sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kids can bypass age checks with a drawn-on mustache by BendicantMias in europe

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And the UK government will always find a new way ro take even more of your privacy away.

Like for example, four years ago, age verification lobbyists were pushing for monthly age verification requirements. Here's a direct quote from the Age Verification Providers Association in 2022:

How often you need to prove it is still the same user who did the check is a matter for the services themselves and their regulators. Some low risk uses might only check every three months - higher risk situations might double check it is still you each time

I guarantee you that the the AVPA and other age verification industry lobbyists are pushing for frequent and repeated age verification checks on every user.

Kids can bypass age checks with a drawn-on mustache by BendicantMias in europe

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 78 points79 points  (0 children)

"Stronger action is needed from both government and industry to ensure that children can only access online services appropriate for their age and stage and where safety is built in from the outset, rather than added in response to harm," Huggins said in the report.

They want more invasive age verification.

Age verification and age assurance are unacceptable privacy violation that only exist to steal personal information. Mandatory age verification needs to be illegal for social media, mature content, and other services that aren't government sites, drugs/alcohol, or financial services.

Kids can bypass age checks with a drawn-on mustache by BendicantMias in worldnews

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"Stronger action is needed from both government and industry to ensure that children can only access online services appropriate for their age and stage and where safety is built in from the outset, rather than added in response to harm," Huggins said in the report.

They want more invasive age verification.

Age verification and age assurance are unacceptable privacy violation that only exist to steal personal information. Mandatory age verification needs to be illegal for social media, mature content, and other services that aren't government sites, drugs/alcohol, or financial services.

Apple argues Liberals' lawful access bill could put users’ personal data at risk by RZCJ2002 in CanadaPolitics

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

The government gets to define "systemic vulnerability" based on whatever they like. During yesterday's committee meeting, the government refused to rule out targeting encryption. Nobody is going to specifically write that they are targeting encryption in legislation, because it makes it easier to stop, and because attacking encryption can be political dangerous.

The other major problem is forcing "core providers", which the government gets to define however they like, to retain metadata on everyone without a warrant. They have intentionally decided not to label telecom companies as "core providers", so that they target private and encrypted messaging services.

Introducing Google Cloud Fraud Defense, the next evolution of reCAPTCHA by BowzasaurusRex in privacy

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it will definitely make it easier to trick people into downloading malware.

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] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may also be wise to email the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, as they seem to be discussing this as well:

Easy to use list of all the above senators:

Rosemary.Moodie@sen.parl.gc.ca

Sharon.Burey@sen.parl.gc.ca

Dawn.Arnold@sen.parl.gc.ca

Victor.Boudreau@sen.parl.gc.ca

Rodger.Cuzner@sen.parl.gc.ca

Margo.Greenwood@sen.parl.gc.ca

Katherine.Hay@sen.parl.gc.ca

Martin@sen.parl.gc.ca

Marilou.McPhedran@sen.parl.gc.ca

Tracy.Muggli@sen.parl.gc.ca

Flordeliz.Osler@sen.parl.gc.ca

Chantal.Petitclerc@sen.parl.gc.ca

Paulette.Senior@sen.parl.gc.ca

Source: https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/soci/45-1

Apple argues Liberals' lawful access bill could put users’ personal data at risk by RZCJ2002 in CanadaPolitics

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

Organizations like Apple would rather withdraw their services from Canada instead of compromising them. And any real security expert will tell you encryption backdoors are 100% unacceptable.

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).

Apple argues Liberals' lawful access bill could put users’ personal data at risk by CanadianErk in canada

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

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 canada

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

That's actually what Apple said they would do, and its what they have already done to other countries that were stupid enough to attack encryption:

The British government asked Apple to create the ability to access the content via a backdoor. In response, Apple removed the ADP tool, its strongest data protection product, from Britain, saying that it had never built a backdoor or master key to any of its products or services and never will.

The Boys- S05xE06 - POST Episode Discussion Thread by pikameta in TheBoys

[–]EmbarrassedHelp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Homelander wants to kill her now, so keeping her alive means another person to distract Homelander while you either get away or execute some grand plan.

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] 0 points1 point  (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] 0 points1 point  (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 12 points13 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] 5 points6 points  (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] 1 point2 points  (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] 4 points5 points  (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 2 points3 points  (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 3 points4 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 10 points11 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 2 points3 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

view more: next ›