Canada

It's not deceptive, it's just trying to reach the people who won't care otherwise. This is Lemmy, we're self selected for giving a shit about privacy online. The average person doesn't. But the average person in Canada right now is screaming "elbows up" from the rooftops, so if you frame the C-22 debate around that, suddenly you have their attention.

Idk, the negativity directed towards the bill is overblown imo, and its getting amplified by US interests that don't want the bill passed. It's got multiple clauses explicitly saying "providers are not to introduce systemic vulnerabilities as part of complying with this bill", and "no user content is part of this". So of course people have interpreted that as "Backdoor to all your content!" and blasted that out continuously on social media, tied to petitions that auto-spam your MP against the bill. Adding in some additional alarmism of "Trump wants the bill!" to the scene fits.

If a particular service is being used disproportionately to facilitate crimes, such as fraud phishing calls, piracy, kiddie porn, coordinating terrorist attacks, white supremacist/racist groups, etc, then its reasonable for that service to be regulated / beholden to government dictates/rules. We've taken that approach to things like Firearms, where we recognise that most owners of firearms are likely regular law abiding people, but the risk/negative elements of it are such that they warrant regulations. We don't allow gun makers to avoid those regulations just because *they *don't *want *to keep track of who they sell guns to, or how their guns get used once sold. Even if logless VPNs have some legitimate purpose, and a good number of their users aren't breaking any laws, the criminal elements that take advantage of those services are such that they warrant regulation. Canada's charter doesn't enshrine a right to privacy, but rather a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure -- and in the case of online communications, there are clearly times when it would be 'reasonable' for law enforcement to demand more information about a user and how they've used a service. Just because a company "can" provide some sort of service, does not mean it necessarily "should" be allowed to, nor does it mean that the service offered is in the best interests of the broader community.

It's also funny how on the one hand, you have people complaining about the access involved with C-22 in regards to logless VPNs, on the other you have people complaining about OpenAI not taking more action in relation to the Tumbler Ridge shooting -- ie. that the company should've been directly monitoring the conversation and reporting it out to the govt. Now try to write some sane legislation for those two situations. It's like the US lobbyists just want Canada paralyzed on any tech regulation, as a lack of any stronger regulations translates to easier tech-oligarch control/manipulation of Canada, and a wild wild west type freedom to the propaganda they sling. Makes destabilizing the country with tools like faceless influencers promoting alberta separatism that much easier.

That was a part of the reason but if you remember, they were in and out of US courts of infringement rights, or this reason and that. The president himself had one until "being it was an offshore provider." and Apple has caught up. Yeah, they might have been slow on the upgrade; however, the Americans helped Blackberry go by way of the do-do bird. They do not like the competition... The whole story is not so crazy. Living in the BB community, you hear all kinds of stories you will not read.