🚨Canada is about to rush through Bill C-22 — one of the worst surveillance laws.

[inherentlee@flipping.rocks]

@Tutanota hey tuta folks, your alt text needs help. why the text in your image with no transcription? it's kinda the thrust of your image.

[sassinake@mastodon.social]

@Tutanota

I mean, it's like demanding a copy of the key to your home door, or be allowed to read your mail.

[wbpeckham@techhub.social]

@Tutanota I have to ask if you have to be Canadian to sign on with that. Because I absolutely want to get behind getting rid of that kind of mistaken law, but I'm not Canadian.

[em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange]

@Tutanota From Canada, thank you Tuta ️

[cairobraga@gts.cairobraga.com]

@inherentlee @Tutanota I second this. write a better #AltText!

[engideer@tech.lgbt]

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS Could this impact GrapheneOS?

[grapheneos@grapheneos.social]

@engideer @Tutanota It doesn't impact GrapheneOS as an operating system. Our discussion forum and attestation service which are the only services we provide with user accounts and data. Both are very explicitly opt-in services. Our forum doesn't have any private data beyond username, password hash, email and IP addresses. Our attestation service only has a username and password hash with an optional email along with non-sensitive data (no hardware identifiers, only device model / versions).

[engideer@tech.lgbt]

@GrapheneOS @Tutanota Good to know, thank you very much for clarifying

[grapheneos@grapheneos.social]

@engideer @Tutanota It doesn't ban end-to-end encryption or require encryption backdoors. Law enforcement can already obtain access to data with warrants. This bill is primarily about forcing companies to be able to comply with those requests. Europe already has similar laws. It has an exception permitting not removing security protections which protect user data from attackers. The exception implies end-to-end encryption is allowed. It's too loosely defined and should more explicitly say that.

[grapheneos@grapheneos.social]

@engideer @Tutanota If the exception for security features was more explicitly defined instead of leaving too much up to regulators then the law wouldn't really matter to privacy friendly services. The issue with the law is primarily that they're leaving too much up to regulation rather than being defined by law. That means executive decisions can be made which would violate rights under the law. That could end up turning into a court battle over whether a given private approach is permitted.

[grapheneos@grapheneos.social]

@engideer @Tutanota This law has been previously proposed in earlier forms and failed to pass. It will hopefully fail to pass again. It has become less invasive since the last time it failed to pass with a clearer exception for security protections. It will hopefully keep failing to pass and keep having the protections for privacy/security expanded until the law no longer poses a real issue if it passes. Regardless of what happens, it has little impact on GrapheneOS and isn't a serious concern.

[ahimsa_pdx@disabled.social]

@Tutanota
More detailed image description:

Text: "Another five eyes gone rogue. Canada wants to see everything on your phone." Under the text is a graphic with a silhouette on the left that looks a spy (fedora, glasses, coat). The spy is looking at a hand holding a phone.
[End of image description]

What does five eyes mean? Five, Nine, and Fourteen Eyes Countries Explained:

Fourteen Eyes Countries: How does this alliance affect your privacy and security? | Tuta

Five, Nine, and Fourteen Eyes Countries Explained.

Tuta (tuta.com)

#Alt4You #AltText #Canada #Privacy