Give credit where it's due
Replying to @MickeyDjuric
Words matter
Canadians aren't spending C$1.6B in Cohere
✅ The Government of Canada is spending C$1.6B of Canadians' tax dollars on Cohere
Canadians won't own any equity in Cohere
✅ The Government of Canada will own an equity share in Cohere
24
PACC retweeted
Replying to @CCFR_CCDAF @PremierScottMoe
Interesting argument; but a red herring: When it is illegal to buy or sell an item, that item has zero market value. The GoC has been saying all along that it would compensate owners based on fair market value, while creating the circumstances that make the value zero
PACC retweeted
These imperfect systems include the ones laws require to collect everyone’s biometric & tombstone data ‘to protect children’ from online harms
every piece of software you trust right now has a vulnerability that nobody's found yet
not some of them. all of them
your wallet, your browser, your banking app, your password manager, the operating system running your phone right now
openssh runs almost every server on earth, somebody found out that typing 257 random characters as the password gives you full root access. just like that
microsoft paint, the app you drew stick figures on as a kid, just got a vulnerability that lets attackers run code on your computer through the internet. paint.
apple told everyone icloud was end-to-end encrypted, then buried in a support page that sharing a link kills the encryption completely even if you paid for advanced data protection
these are the most audited, funded, and trusted tools ever built and they keep falling apart in ways nobody predicted
code is written by humans who cut corners, increasingly generated by AI that doesn't understand what it's producing, and tested by systems that can only catch what someone thought to look for
"secure software" doesn't exist. there's just software running on borrowed time until someone finds the crack
These imperfect systems include the ones laws require to collect everyone’s biometric & tombstone data ‘to protect children’ from online harms
every piece of software you trust right now has a vulnerability that nobody's found yet
not some of them. all of them
your wallet, your browser, your banking app, your password manager, the operating system running your phone right now
openssh runs almost every server on earth, somebody found out that typing 257 random characters as the password gives you full root access. just like that
microsoft paint, the app you drew stick figures on as a kid, just got a vulnerability that lets attackers run code on your computer through the internet. paint.
apple told everyone icloud was end-to-end encrypted, then buried in a support page that sharing a link kills the encryption completely even if you paid for advanced data protection
these are the most audited, funded, and trusted tools ever built and they keep falling apart in ways nobody predicted
code is written by humans who cut corners, increasingly generated by AI that doesn't understand what it's producing, and tested by systems that can only catch what someone thought to look for
"secure software" doesn't exist. there's just software running on borrowed time until someone finds the crack
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
32
"one of the goals of this “privacy promise” push is to better justify why Ford is asking for access to this data"
Check it. Ford launches a ‘privacy promise’ and explains how and why it uses customer data techcrunch.com/2026/11/02/fo… via @techcrunch #tech #digital #privacy #crypto #ai
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
30
PACC retweeted
L'esclat de la bombolla de la IA sacsejarà l'economia i el mercat laboral, però potser una conseqüència encara per estudiar i potser reveladora serà veure com persones que havien deixat d'escriure, programar o fer pàgines web sabran tornar a fer-ho mentre el servei (per exemple del seu estimat Claude) no existeix. Serà una prova real de la rendició cognitiva actual?
La rendició cognitiva no és només deixar de practicar una habilitat, sinó internalitzar que ja no cal. Quan algú ha passat mesos o anys deixant que un model redacti correus, generi codi o munti una web, no només perd fluïdesa, sinó que perd habilitats i criteri (també perd coses específiques com la gestió dels errors apresos, la memòria del que hem fet i què no, entre altres).
En termes experimentals s'obre una finestra d'oportunitat per veure que la bombolla no només esclatarà econòmicament, també farà visible qui ha o està externalitzant les seves habilitats i criteri i qui encara els conserva per desplegar i utilitzar la IA d'una forma molt més responsable a l'actual.
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
28
Congrats to @OpenMediaOrg on being awarded $25000 from @DuckDuckGo to continue its important work
We're proud to donate $1M to a diverse group of organizations around the world that promote privacy, digital rights, access to information online, and a healthier online ecosystem.
