The legislation intentionally defines "electronic service" extremely vaguely so that it can apply to almost anything software and technology related:
> electronic service means a service, or a feature of a service, that involves the creation, recording, storage, processing, transmission, reception, emission or making available of information in electronic, digital or any other intangible form by an electronic, digital, magnetic, optical, biometric, acoustic or other technological means, or a combination of any such means. (service électronique)
The legislation allows for any electronic service to be subject to the same rules as telecom companies for metadata retention and lawful access.
This legislation was tabled by Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca) and has the support of the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca). The Canadian Prime Minister (Mark Carney: mark.carney@parl.gc.ca) is also obviously involved in pushing this.
The Minister of Public Safety has indicated that he wants to rush this legislation into law before June 19, which is when Canadian parliament goes into recess for the summer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I see, your point is that people with guns can take your land but in some places when you pay taxes it gives you hope that it’s not the police that will do that and in other places paying the criminals could give you hope that they won’t take your land
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.
> electronic service means a service, or a feature of a service, that involves the creation, recording, storage, processing, transmission, reception, emission or making available of information in electronic, digital or any other intangible form by an electronic, digital, magnetic, optical, biometric, acoustic or other technological means, or a combination of any such means. (service électronique)
The legislation allows for any electronic service to be subject to the same rules as telecom companies for metadata retention and lawful access.
* https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r...
reply