportionately more powerful than legislators in the US.

The US executive is very different because it's an independent election: it's almost impossible to get rid of a President, and relatively easy to deflect blame.

Australia's round of axing prime ministers had some essential logic to it despite the move being relatively unpopular with the electorate: it wasn't about whether the party would lose power, it was about whether replacing the prime minister would let them retain seats they faced otherwise losing.

It's a mammoth difference when the election for executive power and legislative power are linked and it shows.

But none of that matters if Canadians just allow politicians to impose laws that strip them of their rights to avoid mass surveillance. Who needs a Charter of Rights if Canadians don't care enough about their rights to protest the government when they try to strip away their rights?

Why don't you ask the folks in towns riddled with ICE agents how well those god-given rights are being respected. Your main point stands about infringement of freedoms and privacy, but your interpretation, or hallucination that anywhere is actually abiding by their founding principals is wildly naive.

The government will always override it's citizens rights and freedoms if it has it's power challenged. 2nd amendment collapsed in California when Black Panthers decided arming themselves was a great way to push back on kkkops. 1st and 14th amendment rights get trampled and attacked at just about any protest in history.

You can talk about ideals until your blue in the face but governments have always done whatever they want and almost never face repercussion. Anything that challenges the government keeping us in place as servants of capital is met with violence and incarceration. Any social progress comes at the cost of innocent blood being spilled to make the situation distasteful enough that the government minimally acquiesces as it keeps marching down the same path it always has.

What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.

0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html

1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emerge...

As for legal responsibility and repercussions, that's a process that is still in motion. The law moves slowly in Canada.

1. in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v...), where a private clinic challenged the province's ban on any private care whatsoever for procedures that are provided by the public system on the grounds that if the province bans procedures but then also rations access to those procedures to the point that they're inaccessible for many patients, it constitutes a violation of our charter right to life and equal protection.

It seems they were able to successfully argue that this does constitute a violation of our rights, but the decision says it's okay because it's done with the intent to preserve the equitable access to healthcare for the general public.

2. Employees in union shops are forced to join the union. This is arguably a violation of our right to freedom of association, but the supreme court says that it's okay if it does because "the objective of this violation is to promote industrial peace through the encouragement of free collective bargaining". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula#Freedom_of_associ...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Comeau, a famous case where a guy bought beer in Quebec and drove it to New Brunswick (for personal consumption) and was fined. His case argued that that's a violation of section 121 of the Canadian Constitution 1867 which states as black and white as can be:

121 All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

But the Supreme court ruled that it's not enough for provinces to ban goods from entering their province for it to count as a violation, it must be a ban which has no other purpose but to impede interprovincial trade. But that means that this section is completely useless because a justification for protectionism can always be found or made up on an ad-hoc basis.

Basically, Canadians have no rights whatsoever. Our entire legal system doesn't sit on anything fundamental it's all just vibes and arbitrary whims of the justices of the day. Our charter and constitution are so full of explicit holes like the notwithstanding clause, that they're rendered almost meaningless even on their own terms, and then any other violations will be excused on the flimsiest grounds.

Your hypothetical isn't even always the case. When unions form, usually there are employees there that don't want to subject themselves to the union, but are forced to, so they didn't "join a workplace with a union" at all.

(2) Again, we balance the well-being of society against individual rights. In this case, defending collective bargaining is a reasonable action when considering that there is _plenty_ of other opportunities for work. Don't like unions, don't join one and find work elsewhere.

(3) Per the court ruling, Canada does not have a guarantee of internal _unlimited_ free trade; it only prohibits tariffs on internal trade. Whether or not that is a good thing is hotly debated, and a matter of current policy.

> Our entire legal system doesn't sit on anything fundamental it's all just vibes and arbitrary whims of the justices of the day.

It's Common Law, not Civil; and so it's based on layers of legislation and court proceedings.

