an IP address “is the key to unlocking a user’s internet activity and, ultimately, their identity, such that it attracts a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Yes and no, an IP address can be used to correlate activity with a particular device at a particular time. It would be better to establish that an IP address is not enough to legally identify a user. Investigators should be required to provide more substantial evidence of a particular user’s activity than that it originated from a particular IP.
“Canadians can have the peace of mind that their online activities are safer from the prying eyes of the state,” said Vibert Jack, the association’s litigation director.
Well that one is just a flat out lie.
Sweet now make it illegal for websites to force you to disable your VPN and adblockers
Why, they can’t force you to do anything. you choose to use their service and comply with their terms. If you have a moral objection with how they operate then don’t use their service or pirate their product.
Besides the fact that the Supreme Court just ruled that IPs deserves privacy protection, ads present an extremely prevalent attack vector for malicious code and industrial level surveillance, data harvesting and nearly internet wide tracking. In the case of Reddit, content creators and unpaid moderators Have been subjected to escalating enshitification as the company choked out 3rd party apps so that they could sell the user generated content to AI training and advertising companies, to pump and dump their soon to be worthless IPO. It used to be the center of Internet culture and now it is a cesspool AI word salad hellscape. I don’t like it and I have left. The surveillance advertisement apparatus needs to be reigned in and real humans online allowed to protect their data and privacy, and filter their own bandwidth as they see fit
Websites can make you disable your vpn? Yikes.
deleted by creator
Same here. I just avoid those altogether and block them on my AdguardHome and my PFSense (you know, just for good measure).
Websites that are funded through ad’s are not going to want you using an ad-blocker. And frankly, if you are not a paying customer, but taking up space - the business typically has right to have you removed. In physical stores it’s obvious but, the online space is not much different.
What I would love to see is some sort of initiative where users can pay like 10-20$ a month, and say 90% of that divided between the websites they view based on engagement metrics on those websites. You could have some modifiers based on the type of website as well - obviously reading news has limited ways of verifying engagement, but we know that there is a high amount of time used per article. Overall this would result in less trackers being needed, websites could feasibly decouple from the ad-driven model entirely, and that might be the best outcome.
With the proposed model - yes, some companies are still going to hard paywall, some might have limited content available to this model and have a 1-5$ a month subscription on top for premium access, and other companies might stay exactly as they are - say like Wikipedia - but be less strained for donations.
This type of arrangement could feasibly end the need for ad’s entirely. Though you could conceivably have an Ad-supported tier as well, whereby if the user is not subscribed to the service they get ads, and if they are they don’t.
The real key to making the proposition as mentioned above work, is to require the payout method to be agreed to be a replacement to seeking ad-revenue for it’s subscribed members. Overall it’s likely (using quick napkin math) that this would provide more revenue per user anyways. It may also devalue web based advertising so hard that it absolutely kills it - and that would mean Content is king. We could end up in a realm where the likes of Youtube don’t block content because some advertiser doesn’t like certain topics. And as more news is consumed online, it may be able to kill the stranglehold the pharma industry has over the news media industry.
The US Supreme Court can’t even figure out women’s rights.
