Let's see how many of those had a good reason. I'm pretty sure that defense contractors in Canada consider it as a good enough reason.
> OK, your turn.
False equivalence. The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada. It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
> Non-Indian Citation Needed
No. Just common sense needed. Canada fucked up hard in the AI182 bombings case. Did the political leadership do anything to correct it? Did it atleast try to curb the activities that supported it? Do you think your fav US would allow similar activities to happen against them on your land?
> The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth.
I have reached the same conclusion - because of you insistence that anything is justified in the name of 'freedom of expression'. Your entire argument on the other hand is based on that flaky, false and bad-faith premise. It's fundamentally accepted that freedoms are not absolute - they end where they start infringing on others' rights.
> Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Canada is a PR disaster on the scale of a country. Have a look at its recent diplomatic relations. And in this case - India is accused of killing one person. Canada is accused of supporting terrorism by its citizens on Indian soil with causalities in the hundreds. Let's not neglect that part of this row.
> This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression
Oh! Please! Get off your high horse! It's tiring to see you pretending to be in some sort of democratic utopia. You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds and left them under terrorist rule. And while the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, how much 'free speech' and 'free expression' were the indigenous people there allowed? From relocation of populations, to treatment of those who oppose oil sands mining and deforestation of heritage land, to residential school graves? The government supported cultural and literal genocide - by UN definitions. The freedoms that you are flexing about are applied selectively at best, and often misrepresented in cases like with the Khalistanis.
You're just deluding yourself with a grandeur and misguided western moral superiority complex. You might want to reflect on the humans rights records of your own country before lecturing others about free expression. You wouldn't be flexing here if you were one of those affected populations.
> not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".
Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases. In this case, it would have been easy to punish the perpetrators if it weren't for such biases. But again - keep deluding yourself.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.
Repeating falsehood doesn't make it correct. There is no definition of democracy and 'free expression' that tolerates separatism and violence in another country. Your condescending arguments are in very bad faith.
> I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?
I have given two examples of what is considered unacceptable. But you reject them under your self-defined standards that are not accepted internationally.
Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
> Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it.
Your 'free speech' has no limits. Hello! Real world doesn't work like that. It comes with consequences when it crosses a limit - when it affects the safety of others.
> If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.
US for all its faults is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. (If you think Khalistanis are not terrorists and should be given full rights, have a look at your own government's list of terrorist entities). Heck! Even India's arch-rival Pakistan shows much more dignity in many of these matters. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
> You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination,
Keep neglecting what is brewing in your backyard. Trust me, you will feel the consequences soon. At that time, remember all your 'free-speech' arguments here. If there is one thing Canada is well known for, it's for feeding snakes like these that come back later and bite.
>> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country
> Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
Let's be really precise. Democracy isn't a free ticket to do anything someone wants. And no democracy in the world tolerates challenges to their sovereignty and integrity. I'm seeing this trend of misrepresenting the meaning of democracy to justify international secessionist and often outright terrorist activities.
Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.
> If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited.
That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?
> I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists.
Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough.
I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
The legitimacy of an enterprise shouldn't be judged based on where it's allowed to happen - it should be the other way around. The two app stores should be designated as 'slave markets' for allowing this to persist for so long after being alerted. It's especially ironic that these companies are keen on deep invasion of privacy of regular citizens in the name of CSAM and terrorism. This is an exaggerated form of their 'Rules for you, none for me' attitude.
In addition, I object to the 'black market' terminology. Unlike the objections these companies have with 'master' on git - which doesn't have any relationship to slavery, black is an actual term related to a race that's misappropriated with a derogatory connotation.
How about the fact that some extensions like Remote Development [1] and LiveShare [2] work only on proprietary builds of vscode, and not on code-oss or vscodium? I get it that those are proprietary extensions, but they still show up in the extension marketplace for OSS builds. And I don't see a technical reason why they wont run on OSS builds, other than that the extension builders want it that way. And these extensions are important enough that you will end up downloading the proprietary build while you are too busy solving something with your team mates. This is a very subtle way to push even privacy-aware developers to use the proprietary build with built-in telemetry.
And how about the fact that the de-facto reference implementation of LSP client (most language servers are developed against vscode) uses many undocumented and non-standard extensions [3] that are hard for other clients to implement?
