Discussion
natas: Quick summary for the impatient (the original looks like an extract from Orwell's 1984):Bill C-22 (Canada, 2026) proposes updating 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, including in urgent situations and from foreign companies. The bill also creates a framework requiring electronic service providers to support lawful access requests. Finally, it mandates a future parliamentary review of these new powers.
IAmGraydon: Is this one also the work of Meta?
abenga: Is all this nonsense being pushed everywhere now because everyone's eyes are on the war?
jonny_eh: It’s being pushed all the time
shwaj: Why do you say that, did Meta sponsor similar legislation in another country? It doesn't seem like they have strong incentives to push for this. How does it make them more money?
hsuduebc2: If by similiar you mean more spying then yes.https://wicks.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250909-google-meta-...
newsclues: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/a-tale-of-two-bills-lawf...
dang: Thanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.
nitinreddy88: You forgot to add /s!As a foreigner, It would be near impossible for one company to ask every govt in that world to make this happen (with current political weather conditions).HN people will always find someway to connect this to their most hated companies (be it Meta, Google, Microsoft)
throwatdem12311: Canadians have gleefully voted themselves into tyranny.
thinkingkong: By all means please expand.This lazy comment behaviour is for reddit where you’ll be welcomed with open arms.
mhurron: You missed 'warrentless' in your summary. It's sort of important.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.
briandw: [delayed]
paseante: The bill's language is carefully sanitized — "subscriber information," "transmission data," "preservation demands" — but strip away the euphemisms and it's a dragnet. The pattern is always the same: propose broad surveillance powers during a crisis when nobody's paying attention, wrap it in "public safety" language, and make the telecoms do the dirty work so the government has plausible distance from the data collection.The most telling part is the requirement for "electronic service providers to support access requests" — that's not a wiretap with a warrant, that's building permanent interception infrastructure into every Canadian ISP and platform. Once that infrastructure exists, it never gets dismantled. It only gets expanded. Ask the Americans how CALEA turned out — passed in 1994 for "lawful intercept," now the backbone of the NSA's collection apparatus.The timing — during a major war when media bandwidth is consumed by Iran — is either coincidence or competence. Neither is comforting.
recursivegirth: The American's are none-the-wiser. We are fighting terrorist's after all, we need to ease-drop into every domestic household to make sure those "cells" aren't planning anything awful.
Joel_Mckay: Maybe, but taxpayers did pay >$20m for some really bad advice before the last clown left the circus =3https://www.amazon.com/When-McKinsey-Comes-Town-Consulting/d...
newsclues: Thanks he has been consistently awesome on the topic!
shirro: The problem for all 5 eyes (or 9 or 14) is that our co-operation dates back to the cold war and the institutions and thinking have not caught up to current geo-political and technical changes. If anything we are accelerating our co-operation at a time when many voters are seriously questioning the future of the US alliance.I wish some of our leaders would be more forthcoming about the amount of foreign pressure their governments are under. We talk about the negative influence on social media and politics of countries we are not allied with often but there is an astonishing silence when it comes to the biggest player. There is a very real threat to local values and democracy.
Joel_Mckay: Be kind, most of the US can longer differentiate between tyranny and despotism.The poster does have a point with a former head of the RCMP busted for spying for China, and 3 senior officers arrested for organized crime activity last year.I don't like the idea of such folks bypassing a court warrant threshold review. =3"The Story of Mouseland: As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA
emptybits: Regarding warrantless searches and access ... reading the text of the bill (OP link) warrants seem to be required. Simple, right?Well, no, this is a recently inserted block of text in the bill (confirm at the link above): Exception (2. 7)(b) However, a copy of the warrant is not required to be given to a person under subsection (2. 6) if the judge or justice who issues the warrant sets aside the requirement in respect of the person, on being satisfied that doing so is justified in the circumstances. That's a pretty big, subjective loophole to bypass civil liberties IMO.
post-it: I don't really see an issue with this section. A judge still needs to issue a warrant, they can also additionally waive the requirement that the cop gives you a copy right away, in special circumstances.Like are you envisioning a "I totally have a warrant but I don't have to give it to you" type situation? I think it's fairly unlikely, and you would likely be able to get the search ruled inadmissible if a cop tried it.
0xbadcafebee: [delayed]
ActorNightly: Its kinda funny how every time this comes up, and certain kind of people make a big deal about it, nothing ever happens. Remember when Canada froze funds of the "Freedom Convoy" participants, and everyone was up in arms that this was the end of "freedom"?Well, turns out Canada is doing just fine. Meanwhile in US, everyone who had the same "freedom" sentiment got swindled hard and voted for Republicans, which actually do implement measures against personal freedoms, and now US is circling down the drain.The truth is, most of the time when people complain about surveillance state or privacy, its because they just want to spout of a bunch of baseless propaganda like race realism or anti vax. Normal people aren't affected by this - nobody cares enough about politics, and most people aren't intelligent enough to form a dangerous opinion.And with the rise of right wing populism everywhere, things like this bill are a good thing if they allow the authorities to deal with the relevant parties much more efficiently.
IAmGraydon: Yes. You can start here:https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...