In practice, we have plenty of strong protections for our rights, but those protections break down when our behaviour becomes harmful to broader society. Whether or not you think that's a good thing probably indicates where you are on the line between classical liberalism and toryism.

It is your Declaration of Independence that recognises inalienable rights endowed by one's creator, not the Constitution, and is thus legally unenforceable. We know this because none of the rights enshrined in the Constitution are actually inalienable. For example: the First Amendment says that Congress can make no law prohibiting the right to peacefully assemble... but then how does federal incarceration work? The US has one of the largest mass-surveillance apparatuses in the world despite the Fourth Amendment. The President has also attempted to end birthright citizenship via decree, something which your Supreme Court is currently entertaining instead of immediately overturning as patently unconstitutional.

There's a common refrain that rights do not exist without remedies. Whether rights are given by one's deity or by one's government is immaterial: if you cannot remedy a violation of a right, that right does not exist. While I can certainly agree that certain systems do not entrench rights as much as they should (here in the UK, all our rights persist at the whims of a simple majority), words on a page matter less than access to remedies.

To completely override them? Sure, but that's an odd criterion since one of the US's biggest issues is the unequal protection of rights. I have never seen a society so rhetorically obsessed with individual rights and freedoms, and yet so submissive to authoritarianism that failure to "just comply" is enough to justify summary execution in the streets (eg: Alex Pretti and Renée Good).

Again, this post is about Canada attempting to pass a bill to facilitate mass surveillance, which "freediddy" (yikes name btw) responded to by expounding upon the loftiness of American constitutional rights, as if America is not one of the most extreme mass surveillance states. It's as if Canada's attempt to pass the bill is more offensive than the mass surveillance itself, ie, it's just virtue theatre.

> Americans believe their rights are God-given and protect them from their government

As I understand it, the unconstitutionality of tariffs is due to it being considered a tax so cannot be enforced by the executive branch. But there's no right being infringed if the other branches of government would have made them into law, nor is there anything that would stop the executive branch from implementing more restrictive trade barriers.

That would explain a lot of the recent actions by your current administration.

It may not always lead to major change, but you have no idea how many people are currently sitting in prison around the world for doing exactly this.

Pretty decent all things considered

EDIT: I guess I could add examples of what "other crimes" could be. Fraud, corruption, sexual abuse, all victimless crimes, hitmen?

Where I am, the local speed cameras have annual documents about the street their on detailing pre-camera vehicle speeds and fatal (pedestrian) accidents and the decreases in both of them since the usage.

Afaik, the concern isn't that it "could slide" its that flock _is used_ by say Texas to monitor out of state abortions. That isn't solving street crime and certainly didn't benefit the local residents.

If you are Europe, and you have democratic elections, you have an informational power asymmetry towards the states that have mass surveillance and control. You are (as we saw last year with the Romanian election that was swung to 60% in 2 weeks over TikTok) susceptible towards influence of other superpowers. Even if you want to keep democratic elections, you need to somehow make sure that the citizens are voting in their interest. If the citizens at the same time are victims of the attention economy, their interest will be whatever foreign superpowers want it do be.

One well-tried solution is to engage and educate the population. However, this takes years, not weeks as the campaigns take, and takes immense resources as people will default to convenient attention economy tools.

Other option is to ban platforms/create country-wide firewalls. It's a lot harder in democratic societies, you ban one app and a new one takes it's place. Cat is kind of out of the bag on this one.

Last and easiest option is mass surveillance. Figure out who is getting influenced by what, and start policing on what opinions those people are allowed to have and what measures to take to them. Its a massive slippery slope, but I can clearly see that it's the easiest and most cost-effective way to solve this information-assymetry

Even the vague outline you've provided has issues. You can't prevent someone from having an opinion. You can't figure out who is "influenced" vs merely "exposed" (and visible intrusion shifts people towards the former).

