3/15/2026 at 11:28:28 PM
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.
by emptybits
3/16/2026 at 11:09:01 AM
Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.by therealpygon
3/16/2026 at 2:13:59 PM
This is an interesting perspective, because from my point of view, the criminals ceasing their illegal activity would be a "win". Whereas, the alternative is the government knowingly allowing illegal activity to continue as they build their case with the goal of a "big bust" and larger jail sentences.by TheJoeMan
3/16/2026 at 3:24:09 PM
If their co-conspirators were also to cease, I would agree. But if that were realistically the case, arresting a single person would stop all crime.by therealpygon
3/16/2026 at 4:25:42 PM
the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...by p0w3n3d
3/16/2026 at 5:05:25 PM
Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?by gzread
3/16/2026 at 5:24:49 PM
It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.by danlivingston
3/16/2026 at 5:28:27 PM
One of which is apparently the liberty to not be investigated without your knowledge.by gzread
3/16/2026 at 5:59:53 PM
Where did they say you can't be "investigated without your knowledge" ?by irishcule
3/16/2026 at 12:39:47 PM
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.by reactordev
3/16/2026 at 3:29:00 PM
What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to gain proof in order to prove it wasn’t harassment has an obvious problem.by therealpygon
3/16/2026 at 7:21:37 PM
Is that really the case though? I'm not really sure I can think of any major cultural shifts or specific incidences that have changed Canadian law enforcement in the way that you describe.How did these kinds of things happen in Canada and how do they relate specifically to bill C-22?
by Teever
3/16/2026 at 5:39:26 PM
Bad apples…Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.
by reactordev
3/16/2026 at 5:36:53 PM
So we're worried about cops violating civil liberties by not getting a warrant, but we'd rather they go harass random (potentially innocent) civilians to do investigations?by thenewnewguy
3/16/2026 at 5:38:14 PM
You missed the point. The point was, like in mob movies or crime dramas, you go outside where the criminals are.by reactordev
3/16/2026 at 11:57:40 AM
Yes, but the warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time, you should alert them to discourage future crime (they may have already done more crimes during X time; besides public interest, it also forces you to cut your losses when the alternative would be to dig a deeper hole).Do these warrants have a fixed maximum duration of secrecy?
by armchairhacker
3/16/2026 at 12:43:15 PM
“warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time”This is the normal thinking, normal brained, route. It’s what we should all strive towards. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs therapy. There should be a window of discovery. 30 days, 90 maybe. But if you don’t have enough to justify notification of investigation, that’s it. No more resources spent. This is how normal precincts work. If they suspect, enough times, to build a large enough case file, to connect the dots and prove you are guilty, they issue a warrant.
Normal, brained, behavior.
by reactordev