Both the mandatory data retention and encryption backdoor requirements will cause encrypted messaging services like Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Matrix, and others to block both Canadians and Canadian businesses from their services.
If you live in Canada or are impacted by this legislation, then you need to tell both your MP and the Minister of Public Safety of Canada to reject this legislation.
The blanket metadata retention and encryption backdoor requirements of Bill C-22 are illegal in the European Union.
Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:
I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).
Why? Because its better to message multiple government officials, rather than betting on a single one. MPs also have a different role than government ministers do.
You need to branch out a bit, and take a look at how countries on the brink actually operate. Go check out Hungary for a country that almost lost their democracy, or check out Russia for a country that never had it but tries to pretend like it does.
Canada is measurably not even close to countries like Russia, where voting truly does not matter (and could actually be hazardous to your health.)
Having spent my fair share of time in 3rd world shitholes, though I wouldn't particularly like Russia, most of them have levels of freedom in day-to-day life you could only dream of north of the Mexican border in the Americas.
In a great deal of area, no one bothers to get a license plate. You can just build a house, no government asshole to block you, and if they do they are only looking for a small bribe. There is no CPS for the next Karen to call to come harass your kids for them playing independently. Very little intervention in family disputes nor practical ability to extract alimony because your wife decided she was "bored." The cash economy thrives. The ability of the government to tax is weak. There is not the money nor personnel available to do Orwellian surveillance and the state has to very strategically pick how to spend its few resources oppressing the populace.
Canada and USA have more freedom on paper. If you don't count the fact you're spending 1/4 or 1/3 of the year slaving to pay taxes, burning another 1/3 of the year to make rent because it's illegal to just erect a shack on a postage stamp and live in it for next to nothing, and that the precious 'rule of law' means instead of the policeman asking for a bribe they'll just arrest you on one of the gazillion laws (ignorance of the law is no excuse!) on the books to get their money instead.
This isn't to say it's better. But a great deal of my family that could immigrate from the third world... have not.... or they use North America as a cash vacuum while they invest in their 3rd world hometown where they can actually get shit done without a gigantic pile of paperwork and environmental reviews with a gazillion rules attached to start and run a business.
I don't want to get into a big debate on libertarianism, but the The "freedoms" being celebrated here are largely freedoms from accountability: the freedom to build without inspections that protect neighbors from fire hazards or ensure you're building on land you own; the freedom from alimony that ensures a financially dependent spouse who made shared life decisions isn't left destitute because those decisions reduced their personal earning potential; the freedom to abuse and neglect your children to whatever extreme degree you wish.
The weak state and cash economy being romanticized also tend to mean no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor - all freedoms that disproportionately belong to whoever is strongest or most corrupt. Regulations are often irritating precisely because they encode hard-won protections for people who aren't you.
> the freedom to build without inspections that protect neighbors from fire hazards or ensure you're building on land you own; the freedom from alimony that ensures a financially dependent spouse who made shared life decisions isn't left destitute because those decisions reduced their personal earning potential; the freedom to abuse and neglect your children to whatever extreme degree you wish.
Sometimes. Other times the “hazards” are non-existent, the destitute spouse is the one paying, and the “neglect” is reasonable non-helicopter parenting.
> no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor
Sometimes. Other times the government ignores these or supports the oppressor.
A good strong government is ideal, but a weak government is better than a bad strong government. Usually when government gets too large it becomes corrupt (bureaucracy…), but if it’s too small another group (or groups) will step in as unofficial government.
Isn't that what all freedom is? Every restriction on freedom is for the benefit of society. At least according to those making those restrictions. Even the soviets thought that the reason suppression was necessary was so that those at the top could fix the country and make it better for everyone.
> Every restriction on freedom is for the benefit of society.
A different way to say it: restrictions on freedoms are necessary to enable other freedoms. There is no such thing as total freedom when one lives in a society because one for of freedom for person A will impugn on a different freedom for person B.
They have tried and failed against some people I'm aware of. Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable going into details of exactly how they failed, but I understand it was quite persuasive. Of course in the USA and Canada, it is illegal to defend property by force, except maybe in Texas. So you will probably just get your things taken and then pray the police help (they probably will not).
In any case it's true that you'll probably have to defend your life and property if the government will not. Unfortunately I'm not seeing even western governments as effective at this, and to the extent it is effective, it's more a result of culture / personal self defense / non-governmental community efforts than anything related to the government. In this case having weak governance that at least doesn't have the judicial resources to prosecute people defending themselves can actually be a plus.
Where do you live that armed bandits robbing people of _land_ is an issue but municipal/police corruption is not? And also there is no legal recourse to contest having your land seized?
Obviously it can’t be Canada, where property, including land and businesses, can be seized pending forfeiture being declared by the courts.
I don't see that as a paradise. No matter where you live, someone will come along and take your shit by force. At least in a functioning state with rule of law there are rules about how much they can take, and you get other services in return.
Your point is that no matter where you are somebody with guns (police/bandits) can take your land and unrelatedly in some places there are also public services?
Tl;dr you either pay taxes to a legitimate state (hopefully) with rule of law. Or you don't live in a (well-)functioning state and pay criminals.
"Police take your stuff" can happen in either kind of place. In only the first kind will "call a lawyer" be helpful, and only if it was done illegally.
This whole discussion is about places with weaker government and rule of law. "Call a lawyer" won't necessarily help in such places in getting your property back from corrupt police.
This seems to be the case in Canada as well, at least for myself and my demographic. I've yet to win an election and I doubt I will until the older generations die off in a couple decades.
So there's really no meaningful difference for myself, except I could get fined for drinking a beer on the beach and I smoke because Zyn's are completely banned. Really "free" country eh.
This sounds more like you're just unhappy that the majority of people where you live have different beliefs than you do. Have you tried running in an election or volunteering with a party? You might find it quite interesting.
You could always move to a riding with an MP you like better than the ones that win in yours. Easier said than done, of course, but it's democracy, not slopinthebag-ocracy.
I know this will be an unpopular comment but I actually somewhat like it when governments show their totalitarian side. It's both a wake-up call for some in denial and also drives my favorite type of innovation. That is, anything that subverts censorship. It won't be a lot of people but there will be splinter groups that break away from the big centralized platforms. It's not usually a big deal but it's also not nothing and that's maybe good enough for me.
In the past this occurred in the US as a result of having a totalitarian style Attorney General John Ashcroft in the early 2000's. Many new protocols and applications popped up around his time and his leveraging of the fears around 9/11. There were many articles written about his time in power if anyone was curious.
But, is it possible to undo any of the policies put into place? Seems like once the machinery gets implemented, everyone in government embraces it (my assumption being due to all the spending/enrichment of friends/family gov contractors).
It has been said that the worst government is the one in power, regardless of time or location. That is because they rarely teardown the bad ideas of the past.
Look to the US, regardless of the two parties, most of the time they just keep building on the pervious groups work no matter what the messaging to the people was.
"They look after number one, you ain't even number two" - Frank Zappa
I honestly don't know how things will (d)evolve from here. Official back-doors a.k.a. lawful intercept to encryption is an interesting twist, not a new proposal by any means but in the past this always ended up being hush-hush with small trusted inner circles of people at tech and telephony companies as they could never get such laws passed.
If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions. That leaves us plebs to monitor and find excuses to make arrest quotas. People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context.