You should actually consider the downsides and failure modes of implemented mass surveillance, not "it prevents malicious foreign influence better than my other proposals", because it may be worse than said influence (which does not necessarily translate into control; keep in mind that Georgescu only won the primary and would've lost the runoff had it not been annulled). The world under free information is the devil you know.

I always hold that the problem with mass censorship and state overreach is, they are too powerful and people are too selfish and stupid. There's no good solution, but my prediction is that any drastic attempt to prevent foreign interference will backfire and fail at that (liberal leaders can't use authoritarian tools as effectively as authoritarians). Even Democracy, "the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried", is a better countermeasure; all you need, to prevent anti-democratic foreign capture and ultimate failure, is to preserve it.

So you surveil your citizens and precog their opinions... to do what? Make them have state-sponsored opinions? Don't we already have that without the surveillance?

It's trivial to predict how a human will behave without any surveillance at all. Facebook abandoned their Beacon system not because of the backlash, but because they realized all they really needed to predict user behavior was the user's credit card statements, which they could easily buy.

At some point the constitution is the backstop, and unless we amend it, it should hold true.

Who is doing the controlling in this take? "The Government"? Calling for more government control when some say--at least in the US--too much government is the heart of our current political strife. Unless this argument is for corporate surveillance?

As for elections in the age of social media, why not just pass Blackout laws around the date of the election? One week not sufficient? Make it two.

But instead the answer is mass surveillance? To do what? Arrest & detain people, and let the judicial system incarcerate them for months or years while the process plays out?

Which tools, specifically? I know none.

I also am not aware of any existing tools.

When Georgia tried to implement a law to inhibit this type of foreign meddling from all superpowers it was widely branded a "pro russia law", presumably because the west had invested more in astroturfing Georgia.

Which is no different to what the US and Europe was already doing in Romania on an ENORMOUS scale before Russia ran its Tiktok campaign. Russia's campaign evidently resonated with the populace far more than what the NED were doing.

Democracy is a bit like freedom of speech - either you support it even when it makes decisions you dont like (e.g. in opposition to western imperialism) or you hate it. There isnt a middle ground.

If you support the Romanian secret services' decision to cancel the election over a tiktok campaign which was more convincing than better funded NED campaigns which they permit, you probably just hate democracy.

If you think "pro russia law" is an accurate designation of what Georgia was trying to implement - again, you just hate democracy.

While there is a middle road, it is almost never taken as it is the hardest path. The real trick is to not invent the torment nexus but you cannot know this as the n'th order effects are decades beyond the initial creation. But that is so incredibly difficult to anticipate.

Think about it, the transistor was invented in 1947, 70 years later it turned into the surviellance panopticon. Very few could have seen that coming.

I dont have answers just explanations here.

You are absolutely bombarded with messaging about how Dubai and Chinese cities are the safest places in the world. I have friends who live in each who consider North America and Europe crime ridden shitholes because theft is possible to get away with.

If society believes that crimes is utterly rampant despite it collapsing over the past few decades, there is nowhere else to go but mass surveillance to make sure that even the smallest of visible crimes are stamped out.

After having to push for a crime to be actually registered and for others to even report small crimes because police has been so useless in Brussels I lost complete faith in this.

It also doesn't track with prisons overflowing more and more and damn near half of prisoners not having the nationality. It's safer now! But more and more people have experiences so keep your wallet in your front pocket. Watch out as a woman after dark. Avoid certain areas that your grandma described as posh and the trainstation you went to every day in your youth has stabbings now.

It feels like one of a bunch of fronts where we get some kind of hypernormalisation.

If an MP is not free to vote in the best interests of their constituents, and rather has to vote along party lines, then the failure of democracy has already occurred. Crossing the floor, in order to act in the best interest of your constituents, is a big move that one doesn't decide on overnight.

We should be more tolerant of individual MPs not always siding with their team, without them having the fear of being removed from their caucus.

Notice how none of the floor crossings happened right after the election. They took time, they saw how government was working, and they took action based on their experience.