This is made possible through your support of DuckDuckGo, thank you! 🎉
spreadprivacy.com/2026-duckd…
34
PACC retweeted
🚨 France and Germany are both moving to control what you see online.
One wants a switch to cut social media. The other wants a quota for state-approved content in your feed.
🧵 Here’s what you need to know about the latest censorship attempts out of Europe:
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
36
If child safety was really a top priority, why are governments “demanding that social media and other companies make their content safe for children while simultaneously arguing that children should be banned from those same services?”
I’d like to expose the lack of technical expertise behind British online child safety policies, challenge Ofcom’s credibility, and explain why existing parental controls should be prioritised over compulsory identity verification.
To anyone with expertise in online child safety, this is more word soup from another British MP.
I’ve advised the British government on these matters, and I can say with confidence that despite their confident statements, politicians demonstrate a lack of basic technical knowledge.
The same applies to Ofcom.
After multiple meetings with Ofcom and the British Home Office about SMS fraud, I was told the Home Office would write to Ofcom asking it to stop misleading the public about SMS fraud because it was siding with mobile operators instead of the public.
During my final meeting with Ofcom, I asked why it continued to repeat claims I’d already demonstrated were technically false, including through testing that involved every UK mobile network operator.
My experience has left me convinced that Ofcom is causing more harm than good.
The same problem is evident in the debate about online child safety.
Smartphones already have excellent parental controls that millions of parents and schools use to block unsuitable apps, websites and services, restrict content and set time limits.
Yet politicians and Ofcom continue to demand that tech companies redesign their services for children while pushing compulsory identity verification.
They ignore existing parental controls that allow parents to protect their children without forcing everyone else to surrender their privacy and online anonymity.
If child safety was really a top priority, why aren’t they teaching parents how to use these controls?
Journalists should be asking politicians and regulators two simple questions.
Why aren’t you educating parents about the parental controls already built into smartphones, which independent technical experts in child safety and mobile security consider highly effective?
And why are you demanding that social media and other companies make their content safe for children while simultaneously arguing that children should be banned from those same services?
You need to pick one.
Making every adult service safe for every child is technically impossible. Preventing children from accessing unsuitable services is already possible through smartphone parental controls.
Parents can decide what’s appropriate for their own children without forcing an entire country to surrender its privacy and online anonymity.
The relentless push for compulsory identity verification, while ignoring existing parental controls, tells me that protecting children isn’t the real priority.
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
27
PACC retweeted
Agreed. The effects of this will be delayed as well. Most personal data that is stolen is used for impersonation attacks, fraud, financial scams, and credit theft. For the most part, these don’t immediately apply to kids because kids don’t have financial or personal assets and accounts that can be exploited to significant gains by the attackers.
But they will. And their data will be readily available to be used in the future once these kids do have online banking, financial assets, and the ability to open lines of credit and more.
So right now, when their data is stolen and we don’t see signs of impact, know that the impact is delayed because of their age. It will come.
Children are becoming prime targets for cybercriminals, and the wave of “child protection” laws demanding more personal data is making things worse.
Check out our latest Substack: protectingkidsonline.substac…
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
33
Paying for offsite data storage doesn’t guarantee safe storage
safedatastorage.co.uk/cyber-…
PACC retweeted
Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that everyone in the EU will need to use the EU's app for identity authentication before being able to access or post on social media websites.
🇪🇺 As an expert in online child safety, I am here to expose the misinformation and misdirection in von der Leyen's statements.
Today von der Leyen said:
"This is not about whether children can access social media, it is about whether social media can access our children".
💡The first part is true. This isn't about children. It's about surveillance and combating political dissent. A state that can't control its own citizens is more dangerous than a state rife with criminals. The second part is a PR soundbite that politicians are using like a campaign slogan straight out of 1984.
🇪🇺"The question is no longer if children face risks online, but what can we do to give children a safer start online".
💡No. You can't give children a "safer start" online any more than you can offline. In the offline world, the government doesn't enforce curfews or ban children from entering liquor stores, bars or restaurants. That's a parent's responsibility. The digital world should be no different.
🇪🇺"The age verification app is one of the tools to get it done".
💡This is a contradiction because she also said "It won't be foolproof".
🇪🇺"It's easy to use, it is privacy preserving and it is open source".
💡The app was compromised as soon as it was released. "Privacy-preserving" age verification is an oxymoron. You can't verify a person's age without verifying their identity. Where or how that age is shared afterwards is irrelevant.
🇪🇺"This is basically about putting back the power into the hands of parents".
💡More from 1984. The EU is doing the opposite. Parents are having their authority stripped by politicians who think they know better. Many parents are capable and unaffected by peer pressure, and they know how to use parental controls to block any app classified as 13+. Some teens are safe, their parents trust them, and the state has no business overruling that trust.
🇪🇺"We don't give our children keys to the car before they have their licence"
💡Comparing an app to a car is a false equivalence used to justify mass surveillance. Governments don't decide when a young person is ready for car keys, guardians do.
💡Forcing every adult and child into a biometric checkpoint just to use an app or website is not licensing drivers. It's the state seizing everyone's keys, locking the garage, and forcing every driver to ask a private company for permission to take a drive.
💡 This is a gross, unethical overreach that strips authority from parents while imposing state sanctioned identity verification on every adult who doesn't even have a child.
💡Additionally, people who pass a test, obtain a licence and drive a car aren't forced to use an app to constantly authenticate their suitability to drive.
🇪🇺"We do not let them buy alcohol until they are legally allowed"
💡False equivalence. We don't force every person to show ID at a shopping mall entrance just because a few people might buy alcohol with a meal at a restaurant. Some parents are okay with their 12 year-old going to the mall with friends while others aren't. Either way, it's their choice. Whatever irresponsible decisions some parents might make, every adult in the country shouldn't be forced to pay the price.
🇪🇺"It won't be foolproof"
💡This is all the proof we need to show that the EU and every government know that banning social media for teens won't protect them. When pressed by journalists about VPNs being used to circumvent a ban, politicians always state the ban isn't a silver bullet and will take time. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan went as far as to say "we know it's not the solution".
💡Either age verification works, or it doesn't. As a technical expert in this space, I can tell you there are no additional steps to take and no progress to be made. Either the approach does what it is supposed to do, or it's not fit for purpose. If they claim a bulletproof solution is coming, it can only mean one thing. They intend to ban or restrict VPNs to people who verify their identity.
🇪🇺"It will take time to invite the cultural change that is already taking shape in our society, just as it took time to outlaw drink driving, just as it took time to use seatbelts in the cars. Great change never happens overnight, but when it comes to our safety it is always worth it".
💡Comparing a social media ban and age verification to seatbelts is a completely broken analogy. Seatbelts are a safety feature that protects children while allowing them to travel in a car. A ban doesn't give kids a seatbelt. It kicks them out of the car entirely.
💡Instead of supporting parents who want to guide their own children through the digital world, this heavy-handed law strips away parental authority by banning the apps and websites that many parents are perfectly fine with and actively monitor.
💡Furthermore, enforcing these bans requires biometric age verification, which means forcing millions of adult citizens to scan their IDs, faces or credit cards just to browse the internet. That isn't a common-sense traffic law.
💡It's a digital checkpoint on every street. True safety means teaching kids how to navigate the digital world safely with real guardrails and parental guidance, not burning down digital spaces for everyone under the guise of protection.
🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to ban teens from social media so every person is forced to verify their identity before they can read, share or post anything online. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous content.
🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to enforce "Chat Control" so every app has to monitor everything people say privately inside it, including apps with end-to-end encryption. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous criminals.
💡Where this ends
🇪🇺 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever".
George Orwell, 1984.
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
35
PACCets: Your Latest Privacy & Data Protection Updates - mailchi.mp/pacc-ccap/paccets…
29