And you are right, such frameworks never go away even if they officially go away. There have been projects that have changed names so many times I can't even keep up with them. Total Information Awareness was renamed a few times. The lawful intercept code that was embedded in the firmware of all smart phones Carrier-IQ changed names a few times and last I checked it didn't even have a name any more which means people can't really talk about it.
Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden.
Most spy agencies find having to get a warrant from a judge for each target too cumbersome, so they tap into fiber cables and do unlawful intercept as well.
Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden.
That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdle. This is not some theory but directly from the horses mouths. I have spoken to all the executives at every company I have worked for and this is the general consensus in large companies.
Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.
Not when a company volunteers to perform the intercept without telling anyone. It's technically illegal and governments give the company immunity. Something is only a law to everyone if it is enforced on everyone. I did countless wiretaps in the 90's at the behest of my boss. Once in a while there would be a warrant and sometimes there wasn't. I've seen this behavior all throughout my former careers both in wireless and internet and that's even before we get into the equipment that dials out to clouds to create an ad-hoc bi-directional VPN into the data-center.
> If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions
You vastly overestimate the technical abilities of random people who want to use non-state violence in pursuit of political change.
They specifically said non technical solutions. In the past they adopted things like xbox game chats as they were encrypted in some cases. Non technical doesn't mean non clever. And they do have very technical sponsors to train them. I wish insurgency training was a mandatory high school class, maybe middle school too.
They are clever, but being clever isn't enough. You can be as clever as you want, but if your understanding of the real world and it's systems doesn't match reality, something that you think is completely innocuous will doom your opsec.
And there are so many minor important details in digital communication that an amateur is not likely to get it right every single time.
> People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context.
"As of late April 2026, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The charges stem from an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to say "8647," which prosecutors allege constitutes a threat of violence."
That's a perfect example. People can interpret that in a dozen different ways. There was nothing explicitly stated yet one specific interpretation was chosen and acted upon.
You do realize that in all totalitarian states there is no significant "anti-censorship innovation" of note? Basically you are playing with fire and the only way playing with fire end is when everything burns to ashes. Not just the dust in the corner and that broken toy you don't like, but also everything you like too.
Oh I totally agree that once a nation goes entirely totalitarian nobody is circumventing anything. If people act even slightly suspicious it's boots on necks and gets far far worse from there. The UK, US and even Canada have quite a ways to go to reach that level even if people may think otherwise. A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more.
Canada is still trying to take away everyone's firearms and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into felons by October.
You do realize that that former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is not the Liberal leader who is currently pushing this bill, right? Justin Trudeau is now a private citizen with no official role in his party, in the House of Commons, or in government beyond what applies to any former leader/MP/PM (e.g. former PMs remain Privy Council members).
The current Liberal leader Mark Carney has spent his whole career in the banking world, including running both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at different times, except for running for and winning his current political roles last year. Far from being elected again and again, he’s only been elected once ever in party office and once ever in public office.
Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have very different policies on fiscal and economic matters, to the extent that Carney would probably be a Progressive Conservative if that party still existed at the federal level.
There’s more I could say about the substance of Trudeau’s remark and comparing his China policy to that ofnother PMs like Harper, but that whole tangent is off-topic for this thread, since - again - Trudeau holds no role relevant to current Liberal legislative decisions.
I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies.
CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right.
To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position.
Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement.
The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives.
Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.
It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
> It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
I agree that would be disingenuous, but I never said that. Of course the choices made by every Canadian prime minister in their cabinet are still being felt by their party and the rest of the country slightly over a year after they leave office. Trudeau is no exception.
> Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
It’s a very widely held position and widely discussed in many sources.
As one bit of evidence that he has some appeal to the conservative wing of the political spectrum, Carney himself stated in February 2025 that former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had offered him the role of finance minister in 2012. The response by Harper-era staffers tried to make him look as bad as they could without lying, which is unsurprising treatment of a then-Liberal leadership candidate given how partisan politics works nowadays, but notably they never denied that what he actually said was accurate.
Any new legislation can override old legislation in most countries though? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if your legislature is hostile you need to fix that, not attempt to keep the hostile legislature from passing hostile legislation.
If they don't get voted out for attempting to pass it. Unfortunately it seems fundamentally destroying ou rights is enough for that, you need to do something truly outrageous like try to raise property taxes on seniors to get that from the electorate.
Well, the proper preventative step is to open up the constitution and make an amendment to the chart of rights and freedoms. All that is needed is 7 provinces representing at least 50% or more of the population being in agreement and not taking the opportunity to demand extreme concessions from the rest of the country at the same time! Hahahahah, oh dear.
I've noticed a lot of bad digital rights stuff on HN over the last couple weeks - more pushes on age verification, attacks on end-to-end encryption, and now this. Is there something about the time of year? Maybe because the world cup is coming and people will be distracted?
Part of it is Meta (well Zuck) trying to get ahead of the curve by lobbying lawmakers to put the onus of age verification on OS's rather than platforms.
My engineering team would all take long lunches to catch matches, and most of us would have windowed streams for games not aligning to a lunch break. I'd be willing think it would be a larger intersection that you think it is
That article appears to be slightly biased in favor of attacks on privacy, and it omits important details like the UK's ongoing consultation includes questions on banning VPNs.
You must not think all the freedom they're taking away with this bylaw was important freedom, since you chose to fixate on some irrelevant piece of text.
If someone from the EFF is reading this, could we get a French translation of that article so I can send it to my MP and share around to friends and family. We need a mass movement on that to block it.
Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?
>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability
The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.
>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "
So what exactly is the problem with this definition?
The is the thing and it happens in every Country. If a bill fails to pass it or none like it should be brought up for 5 years.
I know doing that would be crazy, but Companies keep trying and trying until it is passed.
Tin Foil hat time: It almost looks like it is a way to funnel Political Contributions (bribes) to the politicians. The politicians fail the bill because they felt they did not get enough Contributions :)
> If a bill fails to pass it or none like it should be brought up for 5 years.
The republicans would bring up a bill for everything they don’t like and ceremonially vote it down which would make it inaccessible to the next round of democratic leadership.
The media in Canada is given billions in subsidies by the Liberal government, and in turn they have a noticeable bias. They are especially having trouble criticizing the current government under Mark Carney, which has been pointed out by people in the media (and even on CBC).
Since this bill is indefensible they simply don’t report on it much. They’d rather talk about the opposition than the party currently in power.
My guess is that the legislators are completely ignorant of the technical implication of weakening the entire chain and the media are just as ignorant.
It's actually quite defensible from their perspective. They justify it with reason they decided wire tapping was reasonable for the past decades. It's just that they don't understand the risk and implication.
Yes that’s part of it. “Think of the children” is an effective strategy. You’d just expect the media to do the bare minimum of investigative reporting, especially when the CBC has an entire show dedicated to this kind of thing. But they’d rather show how Lays is shrinking the amount of chips in a bag or whatever.
It's sad because they can do good investigative journalism. They took the lead in the Panama Papers case, the hockey canada and Miller sex scandals, recent Indian and Chinese interference, and many more.
The problem might be that this doesn't even need investigation. It's too boring. Everything is said in the bill. They just lack technical literacy to realize the implication.
These things will keep on popping up until they destroy the careers of the politicians and civil servants who do. This is how you stop it. And you make this happen by getting organized and acting.
Curious: what motivates the Canadian government to implement such law? It's not like Canada wants to be a police state in anyway. On the contrary, Canadian government looks pretty chill most of the time, except maybe during the Covid era when they were hellbent on implementing the Covid policies. Or it's the same "for your own good and the state knows how to take care of you" kind of European shit?