These are dark patterns that claims to be FOSS-friendly. It could be that MS still has split-brains about their approach to open source [4], but that is still an indication that MS still has part of their old anti-user soul in them. Personally, I liked vscode, but I value my freedom even more. Emacs provides all the functionality and the freedom I crave. It is a bit harder to learn and modify - but I can live with that.
Remember the news about Audacity getting 'acquired' by Muse group [1]? Many commenters raised question about what acquisition means for a fully free project [2]. Speculating, since we don't have the full information yet, but I think we have the answer. This may be a glimpse of the future, where long running successful community FOSS projects get 'acquired' with commercial ambitions.
This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]:
> Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome.
Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future.
I don't know what 'free' means for the project, but open source and 'free as in freedom' are not redundant these days. While open source is legally indistinguishable from free software, time has proven that open source software can be designed in non-free ways. Examples:
- Bloating codebase so much that it can't be audited, extended or forked easily
- Tightly controlling the development
- Open shims for opaque blobs
- Hiding documentation and troubleshooting information
Dealing with Google's version of IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV is with the standard that everyone else follows. Every single program (mbsync, offlineimap, vdirsyncer) needs a special section on how to configure for Google alone. It causes a lot of heartache when you try to migrate.
I have khal (calendar), khard (vcards) and todoman (todo on caldav) installed and use them occasionally. I mostly use my phone and thunderbird to manage contacts and calendars - so they don't find regular use. However, they all are really nice curses/cli tools if you live on the terminal. I don't have any complaints when I do use them. The biggest attraction though is vdirsyncer, a service used to synchronize CalDAV and CardDAV to a directory. Khal and others interface only with this directory and not directly with the server. Vdirsyncer allows you to easily backup and migrate your calendars and contacts between different servers. This is a huge relief if you consider how opaque and locked-in most calendar/contacts services are.
There is nothing in the plain OCSP that prevents the responder server from logging the request along with the originating IP. Any claims that a particular server doesn't do so is either just an assumption or based on trust alone. This is why OCSP-stapling is preferred against plain OCSP in browsers and also why plain OCSP can be disabled. In this particular case, trustd and other system daemons are known to skip VPN and firewall blocks - so it's mandatory information leak.
My understanding is that once the content creator file a counter notice, the hosting platform is off the hook and free to reinstate the content. Any further legal fight will be directly between the claimant and the creator, not involving the host at all. IANAL, so feel free to point out any mistakes in this take.
Now assuming the above to be true, YouTube has rejected a counter notice by the creator. What other reason exists for such a decision, than the commercial relationship between the two companies? This shows that content creators have no priority at all. The host is likely a willing partner in this abuse.
Open source != unpaid, uncredited work. That is just what corporations want it to be. In this case, it's a violation of the open source MIT license to remove the original copyright statement.
There is an actual MIT license violation in there. MIT is an attribution license that requires preservation of original copyright statement in derivatives. One commit also shows clearly that this code is indeed a derivative.
Does wilfully omitting the original copyright statement (as required by MIT license) and removing any reference to the original author count as someone 'just trying to get work done'? However trivial the code may be, denying credit is as bad as stealing.
> There are obvious security advantages to app signing. But there are also negative implications for privacy and availability.
App signing exists elsewhere without sacrificing privacy. Most Linux packages, for example, are signed with GPG keys. The difference is that Linux only cares about installing trusted packages. It doesn't care about applications that are already installed after verification. Apple insists on having the ability to revoke something that's already installed. There are two issues here:
1. Is it reasonable to revoke permissions for an installed package? It could be argued that it will help stop malicious apps that were discovered after they were distributed. However, it could equally as well be that Apple wants more control over devices and hold developers to ransom. Their recent treatment of developers indicate that this concern is not at all misplaced. The least Apple could do is warn the user about a revoked certificate and ask if they still want to proceed (like how browsers do in the same scenario). However, it just refuses outright.
2. Apple chose a very bad method to implement online certificate revocation. OCSP is meant for server certificate validation. OCSP stapling is preferred over plain OCSP due to privacy concerns. Stapling cannot be used in this context. This method unfortunately ruins privacy and spill user information everywhere. They could have chosen some other more private method, like an updatable CRL.
> I’m pretty sure those who relentlessly focus on the possible downsides don’t know either.
