USTR Ambassador “Offended” By TPP Transparency Concerns
3 Comments
Recent Posts
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection
It’s perfectly transparent, if your one of the people they decide to be transparent with. Otherwise, it’s none of your business so why should you care? Go away, you’re just trying to make the country less secure.
All respect to Mr. Kirk’s office…
…but his assessment of the situation is, I strongly suspect, in error. Grievous error.
That sounds like a “term of art”
When diplomats fence, they do so politely: can anyone put this exceedingly odd response into context?
I could interpret it as “you’re a liar, pants on fire”, or as “I have no reply, I’ll pretend to be insulted”.
Anyone speak ambasadorese?
–dave