They're nominally independent but in practice are run by a local oligarchy who generally do as they please within the confines of what the US allows.

Theyre effectively all as independent as Poland or Hungary were under the Soviet Union. i.e. not.

There are the occasional anti-us imperialist and anti-oligarchy candidates who gain popularity but their careers are usually terminated with a deluge of mudslinging or by using bureaucracy to lock them out of the political system.

I get diversification, that’s a good call, but adopting policies that actively harm Canada to the benefit of China is where we’re at and it’s so far beyond the pale. Just take a look at Canada, who for as long as I have known, have tried to maintain its industrial base in Ontario, eg the cross-border supply chain for automobiles, but then this "new" government comes in and is like y’know what we really need right now? To compound the effects of tariffs, piss off our biggest trading partner, risk NAFTA (CUSMA) and our entire cross-border supply chains with the US all so we can get some cheap electric cars from China, which won't even be manufactured here (atleast not with Canadian jobs); meanwhile we just spent close to $100 billion in subsidies explicitly to try and kickstart electric vehicle manufacturing in Canada. May have been more productive to turn that $100 billion into pennies and throw them down a wishing well...

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.

Less than you would hope: https://web.archive.org/web/20140718122350/https://www.popeh...

Notably, a single secret warrant authorized the surveillance of everyone on the Verizon network:

That warrant orders Verizon Business Network Services to provide a daily feed to the NSA containing "telephony metadata" – comprehensive call detail records, including location data – about all calls in its system, including those that occur "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

I know those are about the US and this law is Canada, but the same things can happen.

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.

And the scary part is that they're both apparently correct.

People don't seem to understand how incredibly oppressive society is becoming

If you really think about it, if the government can collect the data that means some entity is ALREADY collecting that data which more often than not goes to advertisers.

Another benefit is that it creates real use-cases for things such as I2P, (god forbid) crypto currency and matrix. I know crypto can be a hot topic and lacking in terms of true decoupling from the government these days, but coins like TRX have been great at this especially in china where yuan is an extremely controlled currency. Although it seems that most of the usage is in illegal activities rather than liberty or/and activist reasons.

And lastly, if the government can't get their hands on the data neither can the hackers and state sponsored entities.

From R v Bykovets, paras 6-8:

[6] I respectfully disagree. This analysis runs counter to this Court’s jurisprudence under s. 8 of the Charter. We have never approached privacy piecemeal, based on police’s stated intention to use the information they gather in only one way. The right against unreasonable search and seizure, like all Charter rights, must receive a broad and purposive interpretation, reflective of its constitutional source. Since Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, we have held that s. 8 seeks to prevent breaches of privacy, rather than to condemn or condone breaches based on the state’s ultimate use of that information. Privacy, once breached, cannot be restored.

[7] To that end, our Court has applied a normative standard to reasonable expectations of privacy. We have defined s. 8 in terms of what privacy should be — in a free, democratic, and open society — balancing the individual’s right to be left alone against the community’s insistence on protection. This normative standard demands we take a broad, functional approach to the subject matter of the search and that we focus on its potential to reveal personal or biographical core information (R. v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 608, at para. 32).

[8] Informational privacy is particularly critical — and particularly challenging. Our jurisprudence recognizes that computers are unique and present privacy risks that differ from s. 8’s traditional objects. Thus, this Court has determined that s. 8 generally prevents police from seizing a computer without a warrant — even though the device itself provides no information without judicial permission to search its contents — because seizing the computer gives the state the means through which to access its content (R. v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 56, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 531, at para. 34). (emphasis mine)

[1] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20302/i... [2] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14233/i...

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.

And I think here lies the opportunity for challenging this in court.

Without diving into hyperbole and far-fetched dystopic speculation, what exactly is the problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Britain

I wish.

