It was patched in early 2023.
Federal agencies are required to apply the necessary patches by July 8, 2025
I think I've spotted an area in which there may be room for improvement in federal cybersecurity procedures. They should hire me as a consultant.
Seems about right and points out some things I wasn't aware of despite following all the news on this. Good thing we still have La Presse.
The change in GDP per capita was also found to be positive at +0.2% if anyone else was wondering about its conspicuous omission in the article. I'm not sure what the margin of error would be. Actual UN/Deloitte study is here: https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/116621
The part about foreign states being "empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information" is in 22.07 under the heading "Enforcement of Foreign Decisions for Production" and some of the implications were recently discussed by Citizen Lab.
My mention of "lawful access" was a demonstration of my bad habit of putting in quotation makes things that are not direct quotes — for which I apologise. It's a phrase that has historically been used to describe the sort of thing described in the bill as "Supporting Authorized Access to Information" in part 15, which I remain surprised that more people do not find outrageous. Michael Geist is one person who's noticed it. The way it's written seems to me absurdly over-broad and simplistic, even if it were basically a good idea which it isn't. I'm no legal expert either, but the language in the bill seems quite plain.
Sure, it's just a "first draft." As I said in a previous comment the committee will have it's work cut out for it. Based on what I understand along with what others have persuaded me of I don't think it's possible that a good bill can result from this starting point. Assuming that the government stands by any of it, we'll see which principles the opposition is willing to stand up for.
Why would anyone want to do that? Wouldn't it be more fun to hide your super-secret image in the innocuous-looking threads dot net profile text of hundreds of users?
I don't know about the Canada Post changes but "the government reading your mail doesn't matter because snail mail is obsolete anyway" doesn't seem like a good attitude to bring to it.
I don't know about the refugee law changes but "government needs the authority to act on the fly unconstrained by the rule of law in case there's a crisis" doesn't seem like a reasonable kind of thing to say about it.
You seem to have no comment on the part about foreign states being "empowered to compel the production" of data or the other changes relating to "subscriber information and transmission data" which seem quite dangerous and are the things I've most often seen other people worried about.
And then of course you don't mention at all the "lawful access" part, both horrific and easy to understand, wherein electronic service providers can be obligated to assist CSIS and the cops in spying on their users in every way possible, and forbidden from telling anyone when they've been ordered to do so.
Cameras in the house? That is still creepy.
Yeah, it's clear why they're unhappy about it. What's the point of pretending to take action if you can't then lie about what a great job you did?
I'm sure It will probably be fine for at least a year or two before the new owners manage to ruin it somehow but anyway I'll just go make sure I have a full backup of my 150 gigabytes of skyrim mods.
Maybe he still owns the quarry down the road.
How on earth did CDPR fall on such hard times that they had to bring in Epic Games to make an engine for them?
Sorry, I just thought "22.07" would be a convenient thing to search for in the document rather than figuring out how to reference it properly. The phrase appears in that amended section of the "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act" in part 14 of the bill.
If you want a shorter summary of what are seen as the problems (and can read French) I thought today's article in La Presse was good.