JD Daniels

#bitcoin is inevitable
cdn gov is morally reprehensible
systemd is a long form security breach

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

The universe charges rent on existence: work.

Application of energy to maintain or create order

There is no equilibrium state where you can stop. The moment effort ceases, entropy wins and everything you've built begins returning to dust

You are owed nothing. Get a job.

[Russell @ATLCWorker]

I guess the idea of having to earn a living implies that you don't actually deserve to be alive.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

Seriously, fuck the people voting for this shit in Canada.

You people are dim witted, slack jawed, half wits.

[Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms @JCCFCanada]

Following secret, midnight amendments, Bill "C-22_2" is available. Our team of lawyers is reviewing it closely.

Read it here: https://t.co/zBByjpZtav

[vx-underground @vxunderground]

The United Kingdom is ran by a bunch of fucking morons. I mean that wholeheartedly. These stupid fucks think you can "ban" VPNs and think "banning" VPNs will "protect the children".

"Ban" VPNs and watch what happens next.

[Michael Geist @mgeist]

Last night the government cut off debate on Bill C-22. It would not have changed the outcome, but NDP MPs did not even vote on the motion. Committee then went to nearly 1:00 am voting on dozens of amendments no one discussed or debated. Truly shameful.
https://t.co/lM1bAtQfPC

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@sciantificnew Thugs you agree with are still thugs. 'Accountable' is a moving target.

[solst/ICE of Astarte @IceSolst]

They can’t. Make your own vpn:

1. SSH to a host with:
ssh user@host -D 8081

2. Point your browser proxy settings to localhost port 8081, and mark it as a SOCKS v5 proxy.

3. You now are proxying your browser traffic to where that host is, like a vpn.

[🏴‍☠️🇨🇦 GC 🇺🇸🏴‍☠️ @ce_msm]

C’en est fini de la liberté d’expression au Canada.

Les libéraux font passer en force les projets de loi suivants :

- C-9 (loi contre la haine)
- C-22 (accès légal/surveillance)
- C-34 (sécurité numérique)

Trois projets de loi qui, ensemble, anéantiront nos droits fondamentaux.

- C-9 (Loi contre la haine) :

Élargit considérablement la définition de la haine (haine/diffamation), supprime les défenses religieuses établies de longue date pour l’expression de bonne foi et facilite les poursuites criminelles sans le consentement du procureur général. Critiquer, prêcher ou même afficher certains symboles pourrait désormais vous valoir des accusations criminelles. Finies les protections pour la liberté d’expression religieuse et les débats publics sensibles.

- C-22 (accès légal) :

Oblige les fournisseurs d’accès Internet à conserver les métadonnées pendant un an, facilite l’accès à vos données par la police et le SCRS et permet au ministre d’imposer des droits d’accès (des portes dérobées déguisées). Surveillance de masse de vos communications numériques sans mandat. Votre vie en ligne devient totalement transparente pour l'État.

- Projet de loi C-34 (Loi sur la sécurité numérique) :

Ce projet de loi crée une puissante Commission gouvernementale de la sécurité numérique qui dictera aux plateformes, aux chatbots et aux services en ligne ce qu'ils doivent censurer, comment vérifier l'âge des utilisateurs et comment se protéger contre les contenus préjudiciables. Contrôle d'âge obligatoire, plans de sécurité imposés, amendes colossales et pouvoir discrétionnaire étendu pour décider de ce qui est acceptable. Une censure centralisée au nom de la protection des enfants. Ensemble, ces trois projets de loi transforment le Canada en un État de surveillance et de censure généralisée.

Vous ne pourrez plus parler, partager ni même penser librement sans risquer d'être signalé, surveillé ou poursuivi. Les voix dissidentes, les critiques de l'immigration, les débats religieux, les opinions controversées, tout devient risqué.
Roman Baber l'explique parfaitement dans cette vidéo de 9 min 36 s. Regardez-la avant qu'il ne soit trop tard.

Ce n'est plus de la gouvernance. C'est la mort de la liberté d'expression telle que nous la connaissions au Canada. Les libéraux ont choisi de bafouer totalement les droits des citoyens.
Réveillez-vous !
Partagez ce message.
Résistez !
Le temps presse.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@fjzeit @DanielW_Kiwi 'whip' is the correct term. Canada *right now*
https://t.co/WsieDq5FRL

[Michael Geist @mgeist]

The government has pushed through its motion to end debate on Bill C-22, forcing the committee into a late night hearing going on right now that no one will watch or can follow to pass the bill and send to the House. An absolute democratic embarrassment.
https://t.co/brRAEXxaWO

[Michael Geist @mgeist]

The government has pushed through its motion to end debate on Bill C-22, forcing the committee into a late night hearing going on right now that no one will watch or can follow to pass the bill and send to the House. An absolute democratic embarrassment.
https://t.co/brRAEXxaWO

[Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube @IanRunkle]

@tylermeredith Maybe the correct time for authoritarian surveillance and censorship is "never".

[Telegram Messenger @telegram]

Over 300,000 people die of drowning each year. In order to protect society, it is now illegal to consume or possess water.

Your government is also considering banning solid food, as it presents a needless choking hazard.
You are not an adult.
You are a baby.
Eat the baby food.

[Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms @JCCFCanada]

Under current legislation, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada serves as an independent Agent of Parliament responsible for investigating complaints, auditing organizations, and reporting directly to Parliament rather than Cabinet.