Brexit was pretty unthinkable even just a few years before the referendum. And now… well, toss-up between the top 5(!) parties, because somehow the Greens and Lib Dems are polling at similar levels to Conservative and Labour, all a bit behind Reform who didn't exist a few years back.

And when bad times come, insular nationalism (both in the sense of xenophobia and autarky) poll well.

The world-wide bad-times storm is getting super-charged right now, though I can't tell how much this is malice vs. incompetence from the White House.

Next-but-one, perhaps. Although even for the next one, everyone's so weak I'd only put mild odds against them.

I don't want them to win ever*, but failing to plan is planning to fail, and there's big money getting involved here, and the UK political system still hasn't caught up with the impact of social networks and foreign influence through them at all.

And one of those social networks is run by someone who sees no problem calling for civil war in the UK, though he's currently supporting one of the other "I wish it was a joke party" parties.

* Although I can also say that about Reform, where, if I still lived in the UK, if my options were them or the actual literal Monster Raving Loony Party, I'd pick the latter. Then again, that doesn't say much as I'd pick the Monster Raving Loony Party over the Conservatives, too.

Voting against someone rather than for someone is a sure-fire way to get some of the worst politicians in power as possible, they only need to be marginally less bad than the other candidate after all.

Restore Britain is a populist joke btw. Greens might be my side of the fence but they’re also populist. Hard to get air time as a small party without some form of sweeping emotional appeals and “common sense” thinking, even if it’s internally inconsistent and very broad.

Same is true in the EU elections, since their system is more democratic than the UK one.

I’m intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the election system in the UK as I am British, but I’ve experienced other formulations and I can see that this line of thinking enables the abuse you claim to be dispelling by allowing it to continue..?

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.

Will they fine me? Drag me to jail?

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will treat my device as part of me. You shall not pass my firewalls, you don't have my permission. I use my devices to think, my thoughts are my own.

The majority of people have intellectually regressed into sheep.

Mere proposals of such a thing should be illegal and people engaged in development imprisoned and banned from holding public office.

I expect we will see more and more of these things and people agreeing to them with the world plunged into more chaos.

Perhaps it's too late for this particular submission, but something to keep in mind in the future.

"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)"

https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

https://wicks.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250909-google-meta-...

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)

https://tboteproject.com/git/hekate/attestation-findings

https://web.archive.org/web/20260314094348/https://tboteproj...

Near impossible? No, meta is frequently making themselves part of conversation on various regulations in the country.

*Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.

as long as there's a minority government though, public outrage will kill the bill

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.

“““

[…]

But this is the United Kingdom, and a muggee can't straight-up kill a mugger in self-defence and simply return home to unified rapturous applause. Very large, very serious questions have to be asked, questions to which "But he was trying to kill me!" doesn't qualify as an acceptable answer.

When her solicitor first explains this to her, Laura sits there in the chair unable to actually comprehend what he is telling her, incapable of even a bewildered "Huh?", let alone a full sentence of rebuttal.

They are found guilty, of course: the two-and-a-half people who were left after she'd finished with them. They go away, very quickly. But there is a serious chance that she has broken the law in turn, by having been a victim of attempted murder.

"No. That's not how it is. You've broken no law. That's something you're going to have to keep a firm grip on. It's just going to take a little time and effort and preparation and training to get to the point where a court of law is convinced. It's going to take some reasoning.

”””

--https://qntm.org/sufficiently

[replied to you only because the comments I want to reply to are dead, but still readable, and their nonsense needs response]

Just sayin'.

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...

The story ends with the police indicating that they do actually have the power to retrieve the car, the officers just didn't want to use their powers in that case.

Nothing in your anecdote would go any differently with these new powers. The police officers refusing to take timely action would still refuse to take action, but now they also know the kind of porn you like. Good for them, I suppose?

I can make sweeping generalizations and baseless accusations too. Everyone in support of this bill is a filthy pervert with a voyeuristic relationship with their government, wishing to push their weirdness onto the rest of the population.

Just solving crimes.