Eraserhead
kbal
joined 2 years ago
Microwaving is cooking. Vibe coding is to microwaving what staring at the food and pretending you have heat-ray vision is to microwaving.
Yeah it was a big milestone. Many related developments soon followed. It's an interesting coincidence that linux was first released the same year. Strong end-to-end encryption has in common with free software that it's taken an awfully long time for ordinary people to begin understanding that it's important and worth the effort to use. Like free software, once it gets going it can't be stopped.
The secret of how to do strong encryption is out, since 1991. You can't erase it from everyone's minds. Criminals can not be stopped from using it by passing laws against it. Its only law-abiding people who will be made unsafe by that.
It's the game of Go. Also known as baduk, weiqi, igo. It's a board game known for being pretty old.
I keep expecting that at any moment the prime minister will become aware of what ended up in the text, the government will back down in shame, and the bill will be withdrawn and never seen again. But even if they do recognize the need to do that — as previous governments did with similar legislation that wasn't as appallingly bad as this bill — I suppose it will take a few months. Let it be a constant annoyance to them until that time.
All right well it was nice chatting with you. I had some strong feelings about C-2 and the discussion has left me more confident that I didn't miss anything, that it's just as bad as it looks.
So it would appear that there is already some ability to find phone locations without a warrant already.
Yeah, I imagine there is some kind of exemption to whatever legal convention, regulation, or perceived risk of liability normally prevents them handing out that information to anyone who asks which applies in case of medical emergencies. Perhaps somewhere in the regulation pertaining to e911, at a guess. But mobile phones are of course are already a privacy disaster as they operate now. Society is still in the process of becoming accustomed to that. I imagine you're probably aware that the advice not to bring a phone if you go anywhere near a protest march is now commonly heard.
The phone company is of course happy to assist law enforcement — and anyone who can convincingly impersonate law enforcement — in any way they can get away with, so long as it doesn't cost them money. That is why all the provisions in C-2 protecting and providing new opportunities for the "voluntary provision of information" are themselves consequential. What they're not permitted to share with the cops, they are definitely not permitted to simply sell to data brokers either — but for some types of data it's law enforcement that has been restrained in what they're allowed to ask for, not the telcos that were prevented giving it away. That's what creates the situation you mention with data brokers, which new privacy law could usefully address.
When it comes to Facebook and Twitter, I believe that one way or another the surveillance advertising business model ought to be outlawed. But that's another story.
Medical data is one place where there are some serious laws about privacy, I grant you. It's a rare exception to the general rule. Some of the problems you perceive to be about privacy law seem to be more the result of simple incompetence and ignorance on the part of whoever designed e.g. the immigration website you were trying to use. It seems much like the familiar situation where online banking software won't work on custom Android ROMs or their website refuses to load on Firefox — they will claim it's for the benefit of your security and privacy but you should not believe them.
My feelings about elected officials do not come into it except to be dismayed that any of them would come up with or vote for such legislation. I voted NDP due to having some admiration for their local candidate if that means anything by way of answering your questions.
As I understand it (and as other commentators e.g. La Presse have confirmed) some of the new data collection powers in the bill require a warrant, others do not. Phone location data appears to sometimes fall on the "not" side along with anything voluntarily shared, "subscriber information", and other metadata. There are many other parts besides which look problematic. But it's Part 15 which for me is the worst.
The relevant expertise I have is in telecom and computer technology. I was around for the "crypto wars" in the 1990s, the previous big push towards making secure communications illegal in the USA. The good guys won, that time, and as a result people today can communicate safely with friends and family around the world using apps like Signal. Aside from all other problems with this bill, whatever in it alarms me and compels so many others to decry it, for me it's part 15 that exemplifies the kind of egregious and unjustifiable attempt to do away with privacy and security I never thought I'd see in Canada.
If an online fentanyl retailer wants to "hide behind an international border" they will presumably pick one that is not party to the treaty. As is often the case, the criminal bogeymen used to justify new intrusions upon privacy will have the easiest time evading them. It will be the rest of us who suffer the consequences. The new opioids are by their nature easily-smuggled, and determined people will continue to have ways to gain access to them. No feasible amount of totalitarian police state oppression is really going to change that. Other approaches seem more promising.
Other approaches to fighting off the sickness that is Meta also seem more advisable. Consult Cory Doctorow for ideas.
Certainly we do sometimes need cooperation between nations in law enforcement. Perhaps in some areas even more of it than we already have. There is no need for it to come at the expense of our privacy, security, and freedom from unwarranted cross-border surveillance — I think the amount of that we already have is sufficient.
Sorry, but we can only get so much security by giving up your privacy, now we need the kind of security that can only be bought by giving up your security as well.