Kind of a non-sequitur of a response, not sure you read my comment, with its direct question? Even if you were responding to the second paragraph only -- and co

Kind of a non-sequitur of a response, not sure you read my comment, with its direct question? Even if you were responding to the second paragraph only -- and construed it as my suggesting people be imprisoned -- weird! Anyway, you answered, in a roundabout way, my direct question in another comment, namely >>They also have the power to refer their determinations to other branches of government / Attorneys General etc for further enforcement of the law should their concerns not be addressed [0] from which I can infer that this ""voluntary" "compliance"" thing they've got going on is the extent of the shit they're willing to give. My layman's reading of PIPEDA [1] suggests that court orders are eventually possible, but this act of obvious malfeasance (or, if that encroaches on a legal term, try 'fuckery') deserves a... promise to do better? Seems like the message is "if you get caught, we'll politely ask you to stop". Not the kind of response I'd like for the granularity of this kind of tracking. Sets a bad standard. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31588094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31588094 [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/index.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/index.html