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.

▲

EmbarrassedHelp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

bdamm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	qball 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

dmitrygr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	AlanYx 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

Izikiel43 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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"

	▲	ordu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.