TutleCpt: It's just another reason not to live in Canada. That the country's lack of a self-defense law. Coupled with the hell that's going on in the US, all of North America is basically a no-go zone. Europe has never looked so good.
bethekidyouwant: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/index.htmlThe ‘meta-data’ seems to be run off the mill things that telcos and isps already collect. I’m not seeing the tyranny of the police being able to ask bell if this number they have is a customer of theirs so they can ask a judge to get the list of people buddy called.
diacritical: > The truth is, most of the time when people complain about surveillance state or privacy, its because they just want to spout of a bunch of baseless propaganda like race realism or anti vax. Normal people aren't affected by this - nobody cares enough about politics, and most people aren't intelligent enough to form a dangerous opinion.That's not the truth. Everyone's affected and the risk will only continue to rise if we let such bills pass. One day it will be too late to do anything, as mass surveillance will be so entrenched as to not be able to form any kind of opposition or to do any kind of serious journalism without getting squished in the beginning before you even get started.
hrimfaxi: > The truth is, most of the time when people complain about surveillance state or privacy, its because they just want to spout of a bunch of baseless propaganda like race realism or anti vax. Normal people aren't affected by this - nobody cares enough about politics, and most people aren't intelligent enough to form a dangerous opinion.Where did you get that idea?edit: it seems the comment I replied to was edited
b00ty4breakfast: why even allow for the possibility of misuse? what is the utility of this little addendum?
transcriptase: “Canada is doing just fine”Found the federal govt employee or boomer who bought real estate in the 90s
SecretDreams: Even people who bought up til like 2015 are doing well. Housing in Canada really imploded 2015-2023 or so. Before that, it was still very frothy, but low rates and high immigration and poor policy around speculation and flipping of homes really turned the whole country tits up re: housing.
ActorNightly: > One day it will be too late to do anything, as mass surveillance will be so entrenched as to not be able to form any kind of opposition or to do any kind of serious journalism without getting squished in the beginning before you even get started.This has been the sentiment since early days of patriot act, and we have plenty of history that shows this is absolutely not the case.You can't keep fear mongering with the same bullshit over and over and then expect people to believe it every time. At this point, its pretty clear that people who are against stuff like this are the ones who actually want enough "freedoms" for their own nefarious means.
ActorNightly: Because that has literally been the history of the past 10 years.When people criticized the left, nobody was arrested, nobody got put in jail. During Obamas term, despite the fact that the Patriot act was renewed, nobody ever went toIts only when right wing people started getting deplatformed for anti vax or race realism rhetoric is when this whole idea started that "liberal governments are actually evil and want to control every citizen and suppress free speech", which all contributed to Trumps victories, and consequently Republicans proved that they were the ones anti free speech in the first place.
SecretDreams: But the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out?
1123581321: It’s a huge problem. The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know something wrong is being done to them. A warrant is not just a term for judicial approval.The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work.
mygooch: They had to use "parl" for the domain because Canada can't even agree on what the spelling of the word is.
chaostheory: [delayed]
pharos92: Worth mentioning that Canadian PM Mark Carney is the ex-head of the Bank of England and has a long list of pro-uk/globalist affiliations. Given the globalist aligned states and territories are the most on-board in progressing mass surveillance currently, it's sadly not a surprise.
chaostheory: [delayed]
ipaddr: Why would you think Canada is fine when the government can freeze your accounts at will?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.
rkagerer: Canadian here.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.
nxm: Canada is has been turning into a totalitarian state since the Liberal government took over
gpm: It's a play on the two different names for the Parliament of Canada (Parlement du Canada en français) - everyone agrees how to spell the words in both English and French though.
myHNAccount123: Posted for 2 hours and almost half the takes are pretty unhinged and downvoted.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.
bluegatty: It's not bad. Judges are not crazy and they'll require a reason for this. It could mean 'fraying at the edges' of the law but this is not bad at all.You can tell where things will land with this generally it's not bad.If it were Texas or the South where the justice dept. leans a different way it could be a problem.Canada is a bit like Europe where they have statist mentality, kind of hints of lawful, bureaucratic authoritarianism - not arbitrary or political or regime driven, but kind of an inherent orientation towards 'rules' etc. where the system can tilt wayward, but that's completely different than regime, or 'deep institutional' issues and state actors that do wild things.
emkoemko: "That the country's lack of a self-defense law.".... what on earth are you talking about
ebiester: It isn't as if the non-globalist affiliations are any less interested in this kind of control. This is frankly ad-hominem.
halJordan: Letting a few cold feet throw away your relationship with the US is absolutely just as stupid as Trump throwing away the US's relationship with Europe/whoever.
BLKNSLVR: Less so if the US is going to try to request current (prior?) allies to assist in a war against Iran which has already been declared 'won' and was recommended against by pretty much everyone outside of current participants.
gnabgib: Does your comment help?
gruez: "Appears Meta is heavily lobbying for Linux age verification" is true but incomplete. So far as I can tell, in the case of them lobbying for age verification, they're trying to get ahead of public sentiment souring on them and wanting age verification and/or social media bans. Your own source admits that they're specifically pushing for bills that require verification by the OS itself, which conveniently offloads the burden off of them. It also pokes a hole in the (presumed) conspiracy theory, which is that meta is lobbying for the bill so they have an excuse to collect even more info on its users. However, if the verification is done by the OS, it won't have that info.
goodroot: Source? Rationale?This is - at best - ignorant hyperbole.
smashah: Why do the Epsteinists want to invade our privacy? It's like they're addicted to it. If the "State" can be so easily co-opted then it's time to consider abolishing it so we can go back to being autonomous tribes.
goldylochness: all these governments that supposedly prided themselves on their freedoms and fair processes are somehow becoming prisons to their own citizens
globalnode: should have kept the internet open and free, govts and big business trying to control people is a missed opportunity for catching stupid people blabbing all their plans online. now the stupid people are going to think twice before sharing online.
tempestn: Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of voting for a political party that matches every one of our priorities. I don't support this bill; I do support some other aspects of the Liberal platform. Likewise with the other major parties. I vote for the one that best reflects my overall views.**Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.
