This is the same ridiculous style of argument used by ultra-right wing nut jobs – “Trans RIghts!!! Next they’re going to force gender reassignment on us all and take our dicks!!!”

Funny to mention ultra-right from someone defending an authoritarian bill.

American big tech companies are ones that are opposed to this type of legislation, because it gives the government more control and ability to regulate/dictate terms to those companies, and because ANY regulation will cost them money to comply with.

There is jackshit in the bill about terms to these companies other than an obligation to disclose data upon request in a timely manner.

It is the sort of legislation that moves towards digital sovereignty, in that your government representatives are able to set laws/regulations that must be followed.

Spying more on citizens does not move you a mm towards sovereignty.

It’s an incremental step to put more distance between Canadian tech and US tech, because Canada’s so integrated that it’s not something that can be ‘turned off’ like a switch.

There is jackshit in the bill about favoring Canada tech over US tech. It's all about getting data from whichever company operates in Canada.

I hold Shopify as an invalid example, because it’s got significant ties to the USA and US Tech giants. If a huge part of your business is based outside of Canada, and you are beholden to US legislation/regulations that basically say “You can fuck Canada”, then I don’t care if that business has an origin story in Canada – they changed teams, very explicitly.

There is jackshit in the bill that will prevent them to keep fucking Canada.

don’t see the standard companies, and the ones who’d theoretically be most impacted by this stuff, in the headlines – Rogers, Bell, Telus, Quebecor. A big chunk of the legislation is specifically targeted at Telcos, but they’re seemingly shrugging at it. I don’t see any of the banks/financial institutions, caring all that much. Basically none of the normally regulated industries are lobbying against this stuff, even though it impacts them.

Yes, you mean the companies that already keep logs on everything and from which we already see regular data breaches, proving my point about the security concern. Thank you for helping proving my point.

Just foreign, unregulated, US tech giant-oriented companies, and one or two tiny VPNs that like to provide a service with zero accountability.

Yes, they have 0 accountability and that's the very exact reason they complain against a law that does not have anything about accountability and everything about giving up data on their users. It makes so much sense now…

You seem so quick to dismiss things that you don’t even read what the legislation is calling for

Based on what you write it's absolutely clear you haven't read it. You hallucinate what it's supposed to do…

people blindly accept the noise generated by US tech and right-wing controlled media, you blast out that message ad nauseam and convince a bunch of privacy idiots to sign petitions before they even realise what the legislation is talking about / looking to do, or why.

Right wing nuts job like the EFF and privacy activists in Canada. Right… As for the legislation, given all the BS you write, don't pretend you read it, at this stage it would be embarrassing.

Thats the sort of person who’d likely vote separatist in Alberta, just because they’d seen it suggested on TV/media enough.

Hmm… is that projection?

And people still have options for privacy, despite what people claim. Something like Signal does Peer to Peer chats ‘privately’ by ‘helping’ people exchange PGP keys.

Signal is a peer-to-peer system now? That's new… Or… no, it's not!
Peer-to-peer means there is no central server, devices communicate directly to each other.
Signal uses a centralized system. If you mean end-to-end encryption, yes, they do. E2E means the data go through their server but even if they were trying to intercept them, they wouldn't be able to decipher it.
What's left is metadata: who talks to whom, when, for how long, how much data they exchange, etc. Their policy is "don't keep it so you can't give it up or lose it in a breach". Signal was audited by third party confirming they don't keep metadata. They can still be submitted to an injunction to monitor a user by law, and yes they would have to obey it.
Under bill C22, they need to keep metadata, and they need an option to have a backdoor in the app, and they're forbidden to let users know about it.

Signal explicitly said they would have no choice but to end its services in Canada.

You picked the best possible example to prove yourself wrong.

You can exchange PGP keys in regular email clients fairly easily

It's not that easy to lambda users.

if you’re the sort that’s gonzo about privacy you should likely have done that already

Just like the rest, I would say that's none of anyone fucking business but me and the people I communicate with.

the lack of logs and meta data means you don’t actually know if signal, which hosts a bunch of its services in US cloud service providers, is being forced to hand over data to the US anyhow, or if the CSP that they’re on is doing the same from deeper in the stack.

Tell me you don't know what metadata is without telling me you don't know what metadata is. Metadata would tell you jackshit about who's requested what about you. Bill C22 forbids service provider to warn the users about data request, by the way. The only way the US would get these would be to request a real time access to metadata because Signal don't keep them.