Because there's zero electoral accountability, and the voting bloc that insist it be that way are so obsessed with importing all the bad parts of the Commonwealth here that this will not change for the foreseeable future.
That Commonwealth, of course, imports all the cultural ideas and outlooks Coastal Americans have with about a 5 year delay, usually with anti-Americanism as the excuse, at the expense of the local culture.
This is just what happens when you import American politics without the American system that restrains it to just being noise.
It's a confluence of two things: (i) Canada's government policy community tends to be heavily influenced by legislative trends in the UK/Aus/NZ; this particular one is almost a direct import from the UK's ill-advised Online Safety Act, though worse in some ways, and (ii) a series of Canadian Supreme Court decisions, most notably 2024's Bykovets, which the security intelligence apparatus in Canada feels has totally hamstrung data collection.
Both (i) and (ii) have led the government to this dark place, thinking they're doing good.
In the video from the CBC Gary Anandasangaree specifically mentions that the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P) has been lobbying him for this legislation, and that he recently met with them to reaffirm his commitment to passing it.
> led the government to this dark place, thinking they're doing good.
I'll take the other end of the bet claiming that they think they are doing good. I am pretty sure they know what they are doing full well, and it ain't good.
I'm in the middle. I have some sympathy for the Canadian intelligence community's perspective here; in recent years, much intelligence potentially preventing major criminal public safety incidents has had to come through five eyes partners because the legal situation for domestic collection has become unworkable. CSIS refers to the situation as "going dark", which is an unfortunate US terminological import.
That being said, C-22 goes way beyond what would be halfway reasonable to solve the main issues in a fair and rights-respecting way, and I have absolutely no sympathy for the reasoning and goals imported from the UK's Online Safety Act.
I think there could also be some lobbying from Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P). C3P's site is filled with anti-encryption and anti-privacy disinformation, and they are a major Chat Control lobbyist in the EU. They are also currently trying to kill the Tor Project by attacking anyone who funds it.
That's hardly surprising. I assume C3P is staffed by parents who have lost their kids. One can hardly blame them for trying to subvert privacy. Frankly their presence is a good thing; the more people who lose their kids to creeps, the stronger the social reaction to preventing that should be.
But factually I suspect we're almost as safe as we've ever been, so thankfully, their voices aren't too loud.
C3P is not staffed by parents who have lost their kids.
I've had some professional interactions with one person who works for the org, and she came across in a very negative way. I don't want to use pejoratives, and perhaps it's understandable that people who spend so much time on this issue become emotionally invested in it to an unhealthy level, but people so emotionally charged are not well-positioned to craft balanced, rights-respecting digital policy.
When I was young I believed this was the explanation. I though I was smart and everyone else (with politicians at the top of the list) are stupid. But then I learned humility, and I don't believe in good intentions anymore. They can claim good intentions, and mostly they do, but their motives are far from anything that can be called "good intentions". They are not stupid, you know. They just try hard to look stupid. The more stupid politician looks like, the more chances he is just pretending to avoid responsibility. The purpose of their actions is exactly what they get as the result. If they succeed of course.
> But then I learned humility, and I don't believe in good intentions anymore.
I don't either, I agree with that's how they sell it, the problem is that the marketing works and good intentioned people rally behind it, so the saying still applies.
What a deeply troubled time. It's accelerating so fast. All this age verification/surveillance shit is intensifying super fast.
Meanwhile personal computing is being savagely destroyed, as consumer channels to ram and storage disappear.
It's so bad. These people need to be punished. This is so so so unacceptable and the forces for state intrusion into all digital systems and pervasive survelliance have gotten so so so far in the past couple years.
There's an exceptional amount of money to be had in creating the new digital feudal state.
Given that most everyday digital technology is in the hands of a few powerful monopolies they feel they have the opportunity to actually pull this off.
It's not clear to me. Can you please elaborate on how it is to you? In particular I'm interested as to how you've fully excluded corporations from involvement.
To me, I don't believe you can have one without the other, in particular since so much of this power grab requires the instruments of corporations in order to accomplish. If _either one_ of Google or Apple said "we're not implementing these draconian controls, sue us" it would be over. It is interesting they're willing to use this tactic when it comes to protecting their app stores or in-game purchase streams but not when it comes to clear undemocratic overreach.
To be clear I'm not suggesting this is a natural outcome of capitalism in general, just that, in the wake of extreme monopolization, the current crop of mega corporations have become insulated from competitive reality, and are therefore hopelessly corrupt. They're willingly allowing their technology stacks to be used by the government in this way in exchange for the opportunities it affords them and the lack of enforcement it creates.
I worked in privacy and security in canada for decades. We could only hold them off so long. The whole country is being demolished to be reinvented as a technocrat machine levered against human desire.
It means the solutions aren't technical, and nobody votes their way out of this. I've checked out because the demoralization campaign worked, and there is nothing to save. The outs are Alberta separation, US annexation, civil war, or MAID. There is no longer a political solution. If there were, these surveillance controls would not be necessary.
The King is the head of state, it's trivial to switch that to a US appointee. It's the highest likelihood on the list of alternatives to accepting a surveillance state. Canadians don't have the anything for a civil war, nobody who believes in anything will take MAID, Alberta secession has to go through imported "votes" and a process designed to sabotage it.
If Canada had any kind of national identity it would not have become what was recently described as a "south asian country controlled by China," in a conversation about its relationship to US national security. Outside faculty clubs pickle ball courts, and maybe dog daycare pickup runs, there is zero resistance to annexation. It would be the only time the US would ever be "greeted as liberators."
The US is tripping over itself to enact a surveillance state with the assistance of big tech corporations. Becoming a US territory would not, in any way, prevent a surveillance state from taking over.
If you think that Canada can be described as a Chinese puppet by serious people, I'm not sure I can take any of the rest seriously. I'd suggest that you stop listening to MAGA propaganda in the particular, and anglonews in the general.
Canada like all commonwealth countries is descending into authoritarianism. It’s not far off from making speech critical of politicians and government “hate speech”, in some cases it already is. I suspect Canada has about 15-20 years before it transitions fully into a state like Venezuela, and the economy will follow shortly after.
There would of course be much more of a public uproar about C-22 and the steady diet of online censorship and surveillance bills served up over the last 6 years if they were being pushed by a Conservative government. But it's the Liberals, and they get a free pass from mainstream media who are subsidized handsomely for their complicity.
If anyone believes the real intent behind this authoritarian legislation is to protect the kids or crack down on organized crime or to keep the public safe, I have a bridge to sell you. This is an administration that did away with mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, considers pedophilia to be a minor offence, allow repeat violent offenders out on bail repeatedly, refuses to convict migrants if it might impact their chances of obtaining citizenship, has allowed thousands of terrorists to enter the country with minimal vetting, and openly tolerates election interference from China. Public safety is far, far down the list of their priorities. They are very thirsty to silence their online detractors, however.
The bill where one party is against it and one keeps trying to ram it through over and over again, is a good example that the parties are actually the same? Pure unadulterated bothsideism. You can't even defend it, your only hope is to try and make it seem like the one party trying to do this isn't uniquely worse than the other choices.
The way it'll happen is that the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it, and then the parties switch, and the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it. You see how this pattern works? To create the impression that the parties aren't the same?
That's a months old article, though I'm not sure why it was locked?
