Das zweiköpfige Überwachungsmonster von Lawful Access: Wie Bill C-22 aus der Bahn geriet

There have been a number of recent news stories on this, but I think they’ve done a poor job highlighting the distinction between the different parts of Bill C-22. Many people — including myself, I admit — have conflated metadata collection with some of the other aspects of the bill.

Geist’s article makes this distinction much clearer than has been spelled out in the news stories I’ve read recently. It’s worth a read to understand exactly what the problems are with part 2. There are additional problems that are independent of the issues around metadata collection.

Edit: After re-reading, I realize I incorrectly interpreted the „**two** headed monster“ referred to in the article title as mapping onto the **two** main parts of the bill (‚timely access‘ vs ’supporting authorized access‘), but that’s not the case. There is a distinction between metadata retention requirements and technical capability mandates, but they both arise from part 2 of the bill.

The smart play the companies battling this made was choosing to throw a fit while the government is on a two week break. Now they have no recourse to try and damage control/spin it as the anger gets louder.

I’m pretty confident this will either fail or get watered down. Still has to go through the Senate and then as pointed out by numerous laywers in an open letter, this likely gets gunned down by the Supreme Court for being a blatant charter violation and/or going straight up against prior decisions made on internet privacy.

Smart move.