8 ms·

You can dislike the behavior all you want, and call it out as being immoral and stupid. You can fine people if they take risks that cause harm to others. But if

You can dislike the behavior all you want, and call it out as being immoral and stupid. You can fine people if they take risks that cause harm to others. But if you get in the way of the freedom to assemble and communicate like human beings without being straight up spied on that, to me, is crossing a very big red line. Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. What are you visualizing? I get it we need to ensure our privacy and that in these times we lost civil liberties that never again reappear, but I'm wondering what you're thinking with "some straight-up Orwellian evil".
- thefounder 7y ago
  http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    No, 1984 is a whole list of dysfunction. If you're saying that "if this happens then the book will happen", that's foolish and alarmist. This isn't going to lead directly to the two minute hate. I get that it possibly puts us on that path, but saying "if you invent fire you're going to end up at Fahrenheit 451" seems dishonest.
- Proziam 7y ago
  'Citizen, we see that you have been assembling and have fined you $1,000 for the greater good' "But I need money for rent so I was just selling all my worldly possessions!" (Nice Version) 'Citizen, you now owe us taxes.' (Less Nice Version) 'Citizen, you engaged in criminal commerce and we now imprison you and take your money/property' This may not be normal or have much precedent in Canada, but there is precedent for the entire above scenario in the US. [0]Las Vegas has now implemented fines for any non-essential business that remains open. Basically a straight-up death sentence for most small businesses who are living paycheck to paycheck. [1] And police seizures are a common, well-known, and certifiably evil practice in the US. It's difficult for me to imagine how this power could not end up being abused by someone. [0]https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start-compliance-checks-on-defiant-nonessential-businesses/article_f0620396-6b16-11ea-9ceb-ab35bf40ec49.html https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start... [1]https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01/27/civil-forfeiture-south-carolina-police-property-seizures-taken-exclusive-investigation/2457838002/ https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01...
borkt 7y ago
No one is forcing you to carry a cellphone, and a cellphone really isn’t an inalienable right. There’s a pretty easy solution to this problem if you don’t want to tracked. I’m not in support of what they are doing, but its a bit different than if it were being done with a government mandated biochip or ankle monitor rather than with a phone you voluntarily carry
- Traster 7y ago
  You're being incredibly narrow with your definition of voluntary there. Are you seriously suggesting people giving up their cell phone is a reasonable price to pay for not being tracked by the government? Edit: In 1776, Adam Smith argued that poverty is the inability to afford "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without."
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    There's a difference between not being able to own a smartphone (because you can't afford one) and not carrying one because you left it at home.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Of course you could subvert the surveillance (by mot carrying a phone, credit card or communication device) but people are supposed to enjoy privacy rights by default not by subverting the government. Btw now the cash payments are banned in many places so how are you supposed to avoid being tracked and enjoy your privacy rights?
- twojacobtwo 7y ago
  Given that a cellphone is necessary for many people to conduct their daily lives/business now[0] and that necessity is increasing over time, your argument quickly boils down to "no one is forcing you to take part in society". Sure, it may true, but what a terrible standard to set or defend. [0] e.g. If I didn't carry a cell phone, I would be fired because I am expected to be reachable while away from the office. This is not a unique situation.
mrtksn 7y ago
Isn't it how the world runs since maybe a decade now? Google and Facebook, American companies, know pretty much everything about everyone. It has been revealed that these companies are being tapped by three-letter agencies and it was revealed that rough employees leaked data about their users to other governments. Private data has been sold and stolen too. Maybe, the way to go is not as simple as protesting against openly using this data for a fight on a pandemic. I don't advocate that it should be the way it is now, I simply don't like pretending that something is happening NOW. It has happened long time ago.
Retric 7y ago
Traffic has been monitored based on cellphone data for years. What’s Orwellian is outlawing gatherings and most people feel that’s a reasonable tradeoff in a pandemic. If you’re complaining about something I would suggest non removable cellphone batteries and the ability to record location and conversations while the phone seems to be off.
- shoulderfake 7y ago
  This. At a time like this take all your privacy concerns and throw them out the window. Id rather be healthy and spied on than in a woefully unprepared Toronto hospital. This city and province are about to take a beating. My mom works at a hospital downtown and she says they have no idea what they are doing and no plan for the influx of cases whatsoever. On top of that, the general public are about as smart as a truck tire so you can't rely on any cultural responsibility from your fellow citizen. Just the other day a crowd lined up down the block in front of a video game store to grab a copy of a newly released game which was available to download.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    >At a time like this take all your privacy concerns and throw them out the window. No. Once "a time like this" is over, you're not getting your privacy back.