The r/Canada subreddit unfortunately does not allow articles that the mods deem to be "blog posts" or from organizations they don't consider to be news organizations.
Though the r/Canada community is still overwhelmingly against encryption backdoors, data retention, and mandatory age verification.
Free software, free society. The FSF, GNU and Stallman were serious about this. Your communications should be private under liber (free as in freedom) software. OFC no one should enter your home without a warrant. Your computer data should be dealt in the same way. Your libre OS, your rights. Also, to hell with age fields laws on your own computing, and if Meta's services cant compete against the bots AI the social network themselves promoted, go cry a river and the sooner your lobby mafia collapses down, the better.
Back in the day Gopher required a fee to serve content. Where's Gopher now? They allowed it after seeing the web were eating their lunch like crazy because the web has neither fees nor bullshit licenses. Too late. These laws will suffer the same fate, the lobbies like it or not.
Minitel from the French, where in the 80's they were pioneers for a lot of things in Europe? Adieu, au reviour, bye, adios, killed by the web and open standards. No centralized idiocracy, no fees, no gateway, no nothing.
It was Angelfire, Geocities or your duct-taped homesever with Slackware and Apache.
And today ISP's are trying to ban user hosting/sharing by either disabling some ports or enforcing NAT/CGNAT so they purchase premium plans, but even networks like Yggdrasil are throwing these parasites down and letting every citizen no matter where they are from to create their own sites and freely hosts them without asking anyone what to do with their freedom of speech.
The Nazis tried, they collapsed down from and outside. The Francoists tried the same. In the 60's even the die hard Falangists understood that with science and progress their 19th century bound regime was doomed. Even more with the landing on the Moon, there was a craze about the space, rockets, UFO... times just marched on. Ditto with Soviets and censorship. Good economy plans are useless if you don't allow your "camarades" to spend their resources on anything they like. You know, you could just implement... taxes, as Cubans are trying to do with small companies and co-operatives. Ditto with the Chinese, they learnt a lesson with the Mao famines and the Deng Xiaoping's openness.
But unless they open their regime a little on speech, you can have a great economic plan, for sure, but people burns out. Machines can work without getting tired according to bureaucracy, but humans can't.
You can perfectly set some laws making healthcare better; that works. But the moment you enter on personal lives, telecomms, privacy... you are playing with fire. The Communists don't understand this. Telecomms worked far better in Spain being deregulated and stating net neutrality (and user rights) as something good to be state supported/mandated, but not for the prices, which were really high for a state monolopy.
Liberalization plumetted the prices down.
DItto with classical liberals, but for opposite reasons. Illnesses are too random to be managed by individuals. Worse: a pandemic can wipe your own state, economy and every business if you let the random Joe vaccine or isolate on their own. If they can't afford the costs, they will lie and in weeks it would be too late, your populace can't sustain your business, 1929 but mixed with George Romero.
Said this, if it's illegal to break packages by mail (snooping and intercepting it it's a serious crime in Spain with jail sentences or really high fines), your digital data must be under the same laws. Ah, yes, protect the children, the terrorists, yaddah, yaddah, for sure all the NSA spying with Echelon did prevent the Esptein and Dutroux cases among terror attacks in NYC, Madrid and London . F*ck off, please.
Terrorists can just use pens, paper and table bound encryptions or, you know, cheap $1 devices with cardboard-printed spinning wheels.
I'm reminded of a speech Barack Obama gave many years ago about the difficulty and necessity of finding a "happy medium" between protecting individual liberties and providing law enforcement with the abilities to provide security in a digital world.
I think the topic itself is difficult for everyone involved - there will likely be a lot of uproar for many years as we get closer to finding this happy medium.
There is no happy medium. Government will continuously push for the greatest surveillance power possible, because surveillance is in the government's own interest and personal liberties are not. Obama oversaw the NSA, which blatantly violated the US constitution and showed exactly where his idea of a "happy medium" lies (ie. complete and total surveillance of all Americans' prviate information), so anything he said on the subject is nothing more than lipservice utilising his charisma to prime people to accept more surveillance. He certainly wasn't suggesting a "happy medium" to convince people that less surveillance was needed to reach the target equilibrium.
> I'm reminded of a speech Barack Obama gave many years ago about the difficulty and necessity of finding a "happy medium" between protecting individual liberties and providing law enforcement with the abilities to provide security in a digital world.
Yeah the problem is you'll never get a politician to say "OK, _this_ is what we've determined the 'happy medium' is and we're going to codify in law that it will never go beyond this point." It'll just keep inching further and further and anytime someone complains, just go back to step one and dish out some more "elder statesman" wisdom about having to find a "happy medium." Rinse and repeat. Worked on you, didn't it?
Don't we all inherently know that government surveillance will constantly increase over time if we give in? In theory, we could achieve a "happy medium," but the same access used by a thoughtful law enforcement agency are the same tools that a fascist government would use to suppress dissent or other "wrong" thinking.
Both the mandatory data retention and encryption backdoor requirements will cause encrypted messaging services like Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Matrix, and others to block both Canadians and Canadian businesses from their services.
If you live in Canada or are impacted by this legislation, then you need to tell both your MP and the Minister of Public Safety of Canada to reject this legislation.
---
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) published information about Bill C-22 here just over a week ago: https://ccla.org/privacy/coalition-to-mps-scrap-unprecedente...
The blanket metadata retention and encryption backdoor requirements of Bill C-22 are illegal in the European Union.
Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:
* The Internet Society's tool: https://www.internetsociety.org/our-work/internet-policy/kee...
* OpenMedia's messaging tool: https://action.openmedia.org/page/188754/action/1
* ICLM's messaging tool: https://iclmg.ca/stop-c-22/
I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).
>then you need to tell both your MP and the Minister of Public Safety of Canada to reject this legislation
lol, for what reason? the LPC always gets its way
Why? Because its better to message multiple government officials, rather than betting on a single one. MPs also have a different role than government ministers do.
[flagged]
You need to branch out a bit, and take a look at how countries on the brink actually operate. Go check out Hungary for a country that almost lost their democracy, or check out Russia for a country that never had it but tries to pretend like it does.
Canada is measurably not even close to countries like Russia, where voting truly does not matter (and could actually be hazardous to your health.)
Having spent my fair share of time in 3rd world shitholes, though I wouldn't particularly like Russia, most of them have levels of freedom in day-to-day life you could only dream of north of the Mexican border in the Americas.
In a great deal of area, no one bothers to get a license plate. You can just build a house, no government asshole to block you, and if they do they are only looking for a small bribe. There is no CPS for the next Karen to call to come harass your kids for them playing independently. Very little intervention in family disputes nor practical ability to extract alimony because your wife decided she was "bored." The cash economy thrives. The ability of the government to tax is weak. There is not the money nor personnel available to do Orwellian surveillance and the state has to very strategically pick how to spend its few resources oppressing the populace.
Canada and USA have more freedom on paper. If you don't count the fact you're spending 1/4 or 1/3 of the year slaving to pay taxes, burning another 1/3 of the year to make rent because it's illegal to just erect a shack on a postage stamp and live in it for next to nothing, and that the precious 'rule of law' means instead of the policeman asking for a bribe they'll just arrest you on one of the gazillion laws (ignorance of the law is no excuse!) on the books to get their money instead.
This isn't to say it's better. But a great deal of my family that could immigrate from the third world... have not.... or they use North America as a cash vacuum while they invest in their 3rd world hometown where they can actually get shit done without a gigantic pile of paperwork and environmental reviews with a gazillion rules attached to start and run a business.
