no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
37 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 171 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

This just in, Canada post and other mail providers will now be opening all envelopes and packages sent. All contents will be scanned or photographed and held on file for 2 years time, and released to relevant authorities upon request of investigation. To make things easier please do not seal packages or envelopes for easier and more convenient access.

All photos and scanned documents will be held in a highly secured database with easy backdoors access!

Pretty much the equivalent in terms of what Canada wants to implement with access to signal chats, VPN logs, and asking ISPs to keep logs for 1-2 years minimum.

Somehow our politicians don't seem to see the similarities between sending a message online vs sending a physical envelope in the mail. Also, in both cases a person could encrypt their messages/letters if they choose leaving regular folks with less security.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago

    The thing is, anyone with nefarious intent will just use something else. Theres a zillion ways you could give someone an encrypted message.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    This government actually does want to search your mail too. No joke. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mail-searches-seu-9.7180828

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Hmmm they do? They've been opening mails ever since it exists and now they are mad because they can't open emails? At least I would think so. I don't think governments ever refrained from opening mails and packages if they felt like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago

    Good Signal. pats head

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    how many countries has Signal pulled out of so far? I keep hearing about it

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    They've threatened to for a lot of them, but I'm not actually sure if they've actually done so.

    There's a few countries that blocked signal, but I don't know if signal has voluntarily pulled out of any country yet

    For example, they've threatened to leave Canada, Sweden, and Australia so far from memory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I dont understand how they will pull out of canada... will the google play store have geo-restrictions on installing the apk?

    or will they just deactivate any account with a canadian phone number?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago*

    Pulling out is super easy. Just don't release a compromised version of the app. Done.

    If the app in its current form doesn't comply with Canadian law, then the play store can't legally distribute it. So, problem solved.

    So basically Signal can pull out of Canada by doing nothing different than they're already doing.

    As for the users who already have the app installed, well that's just too bad for the Canadian government isn't it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    It's possible Signal could stop distributing the app through the Play Store and Apple App Store within Canada. Signal is likely to shut off all servers they rent that are hosted inside of Canada at the very least.

    In terms of them deactivating people's accounts registered with Canadian numbers that seems less likely to me.

    Even if they potentially blocked Canadian IP addresses, Signal already has support for proxies built in and those are ran by diverse people throughout the world. Some individuals host them.

    This isn't exactly the same since each situation with each country is different in terms of the law but Signal is banned in some countries such as Iran, Qatar, UAE and others already and people still use Signal by using Signal TLS proxies, VPNs, and other censorship circumvention tools such as Tor.

    They didn't deactivate accounts after being banned and they still allow phone number registration in those countries.

    For Android people could download the apk file from Signal's website instead of getting it from the Play Store at least.

    https://signal.org/android/apk/

    While we don't know with certainty what they will do in each situation the past may be an indicator of what they will do to a large extent. But Signal has never pulled out of a country voluntarily before as far as I know so it is uncharted territory.

    I think the intentional deactivation of current accounts is unlikely to happen in this case with Canada.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Damn, Canada, Palantir owns your government too.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t know about other people but this article is paywalled for me

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    I managed to use the reader mode trick to get the text:

    Signal warns it would pull out of Canada if made to comply with lawful access bill

    Marie Woolf 6 - 8 minutes

    Udbhav Tiwari, Signal vice-president of strategy and global affairs, says Ottawa’s Bill C-22 could threaten encryption and make private messaging services a potential target for cyberattacks.

    Secure messaging service Signal, which uses end-to-end encryption, is warning it would withdraw from Canada if asked to compromise its users’ privacy under Bill C-22, Ottawa’s proposed lawful access legislation.

    In an interview, Udbhav Tiwari, Signal vice-president of strategy and global affairs, said the company has deep concerns about measures in the bill, including its potential to introduce security vulnerabilities.

    Mr. Tiwari said that Signal “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.”

    He expressed fears that Bill C-22, which is currently being scrutinized by Commons committee, could threaten encryption.

    Mr. Tiwari also warned changes to systems required under the bill could make private messaging services a potential target for cyberattacks.

    “Bill C-22 could potentially allow hackers to exploit these very vulnerabilities engineered into electronic systems, with private messaging services serving as an ideal target for foreign adversaries,” he added in a text message.

