You know something goes too far when Google, and Meta speak out against it.
You know it’s bad when fucking google says it’s too much spying.
Forgot where I heard it now. But somebody said if the literal ass 1930’s Stasi saw modern surveilence, they would blush and tell us we’re taking this a little too far.
A 1930s what now?
A 1930s what now?
These guys. You can’t really call them the OG surveilence agency. That goes back 1000’s of years. But the idea of the quote is this. If they saw the pure scale of modern surveilence… The enormity of it. Even they would say “nah come on be reasonable guys.” Like Google here with C-22.
Sounds like somebody skipped their history class, back in the 30s you would’ve had Gestapo or Abwehr. Because Germany was fascist at the time.
The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, pronounced [minɪsˈteːʁiʊm fyːɐ̯ ˈʃtaːtsˌzɪçɐhaɪt]; abbreviated MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (pronounced [ˈʃtaːziː] ⓘ, an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the intelligence service and secret police of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic or GDR) from 1950 to 1990.
Yes, I got the date wrong from memory. Doesn’t change the point tho.
It does illustrate how the whole moral high ground the west claimed over the Soviet bloc was always just a veneer.
harder to sell our data if just anyone can waltz in and steal it
“Don’t have them spy on you, only we should!”
You know something goes too far when Google, and Meta speak out against it.
They also spoke against the denial of the volunteer Chat Control in the EU and said they will do it anyway (likely illegal).
this overly dumb shit is something i kind of wish they implemented, and suffered consequences from.
it’s the type of stuff that will make them see the bad idea they are getting to.
Unfortunately, politicians are not known for admitting mistakes. Quite the opposite, in fact
i mean the people that support them. politicians are not dumb, they are mostly malicious and want to get the orwellian powers.
So hey Canadians… spare a thought for your clueless friends to the south! Is there a good chance C-22 fails to pass? What’s the lowdown?
I’ve read a couple stories about the bill. But they only talk about everybody who hates it. Signal, Apple, etc. I haven’t seen any analysis of the political situation. Like, if there might be enough MPs aligned against it to torpedo it.
Err… MPs vote on it, right? Sorry. Clueless yank.
edit for typos
This started as part of C-2, a strong border bill. Specifically sections 14 and 15. It didn’t get the votes and failed because of 14 and 15. It was later reintroduced as two bills, a border bill and a lawful access bill.
C-22 is a tamer version of sections 14 and 15 in C-2. The Liberals have a majority so they may have the votes.
Several parts of this bill violates The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I’m hoping the courts will kill the bill.
Thanks! I have a notion that your political system is less crazy dysfunctional than ours. So… got my fingers crossed for a good outcome.
I found this, with transcripts of the debate. https://openparliament.ca/bills/45-1/C-22/
You are very welcome. Thanks for the link.
deleted by creator
Sure “these two trolls” are against it but so is Proton, Signal, Apple, Nordvpn, Windscribe vpn, The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Cybersecurity Advisors Network.
As well as Canadian technology lawyers David Fraser and Michael Geist.
The chairs of the US House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees both have spoken against C-22.
Many respected privacy companies are against the bill.
you lost me with us judiciary committee. The fact that you capitalise those us terms tells me almost everything i need to know about your post.
Go argue about grammar with a lawyer. I typed it as Mr Geist did and I’m willing to bet he had far more education than you or I.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
What an awful way to view the world. Just because your enemy has a stance on something, doesn’t mean its always inherently wrong.
What an awful way to view the world. Just because your enemy has a stance on something, doesn’t mean its always inherently wrong.
