Your comment begins with "except", but the content agrees with the GP.
GP would like aviation users ("passengers") to not be the ones doing the testing. You state aviation users historically tested -- it's why flight regulations and rules are written in blood. I suspect the blood of passengers is exactly what the GP would like to avoid.
I can't tell if you didn't make the connection, or if your commenting style is just to naturally start negatively. My suspicion is the former, given the throwaway account.
Toronto has a history of planning to do something with its waterfront (Port Lands / Quayside etc), and then never enacting those plans due to short-term politics vs actual vision. This is just more of the same.
This article is reading far too much into Google. I suppose it is the trend to get eyeballs by hating on tech giants.
Canadian here, and I'm asking "What's the threat vector they're concerned about?"
I see the following listed in the article:
* Data Residency - Canada and US (CBSA and Homeland) have plenty of data sharing agreements, including exit records being passed between the two (see Entry/Exit initiative - https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services-agency/news/2019/07...). Why are they so focused on 'applicant' data when there is literal tracking of movement going on due to other, existing acts?
* Applications being online might be exploited by criminals - one can already apply to them via mail, so things are already done remotely. The process of validation is no worse digital than by mail (though with the caveat that one executes competently)
* Public vs private tendering - This has nothing to do with privacy or data
All this noise, and the trade-off is to make it harder for individuals to get passports by forcing them to do things in person. Even if there wasn't a pandemic, lineups at Passport offices are frequently 1+ hour and are a burden to those without flex time at their jobs. Alternatively, they could pay to courier their passport in the mail to the Passport Office in Ottawa, which is a cost (on top of the passport fees) that is wholly unnecessary given the Internet.
I see this as those with privileged office jobs attacking a convenience, all the while the Entry/Exit initiative continues without mention.
Government censorship is significantly more impactful than what companies can do. One makes the rules. The others operate within. It’s best not to equate the two.
And yes, HN has a diverse audience and you’ll always find someone celebrating a story.
Regardless, as a westerner, I feel sorry for the people of Pakistan.
GP would like aviation users ("passengers") to not be the ones doing the testing. You state aviation users historically tested -- it's why flight regulations and rules are written in blood. I suspect the blood of passengers is exactly what the GP would like to avoid.
I can't tell if you didn't make the connection, or if your commenting style is just to naturally start negatively. My suspicion is the former, given the throwaway account.