I don't want to get into a big debate on libertarianism, but the The "freedoms" being celebrated here are largely freedoms from accountability: the freedom to build without inspections that protect neighbors from fire hazards or ensure you're building on land you own; the freedom from alimony that ensures a financially dependent spouse who made shared life decisions isn't left destitute because those decisions reduced their personal earning potential; the freedom to abuse and neglect your children to whatever extreme degree you wish.
The weak state and cash economy being romanticized also tend to mean no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor - all freedoms that disproportionately belong to whoever is strongest or most corrupt. Regulations are often irritating precisely because they encode hard-won protections for people who aren't you.
> the freedom to build without inspections that protect neighbors from fire hazards or ensure you're building on land you own; the freedom from alimony that ensures a financially dependent spouse who made shared life decisions isn't left destitute because those decisions reduced their personal earning potential; the freedom to abuse and neglect your children to whatever extreme degree you wish.
Sometimes. Other times the “hazards” are non-existent, the destitute spouse is the one paying, and the “neglect” is reasonable non-helicopter parenting.
> no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor
Sometimes. Other times the government ignores these or supports the oppressor.
A good strong government is ideal, but a weak government is better than a bad strong government. Usually when government gets too large it becomes corrupt (bureaucracy…), but if it’s too small another group (or groups) will step in as unofficial government.
Isn't that what all freedom is? Every restriction on freedom is for the benefit of society. At least according to those making those restrictions. Even the soviets thought that the reason suppression was necessary was so that those at the top could fix the country and make it better for everyone.
> Every restriction on freedom is for the benefit of society.
A different way to say it: restrictions on freedoms are necessary to enable other freedoms. There is no such thing as total freedom when one lives in a society because one for of freedom for person A will impugn on a different freedom for person B.
What would your family do if someone with a gun came and took away their land or their business?
They have tried and failed against some people I'm aware of. Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable going into details of exactly how they failed, but I understand it was quite persuasive. Of course in the USA and Canada, it is illegal to defend property by force, except maybe in Texas. So you will probably just get your things taken and then pray the police help (they probably will not).
In any case it's true that you'll probably have to defend your life and property if the government will not. Unfortunately I'm not seeing even western governments as effective at this, and to the extent it is effective, it's more a result of culture / personal self defense / non-governmental community efforts than anything related to the government. In this case having weak governance that at least doesn't have the judicial resources to prosecute people defending themselves can actually be a plus.
Of course in the USA and Canada, it is illegal to defend property by force, except maybe in Texas.
Texas is probably the classic example but many of the other states have similar laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Not gonna bother with this Gish gallop.
Hire a lawyer to get it back from the police.
That's the most confusing answer I've ever read.
How so?
Didn't think I needed to spell it out but here goes. If the police can take your things away at gunpoint, a lawyer isn't going to be much use.
(Yes I'm aware of civil forfeiture. This discussion was about places outside the US).
Where do you live that armed bandits robbing people of _land_ is an issue but municipal/police corruption is not? And also there is no legal recourse to contest having your land seized?
Obviously it can’t be Canada, where property, including land and businesses, can be seized pending forfeiture being declared by the courts.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service...
That's exactly my point.
mothballed waxed poetic about how "free" a land without government control is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48114935
I don't see that as a paradise. No matter where you live, someone will come along and take your shit by force. At least in a functioning state with rule of law there are rules about how much they can take, and you get other services in return.
Your point is that no matter where you are somebody with guns (police/bandits) can take your land and unrelatedly in some places there are also public services?
Let me try one last time.
Tl;dr you either pay taxes to a legitimate state (hopefully) with rule of law. Or you don't live in a (well-)functioning state and pay criminals.
"Police take your stuff" can happen in either kind of place. In only the first kind will "call a lawyer" be helpful, and only if it was done illegally.
This whole discussion is about places with weaker government and rule of law. "Call a lawyer" won't necessarily help in such places in getting your property back from corrupt police.
In the last 15 years while I lived in Canada, my vote literally did not matter, thanks to FPTP.
> where voting truly does not matter
This seems to be the case in Canada as well, at least for myself and my demographic. I've yet to win an election and I doubt I will until the older generations die off in a couple decades.
So there's really no meaningful difference for myself, except I could get fined for drinking a beer on the beach and I smoke because Zyn's are completely banned. Really "free" country eh.
This sounds more like you're just unhappy that the majority of people where you live have different beliefs than you do. Have you tried running in an election or volunteering with a party? You might find it quite interesting.
I probably would find it interesting, but it still wouldn't change the fact that representative democracy is a fantasy.
You could always move to a riding with an MP you like better than the ones that win in yours. Easier said than done, of course, but it's democracy, not slopinthebag-ocracy.
Doing nothing is guaranteed to fail. Apathy only helps the bad guys win.
Messaging campaigns at least have a chance of influencing things.
Yeah, I contacted my MP (via email). No response. :\
"unelected"? seriously?
Yes, you win as a Conservative then scam your district crossing the floor to Liberal.
You elect MPs in Canada, not parties
Not in practice, virtually everyone votes for party and MP’s vote with their party >99% of the time.
As we can see, in practice, voting for the party and not the MP is a mistake - because there's nothing chaining an MP to the party
Carney’s current majority is correlated to PP’s douchiness levels and Trump adjacent language.
I’m not in love with bankers running the country either, but give us another option.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I know this will be an unpopular comment but I actually somewhat like it when governments show their totalitarian side. It's both a wake-up call for some in denial and also drives my favorite type of innovation. That is, anything that subverts censorship. It won't be a lot of people but there will be splinter groups that break away from the big centralized platforms. It's not usually a big deal but it's also not nothing and that's maybe good enough for me.
In the past this occurred in the US as a result of having a totalitarian style Attorney General John Ashcroft in the early 2000's. Many new protocols and applications popped up around his time and his leveraging of the fears around 9/11. There were many articles written about his time in power if anyone was curious.
But, is it possible to undo any of the policies put into place? Seems like once the machinery gets implemented, everyone in government embraces it (my assumption being due to all the spending/enrichment of friends/family gov contractors).
It has been said that the worst government is the one in power, regardless of time or location. That is because they rarely teardown the bad ideas of the past.
Look to the US, regardless of the two parties, most of the time they just keep building on the pervious groups work no matter what the messaging to the people was.
"They look after number one, you ain't even number two" - Frank Zappa
I honestly don't know how things will (d)evolve from here. Official back-doors a.k.a. lawful intercept to encryption is an interesting twist, not a new proposal by any means but in the past this always ended up being hush-hush with small trusted inner circles of people at tech and telephony companies as they could never get such laws passed.
If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions. That leaves us plebs to monitor and find excuses to make arrest quotas. People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context.
And you are right, such frameworks never go away even if they officially go away. There have been projects that have changed names so many times I can't even keep up with them. Total Information Awareness was renamed a few times. The lawful intercept code that was embedded in the firmware of all smart phones Carrier-IQ changed names a few times and last I checked it didn't even have a name any more which means people can't really talk about it.
Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden.
Most spy agencies find having to get a warrant from a judge for each target too cumbersome, so they tap into fiber cables and do unlawful intercept as well.
Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden.
That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdle. This is not some theory but directly from the horses mouths. I have spoken to all the executives at every company I have worked for and this is the general consensus in large companies.
Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.
Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.
