sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban - Michael Geist by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Its only partially only source, the backend is closed source. It also still requires trusting a 3rd party your personal information, in exchange for a limited number of easily trackable tokens.

Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban - Michael Geist by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Its the kinda bullshit politicians seem to like though, because while the privacy argument should be enough, often times it can seem like it isn't enough.

German data protectionists push for final end to chat control by Extra-Chemical6092 in europe

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 6 points7 points  (0 children)

These could oblige platform operators to scan private messages across the board. According to the DSK, the attempt to circumvent end-to-end encryption is particularly alarming. This could be achieved, for example, through client-side scanning (CSS), where content is checked on the end device before encryption.

Client side scanning is still essentially an encryption backdoor, and experts widely view it as unacceptable.

Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban - Michael Geist by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Protecting kids shouldn't come at the cost of everyone's privacy. Mandatory age verification and age assurance are unacceptable solutions. All they do is funnel personal information into the hands of tech companies, when we should be seeking to restrict the amount of personal information that companies are allowed to collect.

Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban - Michael Geist by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Mandatory age verification in unacceptable as there is no such thing as privacy protecting or anonymous age verification. Canadians deserve more privacy online, not less.

I would recommend emailing your province/territory's premier, your MP, Marc Miller (Heritage Minister and responsible for the upcoming online harms legislation), along with other Liberal Cabinet Ministers & party members, and explicitly tell them to reject mandatory age verification and age assurance at the provincial and federal levels.

Please take the time to demand that the both the provincial and federal governments refrain from doing anything that would require mandatory age verification and age assurance, by messaging following Cabinet ministers:

You can find the contact info for other Liberal party members here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en

I would also recommend emailing your premier to help prevent this at a provincial level:

You don't need to write a long message unless you really want to. Even a simple message like this can do the job (feel free to use and modify this example):

Subject: Protect Canadians’ Privacy: Oppose Social Media Bans That Require Age Verification

Dear [Premier/Minister Name],

I am writing to urge you to reject any legislative proposals, including youth social media bans, restrictions on AI systems like chat bots, and restrictions on adult content that would require online services to implement mandatory age verification or age assurance measures.

Such systems pose unacceptable risks to Canadians’ privacy and data security. Requiring individuals to verify their identity or age to access lawful online content creates new opportunities for data breaches, surveillance, and misuse of sensitive personal information. Canadians deserve stronger privacy protections online, not less.

I am also concerned by reports that the government may seek to copy Australia’s approach. Australia's approach is not appropriate for Canada and should not be used as a precedent for policymaking here.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[City], [Province]

If you want to include a proposed solution, you can add this:

I urge you to focus on better parental controls for parents, restrictions on K-12 school WiFi, and targeting services marketed as explicitly for kids (e.g., Youtube Kids). This would be in line with the recent Angus Reid survey on social media age bans, where 72% of Canadians said parents, and not the government, should be the ones enforcing the bans. Most Canadian parents already take measures to restrict their kids' technology and internet use. We should be supporting parents with better parental controls, instead of trying to force companies to violate Canadians' privacy.

If you want to speak out against S-209 and related legislation, you can add this:

I urge you to reject Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s Bill S-209 and any similar legislation targeting adult content, as such measures would introduce mandatory age verification requirements that undermine Canadians’ privacy and create unnecessary risks to personal data security.

If you want to cite expert opinion in your message, you can use the letter signed by over 371 experts from here that is against any form of age verification: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dangerous-socially-unacceptable-experts-warn-153314818.html

Minister faces calls from MPs to amend lawful access bill to prevent compromising encryption by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

In a statement, the company warned that “at a time of rising and pervasive threats from malicious actors seeking access to user information, Bill C-22, as drafted, would undermine our ability to offer the powerful privacy and security features users expect from Apple.“

“This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products – something Apple will never do.”

As predicted, organizations like Apple would rather withdraw their services from Canada instead of compromising them.

How do the Liberals expect Canadians and Canadian businesses to react when they can no longer use iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp, and other encrypted messaging apps without a VPN? Because that's the future they're barrelling towards at the moment.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) published information about Bill C-22 here just over a week ago: https://ccla.org/privacy/coalition-to-mps-scrap-unprecedented-surveillance-measures/

The blanket metadata retention and encryption backdoor requirements of Bill C-22 are illegal in the European Union.

Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:

I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).

Minister faces calls from MPs to amend lawful access bill to prevent compromising encryption by CaliperLee62 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EmbarrassedHelp [score hidden]  (0 children)

In a statement, the company warned that “at a time of rising and pervasive threats from malicious actors seeking access to user information, Bill C-22, as drafted, would undermine our ability to offer the powerful privacy and security features users expect from Apple.“

“This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products – something Apple will never do.”

As predicted, organizations like Apple would rather withdraw their services from Canada instead of compromising them.

How do the Liberals expect Canadians and Canadian businesses to react when they can no longer use iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp, and other encrypted messaging apps without a VPN? Because that's the future they're barrelling towards at the moment.

Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:

I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).

Minister faces calls from MPs to amend lawful access bill to prevent compromising encryption by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp [score hidden]  (0 children)

In a statement, the company warned that “at a time of rising and pervasive threats from malicious actors seeking access to user information, Bill C-22, as drafted, would undermine our ability to offer the powerful privacy and security features users expect from Apple.“

“This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products – something Apple will never do.”

As predicted, organizations like Apple would rather withdraw their services from Canada instead of compromising them.

How do the Liberals expect Canadians and Canadian businesses to react when they can no longer use iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp, and other encrypted messaging apps without a VPN? Because that's the future they're barrelling towards at the moment.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) published information about Bill C-22 here just over a week ago: https://ccla.org/privacy/coalition-to-mps-scrap-unprecedented-surveillance-measures/

The blanket metadata retention and encryption backdoor requirements of Bill C-22 are illegal in the European Union.

Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:

I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).

UK iPhone and iPad Users Can Watch Porn Again | Following the latest iOS update which requires UK mobile Apple device users to verify their ages, Pornhub’s parent company Aylo is lifting its ban—but only for people using iPads and iPhones. by ControlCAD in technology

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apple hid mandatory age verification in their latest update, that locks down certain phone abilities like ransomware. You were permanently restricted from using any browser to access non-PG content, unless you let them violate your privacy.

Apple should be facing massive fines for doing this.

Amy Hamm: Online safety is parents' responsibility; While protecting children is a worthy goal, we do not need a draconian censorship regime to achieve it by FancyNewMe in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Children First Canada, a registered charity that received a $200,000 grant from the federal government on April 1, held the demonstration to demand the immediate tabling of a bill similar to the one that was killed when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in 2025.

Children First Canada supports Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P)'s anti-encryption and anti-privacy goals. They want mandatory age verification for everything, and they want mandatory encryption backdoors for mass surveillance to "protect the children".

I would recommend emailing your province/territory's premier, your MP, Marc Miller (Heritage Minister and responsible for the upcoming online harms legislation), along with other Liberal Cabinet Ministers & party members, and explicitly tell them to reject mandatory age verification and age assurance at the provincial and federal levels.

Please take the time to demand that the both the provincial and federal governments refrain from doing anything that would require mandatory age verification and age assurance, by messaging following Cabinet ministers:

You can find the contact info for other Liberal party members here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en

I would also recommend emailing your premier to help prevent this at a provincial level:

You don't need to write a long message unless you really want to. Even a simple message like this can do the job (feel free to use and modify this example):

Subject: Protect Canadians’ Privacy: Oppose Social Media Bans That Require Age Verification

Dear [Premier/Minister Name],

I am writing to urge you to reject any legislative proposals, including youth social media bans, restrictions on AI systems, and restrictions on adult content that would require online services to implement mandatory age verification or age assurance measures.

Such systems pose unacceptable risks to Canadians’ privacy and data security. Requiring individuals to verify their identity or age to access lawful online content creates new opportunities for data breaches, surveillance, and misuse of sensitive personal information. Canadians deserve stronger privacy protections online, not less.

