No, Carney moves to deep mass surveillance of all adults while pretending its about “the children”
We made a mistake, Carney is a trick, a subterfuge, a subversion.
Would you mind expanding on why it’s mass surveillance and of no benefit to children? Like they’re pretending it’s to protect kids and getting what from us exactly?
There are very good explanations out there but the short of it is: every major internet service is now going to be connected to either your official piece of government ID, or a high resolution, well lit image of your face. Kids work around it but its a mass surveillance wet dream.
I don’t get it.
99% of people who are online, the government already knows who you are and what you look like? What part of providing an ID gives “them” any more information than they already have?
for the government to tie any traffic directly to an individual would require data from your service provider, which they generally don’t provide without some kind of legal reason.
fwiu this system would essentially make everything you view and do on the internet freely snoopable without any sort of legal order or reason. your traffic is always tied to your name or face, and you lose the layer of pseudo-anonymity from your ISP.
potential real-world consequence, you could be more easily sued by a production or broadcast company for piracy! right now if i torrent the right movie (without a proxy), i’ll get a letter from my ISP explaining that 20th century fox is asking them for my name and address so they can sue me. but the ISP won’t give the info without a legal order, and fox can’t sue anyone without the info.
so if this change happened, you’d have to hope your government decides to treat you more favorably than myriad other billion dollar companies and corporations. historically these are bad odds.
@Reannlegge it’s victim blaming. The big tech he refused to tax is the one committing the crime. Not the teenagers and by extension every Canadian.
The Liberal bill would force social media services — defined as traditional social media platforms, live-streaming services and adult content services focused on user-shared content — to restrict accounts for children under 16 years old.
However, services could seek an exemption if they implement what officials briefing reporters called adequate safeguards to protect children. The exemption wouldn’t apply to adult content services.
AI chatbots will need measures to respond when a user expresses ideas of suicide or self harm or an intention to commit an act that could cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual, said officials. The bill would not require the companies behind the chatbots to report those interactions to police.
According to the bill, the maximum penalty for a violation would be either $10 million or three per cent of the company’s gross global revenue — whichever is greater. Companies could face multiple penalties for repeated violations.
Yeah cause you know them kiddos wont be able to find ways around all and any locks big tech will put in place.
To be fair, kids clever and motivated enough to get around this type of gating generally aren’t the ones at the greatest risk. I think this is more about creating a reasonable barrier to protect our most vulnerable.
The kids motivated enough to get around this will help their friends get around this, who will have other friends who want to get around this. If I was still at that age and had any real motivation for money I could have been getting money for the stuff I found out how to get around. I was pulling for people before I was legally old enough to buy alcohol, I was getting around website blockers in high school and helping others do the same. I can promise you if one child can do it they are helping their friends do it who are then going to help their friends do it, what is one child going to do on social media if their friends are not on social media?
It’s just about increasing the friction. No door lock will stop a motivated thief, but it will discourage 75% of people from trying. The laziest/stupidest kids (read: the most at risk for grooming and indoctrination) will be the ones least likely to overcome this friction, so it’s still a good harm reduction strategy.
