• Proton VPN has hit back at Canada’s proposed Bill C-22

• The proposed legislation could require VPNs to log user metadata

• NordVPN and Windscribe have also slammed the bill

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    If you’re a Canadian, please contact your MP about bill C-22, and do it now. They’re voting on this in the next few days.

    https://dontsurveil.me/

    Salt Typhoon, a hacking group connected to the Chinese government, used the backdoors put in place by CALEA in the US to spend months buried deep in US telecoms providers surveilling citizens. The Liberals are proposing to put in place a worse version of those exact same backdoors. Bring this up to your MP, remind them that when the Chinese (or North Koreans, Iranians, Russians, or even Americans) inevitably exploit these backdoors to do the same thing to us, it’s going to blow up in their faces.

    Read the link above for more salient points about why this is bad law. Read Open Media’s articles on it (https://openmedia.org/press/item/ottawa-repackages-its-surveillance-backdoor-in-bill-c-22). Bring up these points to your MP. Email them. Phone and demand to speak to them. Make a stink about this.

    If nothing else, send the form letter from Open Media (the other options are better, but something is better than nothing); https://action.openmedia.org/page/188754/action/1#main-content

    They already tried to pass this law once and it failed. Yes, they have a majority now, but it is a very slim majority. If a few MPs defect this bill will die.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Phone their office, demand to know why you haven’t heard back from them. Make them search through their emails and pull up every message you ever sent. Make them uncomfortable. Be a problem.

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Phone their office, demand to know why you haven’t heard back from them. Make them search through their emails and pull up every message you ever sent. Make them uncomfortable. Be a problem.

          The part of me that is pessimistic (that part seems to be growing these days…) thinks they would just hang up on you and if you call them back enough times they’ll call the police on you to report you for harassment.

          Not to discourage people, but it’s just frustrating.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            You’re assuming a bad outcome and then acting as if it’s a guaranteed outcome. This is maladaptive behavior under any circumstances.

            Please actually talk to a therapist about this if you can. I guarantee this behaviour pattern is occurring in other places in your life, and it’s not healthy.

            • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Is it okay to assume a bad outcome after it has happened? What about while it’s happening?

              Please psychoanalyze me using only a couple sentences, that will definitely help.

              The truth is, we obviously don’t know for sure what will happen, but it’s also not likely to be surprising if it doesn’t go our way. It’s the most likely outcome and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight, though.

              I’m certainly not surprised anymore with all the shit I’ve seen over the years and how the enshitification seems to be unavoidable these days. People, companies, etc are not held accountable and it shows. It’d be nearly impossible to not become jaded after enough things go wrong.

                • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Ah, that’s all you took away from all I said. Very cool, I can see you’re clearly conversing in good faith.

                  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    Not remotely. It’s just the part that seemed most prudent to focus on.

                    My comments about speaking to a therapist were entirely sincere. The fact that I didn’t just choose to respond further when you bristled at them is because they were sincere. I’m not here to belittle you or try to get in a fight with you. And you’re right, I can’t psychoanalyze a stranger over the internet, which is why I’m not trying to. Just asking you to speak to someone professional who can. As the saying goes, “I don’t have to be a helicopter pilot to see one in a tree and figure out that someone fucked up.” You’re displaying very obvious signs that you need some kind of help, but saying any more than that would definitely be stepping out of my lane.

                    I boiled down the rest of your response to one point because that one point crystalises my disagreement… Or, to be more specific, I think it crystallizes where you misread my previous remarks.

                    Let’s clarify the context here. This what I previously responded to:

                    “The part of me that is pessimistic (that part seems to be growing these days…) thinks they would just hang up on you and if you call them back enough times they’ll call the police on you to report you for harassment.”

                    When I pointed out that this was unhealthy behaviour, you didn’t actually engage on that point at all. Instead you built a strawman. Your reply;

                    “The truth is, we obviously don’t know for sure what will happen, but it’s also not likely to be surprising if it doesn’t go our way. It’s the most likely outcome and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight, though.”

                    …is framed as if I had made some broad statement about the likelihood of success of the entire endeavour. I didn’t. I responded specifically to your suggestion that an MP would quite literally call the cops on you just for demanding to speak to them.

                    So if we’re going to bandy about accusations of arguing in bad faith, I could just as easily choose to point to this as an example of doing the same.

                    What I did instead, rather than throwing around accusations, was choose to focus the discussion back down to the most pertinent point. I chose that question because it serves three purposes simultaneously;

                    • If you were arguing in bad faith, it would illustrate the failings in your argument.
                    • If you were unintentionally misreading my point, it would clarify the difference between our arguments.
                    • The question itself was genuine; you might have answered “Yes”, in which case I would operating from a false assumption, and you would have corrected me in that.

                    But you chose instead to take it as an attack. That’s… Telling, to say the least.

                    Anyway, I’ll sign off of the conversation here. It’s clear from your responses thus far that either by intention, or because you cannot help yourself, anything I say is just going to continue to get twisted up into either another attack on you, or another reason to feel down.

                    I hope the rest of your week gets better. I do mean that sincerely.

        • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          What is a reasonable period of time to give them to respond to an email? They could be absolutely inundated with complaints, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to move particularly fast.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Instead of theorizing, just call and ask why they haven’t responded. If the answer is “Because we’re snowed under”, well, there you go. And now they know that you really give a shit because you’re badgering them for a response. They get a lot of form letters but very few people follow up. That immediately ups the seriousness in their minds.

            Be unreasonable if you have to be. I don’t mean impolite. Be nice to the human being on the other end of the line. But be demanding. Your MP works for you. Make them work.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’m not sure what you feel like you’re adding with this reply.

        Well done for making the effort. Thank you, and we all appreciate it.

        But what do you want other people to take from this? Are you trying to discourage other people from taking action? Because you encountered resistance other people shouldn’t try at all, even though they might end up speaking to someone more receptive?

        Even your MP may end up changing their mind if enough people speak up. The goal is not to single-handedly sway their opinion, it’s to add your voice to a growing chorus. You’re joining a movement, not fighting a solo battle.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I live in Quebec, my MP masturbates to videos of Donald Trump and times his nut for when Trump makes fun of the handicapped journalist.

    • MrEff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I like how you throw in ‘even the Americans’ with the spying groups. We definitely spy in all our allies. And in return we encourage our allies to spy on us. It is a very calculated political game where we (all the allied countries) pass legislation and safeguards in our respective home countries and declare our citizens free of authoritarian government surveillance, but then work with the other countries spy agencies to do it for us. We intentionally put in the backdoors in our peoples networks and hand the keys to our partners just so we can say ‘well I wasn’t spying on you. That would be illegal!’ But in the end it is effectively the same. If the allied government finds anything of interest they just send a notification over. We each have boundaries that we respect in spying on each other’s people too. It is almost a formallity by this point.