But Bill C-36, the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, would significantly restructure that model by removing the Office’s authority over private-sector privacy and transferring those responsibilities to a new Cabinet-appointed Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission. That same commission would also oversee online harms and broader digital policy. This change replaces an independent privacy watchdog with a centralized government regulator, raising concerns about concentrated authority over privacy, digital governance, and the boundaries of lawful online expression.

https://t.co/LjVyYqKZcI

[PotatoRustler @PotatoRustler]

🔑Quite a few tech-savvy people hit the replies of my last post to point out that governments could use Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) to verify age without tracking identity. And they are 100% correct to make that point.

ZKPs are fantastic and fundamentally, a great idea. In a perfect world, a ZKP will allow your device to mathematically prove that you are 'over 16' to an app without ever handing over sensitive personal info. It's a gold standard in privacy.

But there is a massive caveat with ZKPs that many people will overlook - it's called the Enrollment Phase.

To work, a ZKP needs a starting point (to be activated). Before your device can throw out a math proof saying you're over 16, an authority (like the gov or a licensed company) has to verify your identity first. That's the enrollment phase - you still have to upload your credentials to the enrollment server to get your key issued.

And that is where the privacy shield starts to crack. Even if the apps you log into later can't see your data on the surface, the enrollment server had to process it. If the gov mandates this system, they (or their corporate contractors) run that server. Meaning, if they log your identity, map it back to your phone's hardware ID, or keep a database of who was issued a key, you haven't truly eliminated tracking. You’ve just moved it behind a curtain. Which is arguably scarier😂

So yes, ZKPs are a huge technical upgrade, but they still aren't 100% secure. If the system relies on a database during setup, it's just a prettier digital passport. It’s like changing the lock on your door but giving the gov a master key anyway.

In order to achieve true privacy, a master key that is accessible by the state cannot exist.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@GavMcCracken I believe the reality is even more disheartening.

More than 50% simply don't give a fuck either way.

They hear 'for the kids' and just agree.

I left, because the voices that need to be heard aren't even speaking.

By the time they find their voice, it will be much worse

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@KateCox59582715 @politicianskid Why do you close the bathroom door, or close your curtains?

What are you scared of?

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@safe_screens @AllisonPearson 'lazy or useless' and 'it's too hard' are the same thing.
Outcomes, not intentions.

I agree, doing nothing isn't the correct course.

Making it easier is a worthy goal. Abrogating to the state is stupid and foolish.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

"...social media is a net negative for children (and honestly, most adults)"

Everything after this is a waste of time, because it's not the issue.

The issue is what you take as a forgone conclusion - that the answer lies with an authoritative state.

It doesn't.

[Jay Darkmoore @JayDarkmoore]

With the under-16s social media ban, there are a lot of concerns going around, in particular about digital ID.
Putting that to one side for a moment, let’s discuss why, in my opinion, social media is a net negative for children (and honestly, most adults).

Firstly, children are struggling in school and finding it harder to concentrate. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
Children are now constantly stimulated. I worry that if children are never bored, they lose the ability to be inventive, creative and innovative. So, we are robbing children of their creativity, and then robbing them of their ability to focus in school.

Reports have also shown that children being dropped off at nursery now cry for the iPad, opposed to crying for their parent.

Then, we have the strong link between heavy social media use (3+ hours a day) and rising anxiety, depression and eating disorders in young people.

There is then the obvious risk of grooming, online predators, cyberbullying, and children comparing their lives to those they see online, without the understanding that social media is a highlight reel, not real life. Snapchat (imo) is horrific for children safeguarding, as you can't see the messages that have been sent.

Children can replace real flesh-and-blood interactions with online comments, likes and follows for validation and self-worth. We are not designed to live in a digital world. We are designed for human connection. There is also the impact this can have on social skills.

But most importantly, social media is engineered to be highly addictive. To serve content that is upsetting, enraging and hyper-stimulating.

This impacts adults’ mental health, let alone children’s.
I understand the concerns relating to this being a backdoor plot for digital ID, something I am against.
However, if it is purely for the safety of children, then I don’t see this as a bad thing.

I do think young people will have a tough adjustment period. We have given them a dopamine-rich drip for years, which is now going to be stripped away from them overnight. We have raised a generation of addicts.
Also - ban Bluesky too.

You can’t say social media is bad, and then leave out an entire platform.

I wrote a longer article on this, which you can read here –
https://t.co/lVUbWUDcmB

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@gator_gum Because framed that way, it would be resoundingly rejected.

The inability to understand your surroundings does not make the surroundings safe or secure.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@PotatoMcWhiskey Nothing. However, there are dangers. Parents need to be involved and protect their kids from those dangers.

Just like *any* other activity.

For some reason, it's been pushed that because it's difficult, everyone should just give up and let the state do it.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

@Graham_Mark_E The slightest understanding of history bares the lie here.

'Think of the children' is a dishonest short circuit to end run the real discussion.

It's easy to outsource your responsibility to the state.

It's never worked well.

[JD Daniels @jdd_canada]

By 'nutters' he means people who:

Don't think privacy is a crime

Value protection from unreasonable searches

Prefer to maintain parental authority, rather than handing it over to the state

You know, the stuff we spent 200 years making a standard for society

[Tony Harwood @sciantificnew]

It's been fun listening to you nutters but now it's time to mute. I love you all!