    Spy watchdog asks for greater oversight of proposed lawful access regime, including to boost public trust

    Signal was founded in 2012 and is not linked to major tech companies. It has millions of Canadian users and is used for secure communication by journalists, dissidents, government agencies, private citizens and politicians.

    The bill would require telecoms, internet companies and other electronic service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance capabilities to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to combat threats and criminal activity.

    Signal runs on its own centralized servers. The only user data it stores are phone numbers, users’ last login information and the date they joined the service. Users’ contacts, chats and other information are stored by users themselves, on their phones.

    The bill would require “core providers” – which would later be defined through regulations – to retain metadata for up to a year.

    The metadata would not include e-mails, web-browsing history, social-media activity or text messages, but it could include information about which telephone numbers have been in touch with each other, and data allowing someone’s location to be pinpointed.

    “End-to-end encryption is incompatible with exceptional access, no matter how creative the route taken to achieve it,” Mr. Tiwari added in a statement. “Provisions that enable the deliberate engineering of vulnerabilities into critical infrastructure like Signal are a grave threat to privacy everywhere.”

    White hat hackers warn lawful access bill could make it easier for criminals to penetrate Canadian systems

    Last year, a Signal chat between U.S. national security officials and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth mistakenly included a journalist. The chat specified timings of warplane launches and when bombs would drop in planned attacks on Yemen’s Houthis.

    At a Commons committee hearing on Bill C-22 earlier this month, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who introduced the bill, was asked about its impact on encrypted services, and described it as “encryption-neutral.”

    Tech companies, including Apple, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have warned the lawful access regime proposed by the bill could weaken or break encryption.

    Meta, which owns encrypted messaging service WhatsApp, testified earlier this month to a Commons committee examining the bill. Rachel Curran, the tech giant’s head of public policy in Canada, warned that the bill “could conscript private companies into service as an arm of the government’s surveillance apparatus – with expansive scope and insufficient safeguards.”

    “As drafted, the bill could require companies like Meta to build or maintain capabilities that break, weaken, or circumvent encryption or other zero-knowledge security architectures, and force providers to install government spyware directly on their systems,” she said.

    Simon Lafortune, a spokesperson for Mr. Anandasangaree, said Wednesday: “We want to reassure Signal and all service providers that we are not legislating to require them to install capabilities to enable surveillance and any assertions otherwise are false.”

    The broadly worded bill could lead to the rollout of forced metadata collection for messaging apps, said Kate Robertson, a senior research associate at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab whose expertise includes cybersecurity, state agencies’ use of personal data and surveillance activities.

    Ms. Robertson said that when recently pressed to commit to protection for encryption, “government officials were reticent.”

    “Encrypted communication systems are a lifeline for human rights defenders, journalists and dissidents around the world,” she said.

    Matt Hatfield, director of OpenMedia, a non-profit that advocates for widespread and affordable internet access, said “Signal, WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging services could clearly be scoped into Bill C-22 under its current definitions of electronic service providers.”

    “A future public safety minister could issue orders to them requiring them to retain user metadata,” Mr. Hatfield said in an e-mail.

    Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law and professor at the University of Ottawa, said he expected private messaging services to become a high-value target for law enforcement if the bill becomes law, including for obtaining metadata.

    He said that currently, courts focus on obtaining data itself, but the lawful access regime would mandate permanent structural changes to company systems.

    “There is a significant difference between court-ordered disclosures and mandates to retrofit or change technical structures,” he said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    FWIW, my MP responded to my message confirming his opposition to C-22 and his understanding of this legislation as advancing provisions for mass surveillance.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Mine (Liberal) sent a form letter that stated strong support for it and claimed (falsely) that this just brings Canada into line with what its allies have already done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    Well I guess if our 'allies' do it... its fine or Canada. No need to think about it. Also.. FUCKING BULLSHIT, you're right its completely false.

    I'm sorry to hear that. My MP responded with a thoughtful, lengthy, and well articulated message that seemed to be personally written and not made of LLM slop.

    It made me glad I voted for him in our riding

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe we should be looking at the larger picture here this is exactly why Signal or any other privately owned centralized messaging system can never be trusted. Stop using Signal or WhatsApp.

