Privacy

[–] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 4 months ago (37 children)

If they left the Canadian market, what’s preventing Canadians from still using it?

hideshow 37 child comments

[–] funkforager@sh.itjust.works 67 points 4 months ago (33 children)

The Canada-region app stores like Apple or Android would be unwilling to let you download the app if the law passes. So without sideloading, it just wouldn’t be accessible.

hideshow 33 child comments

parent

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 134 points 4 months ago (5 children)

And by side loading you mean installing software on a device you own, like PCs have been forever. Side loading is a 100% bullshit term created by Apple and Google to try and make sure you don't think you actually own your devices

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Ok, I'm on board. So like what do we call installing an app outside of a store?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] root@aussie.zone 16 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Installing a downloaded application.

parent

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago

Installing for short

parent

[–] Redjard@reddthat.com 3 points 4 months ago

Installing an apk, installing directly, ...
As opposed to installing from Fdroid, from gplay, ...

You can also go by source, like with the stores. For example Signal android can be installed from their website (by downloading an apk).

parent

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago*

That’s factually not true though. Side loading was a term used before Google was even a company and before devices had internet access or peripherals/accessories to directly connect media other than plugging into your computer. Before devices had internet and you had to plug them into your computer to transfer files and install non-stock software. They would just say unauthorized or unofficial software if side loading wasn’t a term. It’s not like they need that term to exist for their shit behavior.

parent

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's not sideloading.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ghodawalaaman@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

we called it installing in our days

parent

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

installing and Installing^TM^ have become different things and the people who grew up on mobile devices never installed anything but they did Install^TM^ plenty.

parent

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago

Am I the only one who has app store accounts for multiple regions?

But actually, if this happens (and it won’t, at least this time), the next bill to go through would have to be for the right to sideload. Because all of the politicians use Signal and would need a way to install it.

parent

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Any reason Signal couldn't offer a web app client?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] egsaqmojz@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

cuz they dont store msgs on a server. feature, not a bug

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Web browsers have a local storage API.

parent

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

Signal mentioned that their apps were best for security and a web browser had too many vulnerabilities that they couldn't guarantee.

They prefer to manage their own apps - a signal desktop app being one of them.

parent

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago

i'll never cease to be amazed how much sideloading has become synonymous with obscurity at best and app-death at the worst.

parent

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] sekurious@lemmy.nz 19 points 4 months ago (1 child)

I think they can use the VPN to get access to it. It’s a way to make sure governments doesn’t exert too much pressure to give up data!

parent

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

True, until VPNs are also banned (like some US states are doing). One anti-privacy law passed will bring up another, then another, then another.

parent

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 3 points 4 months ago

This is one of the things that bugs me.

If you're in Country A, with all your operations in Country A, and what you do is legal in Country A, why should you give a single fuck about Country B's laws?

Seems to me the appropriate answer is basically to do what The Pirate Bay did with DMCA notices- respond that your laws don't apply to us as we have nothing to do with your country, and if your citizens use our software that's between you and them. It's not our job to enforce your laws on your citizens.

parent

[+] racoon@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] the_strange@feddit.org 16 points 4 months ago

OpenKeychain has an implementation like this (not 100%) maybe that fits your use case?

https://www.openkeychain.org/

parent

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

Look up oversec.io

It basically uses android accessibility features to both encrypt and decrypt messages.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ghodawalaaman@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

I couldnt find the source code. is it foss?

parent

https://github.com/oversecio/oversec

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago

It was last updated 7 years ago.

So it's open source but outdated.

parent

[–] CodeAssembler@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago*

It is a bit tedious but works: https://fdroid.gitlab.io/jekyll-fdroid/packages/com.amnesica.kryptey/

Edit: Just saw that the last update was 3 years ago, just keep that in mind. I think for some situations it is still useful and can be used, as the encryption and key-exchange seems to be solid.

parent

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Pretty sure I read stories in the past of Google or someone like them banning people who were sending pre encrypted messages over one of their chat services.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] racoon@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

A computer was anyway. These services arent necessarily reading our messages personally, but the algorithms parse them for ad placements or whatever, and it probably got flagged as being unreadable.

Edit: Some services that arent intending to be secure chat might not like the idea of encrypted content on their system either. What is it? What are they now harboring which wasn't their intent at all? Like if you made a lemmy community and only had encrypted messages on it, a mod from the server might have something to say about it.

parent

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago*

They still ban you now and then, if you encrypyt to their drive.