As I said, there are more private ways to push revocation status. Apple always claimed that the device lockdown was to ensure privacy. This oversight shows how hollow that claim is.
Important part to notice is the false dichotomy of freedom vs security. The argument that negligent users will screw up if given freedom. This is wrong for two reasons:
1. Defaults vs restrictions: Keep the defaults secure and slightly hard to modify for normal users. But don't restrict those who need alternatives.
2. Security can be achieved without locking everything down and remote controlling it. See web browsers for example. We run JS from all insecure sources, but cannot access sensitive resources (like camera, file access etc) without users' permission. The same can be achieved on OS with sandboxing, microkernels etc.
> no one is held hostage or abused in this scenario
Abuse is not always apparent to the abused. User rights are gradually eroded away in the name of security, giving users enough time to get accustomed to it. There may be escape hatches now, but they are slowly getting closed. For example, we considered PCs that don't allow us to install another OS as abusive. However, we don't hold mobile devices to the same standard. Unfortunately, this normalization of abuse doesn't just affect those who accept it. The rest of us are left without a choice. That criticism is definitely valid.
The proliferation of DRM technology may look like the result of bad consumer choices, but the reality is more nuanced. What percentage of consumers know that their content is DRM encumbered, or what DRM is even? This is a result of subtle consumer behaviour manipulation.
Let's take the case of widevine itself. It wouldn't have proliferated if Encrypted Media Encryptions (EME) standard wasn't shoehorned into web standards by Google. EME allowed companies like Netlify and Spotify to demand proprietary plugins like Widevine in an otherwise completely open standard. Independent browser implementations became impossible at that point. EFF and Mozilla protested. EFF withdrew from W3C and Mozilla was arm twisted into agreeing. Now look at this from consumer perspective. Vast majority of users simply wouldn't have noticed these moves that would ruin the web in some way for them later. Most of them wouldn't have noticed DRM being rolled out. Everything seems to be normal - for a while. With this and a few other moves, it's clear that DRM based content will be unviable on independent browsers and open operating systems. At that point, most consumers will negligently decide that these browsers and OSs can't play DRM content because of software quality issues, and will switch over to locked down systems. That wouldn't have happened if DRM was presented as is to consumers from the beginning itself.
A few people who hate DRM holding out is not a solution for this. At this point, consumers have funded DRM based streaming companies to grow into megacorps and they have killed their competition. For consumers, it will be a choice between freedom of platform choice and availability of media. This is why EME should never have been allowed in the first place.
Another example of the futility of 'Don't use what you don't like' argument is Chrome. Chrome gained market share over Firefox using similar tactics. Now we don't have a viable alternative for blink web engine. This is an ambush on consumer rights - sneaking in silently and then killing it.
I don't know if this is my personal experience alone, but I feel that open source spam filters like spamassassin and rspamd do a much better job than gmail's filter. Gmail's filter has too many false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't give up on email just because gmail is bad at it.
Besides, I feel that gmail and most other webmail providers have created a bad usage pattern for email. Email is much more pleasant when used with an indexing tool (notmuch/mu), custom filters (sieve) and a proper spam filter. Custom domain with dedicated account (or alias) for development also improves the situation.
Yeah! Free enough to carry out terrorist activity against another country. It matches very well with your misguided definition of freedom.
> Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Canada
Let's see how many of those had a good reason. I'm pretty sure that defense contractors in Canada consider it as a good enough reason.
> OK, your turn.
False equivalence. The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada. It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
> Non-Indian Citation Needed
No. Just common sense needed. Canada fucked up hard in the AI182 bombings case. Did the political leadership do anything to correct it? Did it atleast try to curb the activities that supported it? Do you think your fav US would allow similar activities to happen against them on your land?
> The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth.
I have reached the same conclusion - because of you insistence that anything is justified in the name of 'freedom of expression'. Your entire argument on the other hand is based on that flaky, false and bad-faith premise. It's fundamentally accepted that freedoms are not absolute - they end where they start infringing on others' rights.
> Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Canada is a PR disaster on the scale of a country. Have a look at its recent diplomatic relations. And in this case - India is accused of killing one person. Canada is accused of supporting terrorism by its citizens on Indian soil with causalities in the hundreds. Let's not neglect that part of this row.