You think you know everything and you don’t! You’re just another point of view that only matters to you. I don’t care! I have my own personal view and way of thinking about this and that’s all that matters to me. I think for myself. I base my thoughts and decisions on my own not because some else tells me different or I’m wrong or what ever. You can see in it what ever you like. I see the good in the intent and the law as it is being proposed. End of story. Maybe you shouldn’t keep responding. 
Fine. I don’t know everything. I never claimed to.
I just agree with everyone else in this thread, which as far as I can tell, all disagree with you.
We all seem to understand it. I’m where I should be. 
2 Likes
Ha ha ha… like i said you think you’re so smart. I understand exactly. It comes through loud and clear. 
You still don’t understand how this would outlaw encryption, you made that point a few posts ago.
I guess the alternative is: if you do understand, are you just arguing to play devil’s advocate and argue? That’s the part I don’t understand if you understand. . .
And I wish I wasn’t so smart honestly. It’s been a blessing and a curse my entire life.
1 Like
Well, then, I’ve got some really good news for you. 
1 Like
Blah blah blah blah blah! What ever!
My man with the jokes.
Any good new beer recently?
1 Like
Mostly wine lately. I just opened my last bottle (of 6) of 2002 Niebaum-Coppola Rubicon a few days ago. It’s peaking, and it was magnificent.
I had the forethought to buy 6, but I wish I’d had the forethought to buy 12.
1 Like
Sounds good to me, although pretty much all wine that isn’t $10 or less tastes mostly the same to me. I do like Malbecs though.
I’ve been mostly off the beer, more tequila recently.
I hope all is well.
1 Like
Yeah, this isn’t exactly $10 or less wine…
Exactly. But like everything I’ve had $50 and up all tastes the same. I had a glass from like a $200+ bottle and it was. . . About the same as the $50 glass. I just don’t get wine.
1 Like
Apparently.
That always sounds good - but there is a tiny problem. Do you really expect that there won’t be CHANGES in the law? Is it not likely that, sooner or later, a law with which you disagree will be passed? One that you might have difficulty not breaking? Do you really expect that the tide of conservatism won’t make a big enough inroad in Canadian values to form a government here. We still haven’t recovered from the last one 
Of course, calling it conservatism is really a misnomer, compared to what was conservative in years past…
Well- let’s not get too political here - regardless of the rising tide around the world - and I don’t mean just the ocean level increase!
I just agree with what they have explained so far which is the intent of the law. There are going to hurdles for sure if and when this ever happens as far as end to end encryption is concerned. There are still many other aspects of the laws and or new laws that will be implemented around data and security and peoples privacy. It’s been a long time coming and i don’t disagree with some of the steps they are trying to take.
Funniest thing is that even Meta / WhatsApp says that, although it’s well known to have backdoor in their not-so-end-to-end encryptied messages and direct 5-eyes political influence. 
1 Like
The most lame response ever, if you have nothing to hide argument.. Criminals aren’t known for abiding the law, they will find a a way around it. It’s only law abiding citizens that will be spied on by this law and maybe a few low IQ criminals, but the smart ones and the ones that earn money from their criminal activities will find a way around this law.
State mass surveillance
How the collected data is used
How data collection threatens a free-society
Nothing to hide
Criminals have created their own encrypted network in the past, so they will do so again even with this new law, wouldn’t be surprised if they already have several other up.
1 Like
It’s trivially simple to find a way around it. Encrypt your data yourself before you send it and share the key with the recipient. Don’t use a phone to do so, which is inherently unsafe.
This is how criminals will do it. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them.
Of course, this law has nothing to do with stopping terrorists and saving children, that’s just an excuse, as always, to have the government snooping on the conversations of law-abiding citizens. It is dangerously naive to think that the stated purpose of the law is the same as its actual purpose.
It is the law-abiding citizens that value convenience over privacy (or do not understand privacy and the extent to which their privacy is violated), that are going to be the victims of this law. The main purpose of this law is to prevent dissent. To prevent things like the trucker protest in Canada – catch the organisers of it before they act, make sure all opposition to government remains impotent.
Criminals can easily use GPG to manually encrypt their messages.
3 Likes
Good luck explaining that to all the digital illiterate people that you send private messages with and to still make it workable enough that they will stick with it.