Not when a company volunteers to perform the intercept without telling anyone. It's technically illegal and governments give the company immunity. Something is only a law to everyone if it is enforced on everyone. I did countless wiretaps in the 90's at the behest of my boss. Once in a while there would be a warrant and sometimes there wasn't. I've seen this behavior all throughout my former careers both in wireless and internet and that's even before we get into the equipment that dials out to clouds to create an ad-hoc bi-directional VPN into the data-center.
> If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions
You vastly overestimate the technical abilities of random people who want to use non-state violence in pursuit of political change.
They specifically said non technical solutions. In the past they adopted things like xbox game chats as they were encrypted in some cases. Non technical doesn't mean non clever. And they do have very technical sponsors to train them. I wish insurgency training was a mandatory high school class, maybe middle school too.
They are clever, but being clever isn't enough. You can be as clever as you want, but if your understanding of the real world and it's systems doesn't match reality, something that you think is completely innocuous will doom your opsec.
And there are so many minor important details in digital communication that an amateur is not likely to get it right every single time.
> People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context.
"As of late April 2026, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The charges stem from an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to say "8647," which prosecutors allege constitutes a threat of violence."
That's a perfect example. People can interpret that in a dozen different ways. There was nothing explicitly stated yet one specific interpretation was chosen and acted upon.
You do realize that in all totalitarian states there is no significant "anti-censorship innovation" of note? Basically you are playing with fire and the only way playing with fire end is when everything burns to ashes. Not just the dust in the corner and that broken toy you don't like, but also everything you like too.
Oh I totally agree that once a nation goes entirely totalitarian nobody is circumventing anything. If people act even slightly suspicious it's boots on necks and gets far far worse from there. The UK, US and even Canada have quite a ways to go to reach that level even if people may think otherwise. A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more.
Canada is still trying to take away everyone's firearms and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into felons by October.
>A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more.
That is already true of Canada, as it is no longer possible to live like a Canadian [in the way they were hoping for] on immigrant wages.
>and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into criminals
The entire point of the gun bill is to do this. The purpose of a system is what it does.
[flagged]
You do realize that that former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is not the Liberal leader who is currently pushing this bill, right? Justin Trudeau is now a private citizen with no official role in his party, in the House of Commons, or in government beyond what applies to any former leader/MP/PM (e.g. former PMs remain Privy Council members).
The current Liberal leader Mark Carney has spent his whole career in the banking world, including running both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at different times, except for running for and winning his current political roles last year. Far from being elected again and again, he’s only been elected once ever in party office and once ever in public office.
Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have very different policies on fiscal and economic matters, to the extent that Carney would probably be a Progressive Conservative if that party still existed at the federal level.
There’s more I could say about the substance of Trudeau’s remark and comparing his China policy to that ofnother PMs like Harper, but that whole tangent is off-topic for this thread, since - again - Trudeau holds no role relevant to current Liberal legislative decisions.
I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies.
Same party, same people, just a new leader, but it's the same direction. There was no 180 pivot for Canada, just a new "elbows up" slogan from another CCP puppet PM. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-...
CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right.
To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position.
Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement.
The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives.
Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.
It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
> It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
I agree that would be disingenuous, but I never said that. Of course the choices made by every Canadian prime minister in their cabinet are still being felt by their party and the rest of the country slightly over a year after they leave office. Trudeau is no exception.
> Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
It’s a very widely held position and widely discussed in many sources.
As one bit of evidence that he has some appeal to the conservative wing of the political spectrum, Carney himself stated in February 2025 that former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had offered him the role of finance minister in 2012. The response by Harper-era staffers tried to make him look as bad as they could without lying, which is unsurprising treatment of a then-Liberal leadership candidate given how partisan politics works nowadays, but notably they never denied that what he actually said was accurate.
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-stephen-harper-...
Just keep bringing legislation back eventually it gets through.
Yep, if it fails this year it will be back next year under a new name.
Only need to get it through once. We have to defend against it repeatedly.
The legislative process has a check valve. Vote on it until passes, then it can't be undone ever.
Any new legislation can override old legislation in most countries though? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if your legislature is hostile you need to fix that, not attempt to keep the hostile legislature from passing hostile legislation.
If they don't get voted out for attempting to pass it. Unfortunately it seems fundamentally destroying ou rights is enough for that, you need to do something truly outrageous like try to raise property taxes on seniors to get that from the electorate.
Well, the proper preventative step is to open up the constitution and make an amendment to the chart of rights and freedoms. All that is needed is 7 provinces representing at least 50% or more of the population being in agreement and not taking the opportunity to demand extreme concessions from the rest of the country at the same time! Hahahahah, oh dear.
theres a majority now, so it will definitely pass if brought forward by the government
That's p-values for you.
I've noticed a lot of bad digital rights stuff on HN over the last couple weeks - more pushes on age verification, attacks on end-to-end encryption, and now this. Is there something about the time of year? Maybe because the world cup is coming and people will be distracted?
Part of it is Meta (well Zuck) trying to get ahead of the curve by lobbying lawmakers to put the onus of age verification on OS's rather than platforms.
I'm doubtful the venn diagram intersection of engineers and the world cup is as big as you think it is.
My engineering team would all take long lunches to catch matches, and most of us would have windowed streams for games not aligning to a lunch break. I'd be willing think it would be a larger intersection that you think it is
engineers sure
non-permanently-online activists on the other hand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q3x19ddl7o is perhaps an unintentionally good summary of this situation.
That article appears to be slightly biased in favor of attacks on privacy, and it omits important details like the UK's ongoing consultation includes questions on banning VPNs.
I mean, what do you expect from state-controlled media?
In my hometown, we're quashing human rights to make room for the world cup! It's not a smokescreen, it's the justification.
https://www.pivotlegal.org/city_of_vancouver_s_new_fifa_byla...
From your link: “Further, the enforcement of this Bylaw, like all laws enacted in our current colonial and racist legal system…”
Practically no Vancouverite would read this page and take it seriously.
You must not think all the freedom they're taking away with this bylaw was important freedom, since you chose to fixate on some irrelevant piece of text.
If someone from the EFF is reading this, could we get a French translation of that article so I can send it to my MP and share around to friends and family. We need a mass movement on that to block it.
The linked CCLA article is available in French [0].
[0]: https://ccla.org/fr/intimite/coalition-to-mps-scrap-unpreced...
Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?
>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability
The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.
>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "
So what exactly is the problem with this definition?
The is the thing and it happens in every Country. If a bill fails to pass it or none like it should be brought up for 5 years.
I know doing that would be crazy, but Companies keep trying and trying until it is passed.
Tin Foil hat time: It almost looks like it is a way to funnel Political Contributions (bribes) to the politicians. The politicians fail the bill because they felt they did not get enough Contributions :)
> If a bill fails to pass it or none like it should be brought up for 5 years.
The republicans would bring up a bill for everything they don’t like and ceremonially vote it down which would make it inaccessible to the next round of democratic leadership.
[flagged]
A rose by any other name… :)
[flagged]
How is this not bigger news?
The media in Canada is given billions in subsidies by the Liberal government, and in turn they have a noticeable bias. They are especially having trouble criticizing the current government under Mark Carney, which has been pointed out by people in the media (and even on CBC).
Since this bill is indefensible they simply don’t report on it much. They’d rather talk about the opposition than the party currently in power.
My guess is that the legislators are completely ignorant of the technical implication of weakening the entire chain and the media are just as ignorant.
It's actually quite defensible from their perspective. They justify it with reason they decided wire tapping was reasonable for the past decades. It's just that they don't understand the risk and implication.
Yes that’s part of it. “Think of the children” is an effective strategy. You’d just expect the media to do the bare minimum of investigative reporting, especially when the CBC has an entire show dedicated to this kind of thing. But they’d rather show how Lays is shrinking the amount of chips in a bag or whatever.
It's sad because they can do good investigative journalism. They took the lead in the Panama Papers case, the hockey canada and Miller sex scandals, recent Indian and Chinese interference, and many more.
The problem might be that this doesn't even need investigation. It's too boring. Everything is said in the bill. They just lack technical literacy to realize the implication.
Fatigue. They just keep proposing the same thing.
These things will keep on popping up until they destroy the careers of the politicians and civil servants who do. This is how you stop it. And you make this happen by getting organized and acting.
Curious: what motivates the Canadian government to implement such law? It's not like Canada wants to be a police state in anyway. On the contrary, Canadian government looks pretty chill most of the time, except maybe during the Covid era when they were hellbent on implementing the Covid policies. Or it's the same "for your own good and the state knows how to take care of you" kind of European shit?
Why are they so determined to do evil?
Because there's zero electoral accountability, and the voting bloc that insist it be that way are so obsessed with importing all the bad parts of the Commonwealth here that this will not change for the foreseeable future.
That Commonwealth, of course, imports all the cultural ideas and outlooks Coastal Americans have with about a 5 year delay, usually with anti-Americanism as the excuse, at the expense of the local culture.
This is just what happens when you import American politics without the American system that restrains it to just being noise.
It's a confluence of two things: (i) Canada's government policy community tends to be heavily influenced by legislative trends in the UK/Aus/NZ; this particular one is almost a direct import from the UK's ill-advised Online Safety Act, though worse in some ways, and (ii) a series of Canadian Supreme Court decisions, most notably 2024's Bykovets, which the security intelligence apparatus in Canada feels has totally hamstrung data collection.
Both (i) and (ii) have led the government to this dark place, thinking they're doing good.
In the video from the CBC Gary Anandasangaree specifically mentions that the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P) has been lobbying him for this legislation, and that he recently met with them to reaffirm his commitment to passing it.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7198040
C3P wants encryption backdoors, has been involved with lobbying for encryption in numerous other countries.
> led the government to this dark place, thinking they're doing good.
I'll take the other end of the bet claiming that they think they are doing good. I am pretty sure they know what they are doing full well, and it ain't good.
I'm in the middle. I have some sympathy for the Canadian intelligence community's perspective here; in recent years, much intelligence potentially preventing major criminal public safety incidents has had to come through five eyes partners because the legal situation for domestic collection has become unworkable. CSIS refers to the situation as "going dark", which is an unfortunate US terminological import.
That being said, C-22 goes way beyond what would be halfway reasonable to solve the main issues in a fair and rights-respecting way, and I have absolutely no sympathy for the reasoning and goals imported from the UK's Online Safety Act.
I think there could also be some lobbying from Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P). C3P's site is filled with anti-encryption and anti-privacy disinformation, and they are a major Chat Control lobbyist in the EU. They are also currently trying to kill the Tor Project by attacking anyone who funds it.
That's hardly surprising. I assume C3P is staffed by parents who have lost their kids. One can hardly blame them for trying to subvert privacy. Frankly their presence is a good thing; the more people who lose their kids to creeps, the stronger the social reaction to preventing that should be.
But factually I suspect we're almost as safe as we've ever been, so thankfully, their voices aren't too loud.
C3P is not staffed by parents who have lost their kids.
I've had some professional interactions with one person who works for the org, and she came across in a very negative way. I don't want to use pejoratives, and perhaps it's understandable that people who spend so much time on this issue become emotionally invested in it to an unhealthy level, but people so emotionally charged are not well-positioned to craft balanced, rights-respecting digital policy.
It's LPC policy to listen to these kinds of lobby groups, no matter how unhinged they might be.
A significant participant in a lobby group with similar aims, Nathalie Provost, is actually a sitting MP in Quebec.
> Both (i) and (ii) have led the government to this dark place, thinking they're doing good.
You can summarize a lot of government actions of any spectrum with: "The road to hell is full of good intentions"
When I was young I believed this was the explanation. I though I was smart and everyone else (with politicians at the top of the list) are stupid. But then I learned humility, and I don't believe in good intentions anymore. They can claim good intentions, and mostly they do, but their motives are far from anything that can be called "good intentions". They are not stupid, you know. They just try hard to look stupid. The more stupid politician looks like, the more chances he is just pretending to avoid responsibility. The purpose of their actions is exactly what they get as the result. If they succeed of course.
> But then I learned humility, and I don't believe in good intentions anymore.
I don't either, I agree with that's how they sell it, the problem is that the marketing works and good intentioned people rally behind it, so the saying still applies.
What a deeply troubled time. It's accelerating so fast. All this age verification/surveillance shit is intensifying super fast.
Meanwhile personal computing is being savagely destroyed, as consumer channels to ram and storage disappear.
It's so bad. These people need to be punished. This is so so so unacceptable and the forces for state intrusion into all digital systems and pervasive survelliance have gotten so so so far in the past couple years.
They just got elected a 4th time in a row this is what the average Canadian wants...
Usually? Money.
There's an exceptional amount of money to be had in creating the new digital feudal state.
Given that most everyday digital technology is in the hands of a few powerful monopolies they feel they have the opportunity to actually pull this off.
This is clearly a government power grab, not a corporate one.
It's not clear to me. Can you please elaborate on how it is to you? In particular I'm interested as to how you've fully excluded corporations from involvement.
To me, I don't believe you can have one without the other, in particular since so much of this power grab requires the instruments of corporations in order to accomplish. If _either one_ of Google or Apple said "we're not implementing these draconian controls, sue us" it would be over. It is interesting they're willing to use this tactic when it comes to protecting their app stores or in-game purchase streams but not when it comes to clear undemocratic overreach.
To be clear I'm not suggesting this is a natural outcome of capitalism in general, just that, in the wake of extreme monopolization, the current crop of mega corporations have become insulated from competitive reality, and are therefore hopelessly corrupt. They're willingly allowing their technology stacks to be used by the government in this way in exchange for the opportunities it affords them and the lack of enforcement it creates.
Because we've removed the ability for anyone non-evil to succeed politically.
[dead]
Why this is not treated as act of terrorism by law enforcement?
I worked in privacy and security in canada for decades. We could only hold them off so long. The whole country is being demolished to be reinvented as a technocrat machine levered against human desire.
It means the solutions aren't technical, and nobody votes their way out of this. I've checked out because the demoralization campaign worked, and there is nothing to save. The outs are Alberta separation, US annexation, civil war, or MAID. There is no longer a political solution. If there were, these surveillance controls would not be necessary.
If you think becoming an American colony is going to be an 'out', I have some seafront property in Edmonton to sell you.
The King is the head of state, it's trivial to switch that to a US appointee. It's the highest likelihood on the list of alternatives to accepting a surveillance state. Canadians don't have the anything for a civil war, nobody who believes in anything will take MAID, Alberta secession has to go through imported "votes" and a process designed to sabotage it.
If Canada had any kind of national identity it would not have become what was recently described as a "south asian country controlled by China," in a conversation about its relationship to US national security. Outside faculty clubs pickle ball courts, and maybe dog daycare pickup runs, there is zero resistance to annexation. It would be the only time the US would ever be "greeted as liberators."