    Look at alternatives like Matrix that are immune to this sort of thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    matrix is not immune to this lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand. If the government ordered matrix to put a backdoor into the code, couldn't we just install a version that doesn't have the backdoor? It's open source, someone is bound to fork it. So then the government's only option is to hunt down every matrix server in canada that doesn't have a backdoor and persecute the owner, which would be time and cost intensive but I guess possible. So at that point could we not just host the servers outside of Canada? What do they do in that case?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I seriously dislike those "lawful access" shit, but Signal getting out of somewhere is a win.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 26 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 54 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    For added context, a major user of Signal is the CAF. They're literally required to have it on their phones, it's a primary method of distributing critical information. Signal leaving Canada would be a very big deal.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That makes it even funnier that they want a backdoor added to it... Don't they realize that a government mandated backdoor is still a backdoor anyone can use?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    Yeah, this is exactly Signal's objection; it makes the product inherently less secure. That's a really bad idea under any circumstances, but doubly so for a product that is used for secure government communication.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Good, maybe it will highlight the myopic decision making of Canada's leaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Kinda sad how our armed forced are that dependent on US tech. Like yeah it's E2EE, but it gives the US the ability to brick our communications if they really want to.

    Surely the CAF has the resources to spin up their own secure xmpp service or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Do they have the resources? Sure. But that would be fiscally irresponsible. Why would they try to replicate proven tech that works well and offers everything they need? Signal is available, accessible, and easy to use.

    I also should clarify that when I say it's a primary method, that does mean one of many. We have fallbacks. Losing access to Signal wouldn't cripple us, but it would be an incredibly stupid self-inflicted injury. Having easy and accessible means of secure communications is important because it prevents people from resorting to insecure means. People are lazy and the best security is always the security that people least mind using. That's why Signal matters. Not because wec somehow wouldn't be able to hold secure communications without it. I apologize if my previous comment was misleading on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 43 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This also strikes me as being bad for businesses, such as Canadian cloud providers and email companies - I have to imagine that a number of people will start looking elsewhere if this passes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 5 months ago

    And this is why we can’t have nice things.

  • source
  • [–] 72 points 5 months ago

    Good, not for us, but good that Signal is not backing down to the clowns who run this maple scented circus.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago

    This stuff infuriates me beyond belief. The people writing these laws are either to old and dumb to see the similarities between older tech, or purposely grabbing for more power over the populace.

    Imagine if physical mail needed to be sent opened. The post office would then need to scan and keep a picture of your envelops contents for a year for any national security reasons.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    https://simplex.chat/downloads

    Get fucked five eyes. PQC, best metadata countermeasures available for chat, it's had a couple audits by trail of bits now. Works with tor onions only or i2p if you're so inclined. Join us lemmings. Check out the white papers and code if you're into that kind of thing

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    I've been expecting this. My plan is to switch to Briar which has no servers to take down or block.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Is Briar stable now ? We've never able to make it run properly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    https://simplex.chat/Downloads

    Can run entirely with tor onions or clearnet. Has no intention of compliance with any country's bullshit laws. PQC and fairly stable now. The main downside is it's heavy for large groups and latency can be higher.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Turns out Briar is a battery hog. I may have to try Simplex. Wait and see if C-22 passes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Simplex is too if you don't have it set to periodic. You're sending to everyone in every group individually and it needs more optimization on mobile.

    I opt for a mix of signal/molly, irc and simplex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 6 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 30 points 5 months ago

    This is honestly why decentralized platforms are really important. we need more stuff like briar. The way shit is going in the west, signal is going to be more or less useless in the next few years.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I’m betting Israel is behind this. Sigh.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Everyone knows the pullout method is not effective.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, if done properly it is effective, it's just not 100% effective, but no birth control is. But combining the pullout method with an IUD is going to be much more effective than an IUD alone, even though they're already near 100%. Same with both control pills. Hell even if you're raw dogging it with no birth control, it's definitely a hell of a lot better idea to try to pull out than to just nut inside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago

    I remember there was a poster in my college health clinic. Pulling out combined with calendaring (tracking the fertile period) had a surprisingly low annualized pregnancy rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder if it will take the same stance to such demands from its home country's government.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Canadian privacy aware companies are threatening to leave, so I imagine you'd see the same in that scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment