The majority of protests involve taking over space temporarily; that alone doesn’t make them not peaceful.

They weren’t invading/forcing their way into spaces that they weren’t already openly invited to be in, nor were they violent towards officials that were demanding they leave (self-defense aside).

If peaceful protest is going to be consistently met with violent police response; maybe they should stop being peaceful from the outset.

Cue dumbasses tossing their iphones in the toaster oven in 3… 2…

Pope is recovering;

• meets JD Vance

• dies a couple days later…

Hmm

I too oppose deals being made at my expense…

This seems like a goes-without-saying level of obvious position to take, no?

It’s google; their entire business is built on fucking you out of your personal data. Once they have it, they will never let go.

Until a highly scrutinized third party audit proves otherwise; I doubt even GDPR removal requests are complied with internally. They might stop telling you they have the data, but thetly won’t actually get rid of it.

Rebooting just seems like a very roundabout, slow and inefficient way to get back to that initial state you describe.

It’s exactly what the reboot process is designed to do; return you to that fully encrypted pre-boot state. There would be no purpose to implementing a second method that does the exact same thing.

Much of the data on your phone, including critical information that’s required to run the operating system and make the device function, is fully encrypted when the device is off/rebooted.

While in this locked down state, nothing can run. You don’t receive notifications, applications can’t run in the background, even just accessing the device yourself is slow as you have to wait for the whole system to decrypt and start up.

When you unlock the device for the first time; much of that data is decrypted so that it can be used, and the keys required to unlock the rest of the data get stored in memory where they can be quickly accessed and used. This also makes the device more vulnerable to attacks.

There’s always a trade off between convenience and security. The more secure a system, the less convenient it is to use.

Single party consent means one of the people being recorded must give permission to record … full stop.

This is true.

What you don’t understand is that a person does not have to be actively speaking or being directly spoken to in order to be a part of a conversation. Simply being present, with the other participants fully aware of your presence while continuing to converse makes you part of their conversation and thus a party able to consent to it’s recording.

The key there is that the other participants are aware of your presence. You’re not hiding around a corner, listening in unbeknownst to them; the people conversing are entirely aware that you are present and likely listening.

By your rational a police agent without a warrant could walk by and say “hello”, plant a listening device, then record your conversation because he said hello at the start.

No. In that situation a third party inserted themselves into your conversation entirely of their own volition.

This is like you walking up to someone that’s streaming/vlogging in public, beginning an unrelated conversation in front of them; then you getting upset that they are recording the conversation that you began in their presence. Even if you weren’t aware they were streaming; you were the one that inserted yourself into that situation. They didn’t walk up to/join you; you made them a party by bringing the conversation to them.

A really big part of these types of legal situations is ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. The people inside a vehicle are all pretty close together and obviously going to be able to hear the conversions that are happening. It’s unreasonable to expect the driver who’s head is ~3 feet from you isn’t privy to your conversation.

In a situation like this; you’ve entered the drivers vehicle and began a conversation in their immediate presence fully aware that they are able to hear and listen to you. That makes the driver a party to your conversation, even without actively participating in it.

Canada has single-party consent laws when it comes to audio recording.

I hate this use and that I’m arguing devils advocate here, but legally speaking; If the driver opted-in to the program, audio in the vehicle can legally be recorded because the driver is considered a party to the conversion that’s happening within their vehicle (even without actively participating in that conversion). They can record and distribute that recording however they like (including to lyft to be transcribed).

Lyft wouldn’t be able to record vehicle audio without the consent of the driver at the minimum; but they aren’t necessarily required to gain consent or even inform the other passengers. As shitty as that is.

Don’t treat your driver like they don’t exist and keep private conversations for when your actually in private. Even a regular cab driver could be privately recording you; regardless of ‘company policy’.

Another way to think of this is: You can record the audio in your immediate vicinity (ie, anything you can naturally hear) without having to gain consent from or inform everyone around you. Same concept.

I WANT OFF MR BONES WILD RIDE

We don’t have an ICE equivalent hunting down and kidnapping people on the streets if that’s what you’re worried about.

Mainly it’ll be very difficult to get work, you’ll probably be homeless (which really really sucks in the snow…), and whenever the cops do catch up with you, you will be deported when they realize your status.

TBH, I don’t know. It would depend on your specific situation; I doubt we’re just broadly accepting Americans.

Some resources:

Seeking Asylum in Canada

Paths to Immigration

Working Visas (>6mo, extended up to 4years)

Sure, and that’s something you can decide to do.

The point is there’s a very big difference between deciding to leave the country permanently to a chosen destination, bringing what you can with you; vs leaving for a short holiday and suddenly being told what you thought was home won’t let you return.

Worse; just because you’re in Canada on a visitor’s visa and the US decides it’s doesn’t want to let you back in, doesn’t mean you’ll just be turned around and accepted back into Canada (or wherever you’re visiting) instead. You may just be detained by US authorities and deported to wherever they decide.

Welcome to your new home in an El Salvador prison camp…

Not if you left all your family, friends, and assets behind (car, house, valuables, etc) with plans to return.

Now your stuck in a foreign country essentially seeking asylum unexpectedly.

It my be fine for some, but most people aren’t prepared to suddenly uproot their entire lives with 0 warning or planning.

While I welcome tourists, I worry for them. Now doesn’t seem like a good time to leave the US with plans to go back; you may just not be permitted to return, citizenship or not.

Aww, import Tariffs. I was hoping for more export tariffs.

Make importing a 100$ item to the US from China cost 288$. Lol