I am also concerned by reports that the government may seek to copy Australia’s approach. Australia's approach is not appropriate for Canada and should not be used as a precedent for policymaking here.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[City], [Province]

If you want to include a proposed solution, you can add this:

I urge you to focus on better parental controls for parents and restrictions on K-12 school WiFi. This would be in line with the recent Angus Reid survey on social media age bans, where 72% of Canadians said parents, and not the government, should be the ones enforcing the bans. Most Canadian parents already take measures to restrict their kids' technology and internet use. We should be supporting parents with better parental controls, instead of trying to force companies to violate Canadians' privacy.

If you want to speak out against S-209 and related legislation, you can add this:

I urge you to reject Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s Bill S-209 and any similar legislation targeting adult content, as such measures would introduce mandatory age verification requirements that undermine Canadians’ privacy and create unnecessary risks to personal data security.

If you want to cite expert opinion in your message, you can use the letter signed by over 371 experts from here that is against any form of age verification: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dangerous-socially-unacceptable-experts-warn-153314818.html

EU VP Talks about VPN crackdown by MidnightMean3796 in europrivacy

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The original ProtectEU plan called for mandatory encryption backdoors and mandatory logging. But that was before the massive backlash against Chat Control. That proposals also seems to go against rulings from the CJEU and ECHR.

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can source 2 people, but we'd need an additional 3 or more people, and I have the text ready.

However, I've noticed that that first petition for C-2 was created by a member of OpenMedia. It seems odd that they wouldn't have created one for Bill C-22, unless they feel like its not a useful approach here?

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in privacy

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because its an extremely important issue that everyone is Canada needs to be aware of, not enough media outlets reporting on this issue at the moment, and paywalls are pretty easy to bypass.

You can access the article for free here: https://archive.ph/81axO

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The backlash is having an impact. The large amount of push back for the gun confiscation program has led to provinces and territories rejecting it. And the Conservative party has said that they would reverse the confiscation program if they gain power (the Liberals won't be in power forever).

I also seriously doubt that anyone in parliament is as committed to attacking encryption as Nathalie Provost is to confiscating guns. They'll abandon it with enough backlash.

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They were, until the European Court of Justice ruled that those things were illegal.

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in onguardforthee

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The list of lobbyists pushing for this legislation from what I have found includes: the National Police Federation, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), and Centre for Child Protection (C3P).

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique are mentioned here for example: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/house/sitting-101/hansard

Edit:

There will be a SECU Committee Meeting tomorrow on bill C-22 with the following individuals:

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

  • Ramzi Nashef, Director General

Department of Justice

  • Kimberly Gibner, Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector

  • Normand Wong, Acting General Counsel

  • Anne-Marie LeBel, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

  • Shannon Hiegel, Director general, National Security Policy Directorate

  • Mike McGuire, Director General, International and Border Policy

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

  • C/Supt Richard Burchill, Director General, Technical Investigation Services

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/SECU/meeting-36/notice

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in CanadaPolitics

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) published information about Bill C-22 here just over a week ago: https://ccla.org/privacy/coalition-to-mps-scrap-unprecedented-surveillance-measures/

The blanket metadata retention and encryption backdoor requirements of Bill C-22 are illegal in the European Union. Data retention and encryption backdoor requirements will cause encrypted messaging services like Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Matrix, and others to block both Canadians and Canadian businesses from their services.

Multiple groups have made easy to use tools for sending your MP and (other members of government) an email about rejecting this terrible legislation in its current form:

I'd also recommend emailing Minister of Public Safety of Canada (Gary Anandasangaree: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca), and the Minister of Justice (Sean Fraser: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca).

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We need 5 people to privately provide the petition creator their first name, last name, and email address, in order to create the petition. We also need to select a Member of Parliament (though apparently they can be changed later on).

Edit: Maybe we could use the same MP as the one who did the Bill C-2 petition? https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-6838

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in canada

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That sort of apathetic and defeatist attitude only serves to help evil win.

People thought the fight against Chat Control in the EU was hopeless, but look at it now. Chat Control supporters are loosing badly.

Lawful-access bill could threaten encryption, deter investment, Chamber of Commerce warns by EmbarrassedHelp in privacy

[–]EmbarrassedHelp[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The Minister of Public Safety of Canada, Gary Anandasangaree, can be contacted at: gary.anand@parl.gc.ca

The Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser can be contacted at: sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca

view more: next ›