I wonder why the Canadian government would share citizens data with the u.s. while all this 51st state talk and terrif stuff is going on, does Canada get access to Americans data in return?

▲

petcat 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> does Canada get access to Americans data in return?

It probably is reciprocal, but in reality Canadian companies sell very little (if any) digital services to Americans. There isn't much they can even access. It's why the arrangement is so lopsided.

▲

sellmesoap 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think reciprocity would be in violation of the 4th amendment, and why don't Canadians have protection in the same way!

▲

petcat 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> why don't Canadians have protection in the same way

Well, they might have their own Fourth Amendment if they chose to fight against the British instead of with them during the American revolution!

History aside, now they have what they have.

▲

sellmesoap 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have a Canadian Constitution and the Charter of rights and freedoms, section 8 covers search and privacy, it even looks like a warrant is needed for messages just laying around a server https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc16/2013scc1... but this bill aims to put a harpoon through our charter rights!

	▲	EmbarrassedHelp 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Canada is relatively unique among the common wealth countries as its founders were smart enough to remove parliamentary supremacy and have real judicial review. I just wish that they would have also included a constitutional review council that reviews legislation before it comes law like France did (Constitutional Council), because a massive amount of damage can be done while waiting for the Canadian Supreme Court to rule on something.

▲

vkou 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You should probably educate yourself about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has so far held up far better than the Amendments. Its language is far more specific and precise, and the document itself provides justification and context for its requirements... Unlike the amendments, which have largely been re-interpreted and gutted by partisan judges into absurdity.

Do the 13th, or the 14th, or the 4th amendment mean anything these days?

▲

petcat 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We'll need to see some examples of this. Especially given the topic at hand.

▲

vkou 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Examples of what? An insurrectionist assuming the office of president? SCOTUS approving gerrymandering aimed at suppressing minority votes? Armed, masked thugs with a license to kill asking for your papers when you walk the street? Trump running for a third term in office? Immigrants arrested, held without trial, and deported without due process or access to a lawyer?

We have lots of examples of that. Are there lots of examples in Canada of basic charter rights being violated in such a manner? Or do you dispute that the text of the charter is unclear?

If it's the latter, you're free to read it for yourself. Is there a lot in https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html#h-44 that you find unclear?

▲

AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Are there lots of examples in Canada of basic charter rights being violated in such a manner?

Plenty, it's just usually against unpopular targets. The most notable recent one being the trucker protest[1]. And what were the consequences for those in charge for this charter violation? I believe the answer is "nothing".

So what we have in Canada is a charter that theoretically protects citizens, but in practice can be violated by the government with impunity.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou...

	▲	vkou an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't understand a bit of your complaint. As you yourself described, the system worked exactly as intended. The government does something illegal, the courts mull over it, and decide that it was, in fact, illegal. The government's currently not doing it. Surely you can see a difference between an one-off that after the fact was found to be illegal, and hasn't been repeated, versus a pattern of the courts making batshit insane rulings? Since you think that the truckers had to right to do what they did... If the courts ruled against them, would you have taken that as evidence for the quality of the charter, and the legal system that stands behind it? Or is this a tails I win, heads you lose situation? No piece of paper can ever prevent a government from doing something illegal, or from passing an illegal law. The courts are only ever an after-the-fact remedy. In the US, meanwhile, that remedy doesn't even work.

▲

p_l 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

FATCA shows how promised reciprocity works (spoiler: it does not)

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]