A lot's been written about how dangerous Bill C-2 is. I looked at the legislation and I'm not convinced it is. But I do think it is evidence of a very important change in governance. This article explains the legislation and lays out what led me to think this.
#Carney #BillC-2 #StrongBorders
Yeah, I imagine there is some kind of exemption to whatever legal convention, regulation, or perceived risk of liability normally prevents them handing out that information to anyone who asks which applies in case of medical emergencies. Perhaps somewhere in the regulation pertaining to e911, at a guess. But mobile phones are of course are already a privacy disaster as they operate now. Society is still in the process of becoming accustomed to that. I imagine you're probably aware that the advice not to bring a phone if you go anywhere near a protest march is now commonly heard.
The phone company is of course happy to assist law enforcement — and anyone who can convincingly impersonate law enforcement — in any way they can get away with, so long as it doesn't cost them money. That is why all the provisions in C-2 protecting and providing new opportunities for the "voluntary provision of information" are themselves consequential. What they're not permitted to share with the cops, they are definitely not permitted to simply sell to data brokers either — but for some types of data it's law enforcement that has been restrained in what they're allowed to ask for, not the telcos that were prevented giving it away. That's what creates the situation you mention with data brokers, which new privacy law could usefully address.
When it comes to Facebook and Twitter, I believe that one way or another the surveillance advertising business model ought to be outlawed. But that's another story.
Medical data is one place where there are some serious laws about privacy, I grant you. It's a rare exception to the general rule. Some of the problems you perceive to be about privacy law seem to be more the result of simple incompetence and ignorance on the part of whoever designed e.g. the immigration website you were trying to use. It seems much like the familiar situation where online banking software won't work on custom Android ROMs or their website refuses to load on Firefox — they will claim it's for the benefit of your security and privacy but you should not believe them.
I suspect a lot of the 'privacy' excuses that various agencies use to make things difficult are ultimately bogus. But that too is an opportunity cost of setting up too many rules. Saying that it isn't is something of a 'no true Scotsman' argument.
Let's just agree to disagree. I'm not particularly set in my ways about this issue, but I don't think you've convinced me yet. Luckily, the decision isn't up to me. But I still am going to use opposition to Bill C-2 as a means of introducing the points I want to raise in the second article on this subject--which I am convinced are important.
As an aside, I just want to mention how civil this conversation has been. It reinforces my feeling that there's no need for social media to be so damn divisive--it's just that the private sector systems are designed to encourage outrage and fear. Yeah Lemmy! Yeah Fediverse!
All right well it was nice chatting with you. I had some strong feelings about C-2 and the discussion has left me more confident that I didn't miss anything, that it's just as bad as it looks.