The US is tripping over itself to enact a surveillance state with the assistance of big tech corporations. Becoming a US territory would not, in any way, prevent a surveillance state from taking over.
If you think that Canada can be described as a Chinese puppet by serious people, I'm not sure I can take any of the rest seriously. I'd suggest that you stop listening to MAGA propaganda in the particular, and anglonews in the general.
These serious people you know, do they read primary sources?
- PRC police stations in Canada: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...
- Foreign interference in elections: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=comp/m...
You have no serious people.
Canada like all commonwealth countries is descending into authoritarianism. It’s not far off from making speech critical of politicians and government “hate speech”, in some cases it already is. I suspect Canada has about 15-20 years before it transitions fully into a state like Venezuela, and the economy will follow shortly after.
There would of course be much more of a public uproar about C-22 and the steady diet of online censorship and surveillance bills served up over the last 6 years if they were being pushed by a Conservative government. But it's the Liberals, and they get a free pass from mainstream media who are subsidized handsomely for their complicity.
If anyone believes the real intent behind this authoritarian legislation is to protect the kids or crack down on organized crime or to keep the public safe, I have a bridge to sell you. This is an administration that did away with mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, considers pedophilia to be a minor offence, allow repeat violent offenders out on bail repeatedly, refuses to convict migrants if it might impact their chances of obtaining citizenship, has allowed thousands of terrorists to enter the country with minimal vetting, and openly tolerates election interference from China. Public safety is far, far down the list of their priorities. They are very thirsty to silence their online detractors, however.
"A country where the media attack the Opposition rather than the government is a country where freedom is under threat." - Peter Hitchens
The major parties are usually just two sides of the same coin. This is a good example of it.
The bill where one party is against it and one keeps trying to ram it through over and over again, is a good example that the parties are actually the same? Pure unadulterated bothsideism. You can't even defend it, your only hope is to try and make it seem like the one party trying to do this isn't uniquely worse than the other choices.
The way it'll happen is that the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it, and then the parties switch, and the party in power is trying to ram it through and the opposition is firmly against it. You see how this pattern works? To create the impression that the parties aren't the same?
Comments are locked on reddit and brigades are downvoting the articles about it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1rrxqje/liberal_gov...
That's a months old article, though I'm not sure why it was locked?
The r/Canada subreddit unfortunately does not allow articles that the mods deem to be "blog posts" or from organizations they don't consider to be news organizations.
Though the r/Canada community is still overwhelmingly against encryption backdoors, data retention, and mandatory age verification.
how are Canada and America different from China/Russia?
Free software, free society. The FSF, GNU and Stallman were serious about this. Your communications should be private under liber (free as in freedom) software. OFC no one should enter your home without a warrant. Your computer data should be dealt in the same way. Your libre OS, your rights. Also, to hell with age fields laws on your own computing, and if Meta's services cant compete against the bots AI the social network themselves promoted, go cry a river and the sooner your lobby mafia collapses down, the better.
Back in the day Gopher required a fee to serve content. Where's Gopher now? They allowed it after seeing the web were eating their lunch like crazy because the web has neither fees nor bullshit licenses. Too late. These laws will suffer the same fate, the lobbies like it or not.
Minitel from the French, where in the 80's they were pioneers for a lot of things in Europe? Adieu, au reviour, bye, adios, killed by the web and open standards. No centralized idiocracy, no fees, no gateway, no nothing. It was Angelfire, Geocities or your duct-taped homesever with Slackware and Apache.
And today ISP's are trying to ban user hosting/sharing by either disabling some ports or enforcing NAT/CGNAT so they purchase premium plans, but even networks like Yggdrasil are throwing these parasites down and letting every citizen no matter where they are from to create their own sites and freely hosts them without asking anyone what to do with their freedom of speech.
The Nazis tried, they collapsed down from and outside. The Francoists tried the same. In the 60's even the die hard Falangists understood that with science and progress their 19th century bound regime was doomed. Even more with the landing on the Moon, there was a craze about the space, rockets, UFO... times just marched on. Ditto with Soviets and censorship. Good economy plans are useless if you don't allow your "camarades" to spend their resources on anything they like. You know, you could just implement... taxes, as Cubans are trying to do with small companies and co-operatives. Ditto with the Chinese, they learnt a lesson with the Mao famines and the Deng Xiaoping's openness.
But unless they open their regime a little on speech, you can have a great economic plan, for sure, but people burns out. Machines can work without getting tired according to bureaucracy, but humans can't.
You can perfectly set some laws making healthcare better; that works. But the moment you enter on personal lives, telecomms, privacy... you are playing with fire. The Communists don't understand this. Telecomms worked far better in Spain being deregulated and stating net neutrality (and user rights) as something good to be state supported/mandated, but not for the prices, which were really high for a state monolopy. Liberalization plumetted the prices down.
DItto with classical liberals, but for opposite reasons. Illnesses are too random to be managed by individuals. Worse: a pandemic can wipe your own state, economy and every business if you let the random Joe vaccine or isolate on their own. If they can't afford the costs, they will lie and in weeks it would be too late, your populace can't sustain your business, 1929 but mixed with George Romero.
Said this, if it's illegal to break packages by mail (snooping and intercepting it it's a serious crime in Spain with jail sentences or really high fines), your digital data must be under the same laws. Ah, yes, protect the children, the terrorists, yaddah, yaddah, for sure all the NSA spying with Echelon did prevent the Esptein and Dutroux cases among terror attacks in NYC, Madrid and London . F*ck off, please.
Terrorists can just use pens, paper and table bound encryptions or, you know, cheap $1 devices with cardboard-printed spinning wheels.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Share resources on what to do
This would presume the rate-limiting factor is information distribution, which seems doubtful.
Which is maybe my trap all along…
What would you have us do beyond voting against it?
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm reminded of a speech Barack Obama gave many years ago about the difficulty and necessity of finding a "happy medium" between protecting individual liberties and providing law enforcement with the abilities to provide security in a digital world.
I think the topic itself is difficult for everyone involved - there will likely be a lot of uproar for many years as we get closer to finding this happy medium.
There is no happy medium. Government will continuously push for the greatest surveillance power possible, because surveillance is in the government's own interest and personal liberties are not. Obama oversaw the NSA, which blatantly violated the US constitution and showed exactly where his idea of a "happy medium" lies (ie. complete and total surveillance of all Americans' prviate information), so anything he said on the subject is nothing more than lipservice utilising his charisma to prime people to accept more surveillance. He certainly wasn't suggesting a "happy medium" to convince people that less surveillance was needed to reach the target equilibrium.
> I'm reminded of a speech Barack Obama gave many years ago about the difficulty and necessity of finding a "happy medium" between protecting individual liberties and providing law enforcement with the abilities to provide security in a digital world.
Yeah the problem is you'll never get a politician to say "OK, _this_ is what we've determined the 'happy medium' is and we're going to codify in law that it will never go beyond this point." It'll just keep inching further and further and anytime someone complains, just go back to step one and dish out some more "elder statesman" wisdom about having to find a "happy medium." Rinse and repeat. Worked on you, didn't it?
Don't we all inherently know that government surveillance will constantly increase over time if we give in? In theory, we could achieve a "happy medium," but the same access used by a thoughtful law enforcement agency are the same tools that a fascist government would use to suppress dissent or other "wrong" thinking.