    - sigmaprimus 7y ago
      Exactly right! It amazes me how close to our current reality the movie "V for Vendetta"'s reality was.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Okay, now imagine that in a decade or so, we stare down a new virus which is far more threatening than COVID-19. One that will outright kill more people regardless of age. It's either your personal freedoms or death. Choose one. In a pandemic situation we can't afford to be choosy about our personal freedoms. We have to accept that our privacy concerns are limited, then be prepared to take them back when the situation is dealt with. You can regain your rights. You can't regain your life, or the lives of those that were killed by your negligence.
ryandrake 7y ago
There's already a way to break up groups of people and send them home. College towns have known how to do this for decades: Send one or two officers over and break up the party. We don't need high-tech mass surveillance for this. We don't see this happening yet in the US or Candada because their governments want to look like they're doing something, holding news conferences and nicely asking people to pretty please stay home, but the governments don't want to actually do anything (enforcement).
kingaillas 7y ago
This is a situation where the often nebulous "good of society" is straight up in conflict with personal freedom. I'm in favor of opt-in for something like using location data (info the government doesn't normally have because it is private companies with the info, at least in the US), but it won't work at all for limiting pandemic response, because someone that doesn't opt-in can spread the virus. So even if everyone else opts-in and allows location usage (perhaps time-limited or whatever) to fight this pandemic, it just takes one infected person to opt-out and destroy containment efforts. Just like South Korea's patient 31. I can't think of a general solution for this, for a case where full cooperation is needed. If it is crossing a very big red line to interfere with freedom of assembly in the midst of a pandemic, then one tool I can think of is to charge/prosecute people that take risks that cause harm to others. Not just a fine, rich people could effectively ignore restrictions. I mean serious charges, attempted murder or assault for every other person they infect. You want to unlimited freedom, then take unlimited personal responsibility for the harm you cause. The other solutions are to split hairs somewhat. The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress, so delegate to the States to forbid assembly in pandemics. But, not being an attorney, I don't know if that legal strategy flies. Another is language lawyering, the 1st Amendment specifically mentions "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Obvious workaround is to consider an infected person not peaceful, they are after all, attacking everybody around them with trillions of microscopic invaders. You can gather only if you can prove you aren't infected.
- gruez 7y ago
  >I mean serious charges, attempted murder or assault for every other person they infect. >You want to unlimited freedom, then take unlimited personal responsibility for the harm you cause. How would you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was infected by the accused? Maybe it works fine in the early stages of an outbreak, but when you have thousands infected in a city, it isn't fair to charge whoever the police arrested with "infecting" every person that came within 6ft of him who wound up sick.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jdsully 7y ago
I’m concerned this isn’t being done through the proper legal channels. The emergency powers act would allow the suspension of civil liberties and permit this. However short of that a mayor shouldn’t have this power.
BiteCode_dev 7y ago
I doubt the information is really anonymized in the first place. Making it really anonymous requires will, skill, incentive, hierarchical validation and resources. Not doing it on the other hand, is the path of least resistance. Plus the last 2 decades have proven you can not only get away with it, but people calling you on it have a high chance of paying the price for it.
yongjik 7y ago
Everybody loves to talk about government overreach, but if a total war (such as WW2) strikes Canada, the US, or any other freedom-loving country, they will round up millions of young people, give each of them a rifle, and tell them exactly what to do, where to sleep, what to eat, and a whole bunch of others, and eventually shove them into a transport ship and tell them to run into a trench and start shooting people. Penalty for desertion is death. Somehow, all of this is constitutional, and these countries didn't descend into Orwellian hell after WW2. Context matters, and desperate times often require desperate measures. I consider quoting 1984 as a very lazy form of argument, because it can be applied to everything the government does, regardless of context. It has no predictive power, and is no better than Godwin's law.
- Proziam 7y ago
  > Somehow, all of this is constitutional, and these countries didn't descend into Orwellian hell after WW2. Context matters, and desperate times often require desperate measures. The US has been stripping rights from its citizens as its national pastime since WW2. We spy on our citizens, and the world. We took away the rights of minorities to own arms, then extended that out to the rest of the populace piece by piece. We've manufactured new laws that allow civil forfeiture, put innocent people into "plea out or risk your entire life" situations, and allow the complete disregard for the 4th amendment (see police dog signals, no-knock raids, etc). Oh, and we decided that we'd just imprison every person of a specific group during the war. If the technology existed to make all of the above easier, it would have been used without question. It exists now. > "Drafts exist" Yes, war is another evil. The existence of one evil doesn't somehow make the other thing 'not evil' or even 'less evil' > I consider quoting 1984 as a very lazy form of argument because it can be applied to everything the government does, regardless of context. It has no predictive power, and is no better than Godwin's law. I'm not 'quoting' 1984 I'm using the term Orwellian because everyone understands that to mean 'over-reaching surveillance state that does bad things to people' which is exactly what is being discussed.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    > The US has been stripping rights from its citizens as its national pastime since WW2. Back in 1946, black people couldn't sit on any empty seat of the bus they damn liked. What are you talking about?
drbojingle 7y ago
Is the issue here that someone has the ability to do this? You know People give up information willingly to Facebook right? And Cell service companies have the ability to do this for likely decades. At the very least they've known which tower you connect to. tbh, I doubt the Government, in this situation, cares who you are. The issue is that groups will spread disease, keep the economy slow and overburden the healthcare system. They don't need your name! They're probably going to the cell service providers and saying 'yo, give me the lat long of group of 10 or more clustered in a 6 meter radius'. Maybe they're asking for names but it's not like they need them.
lm28469 7y ago
I keep reading people talking about "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of movement" in the context of covid quarantines. Freedom of assembly isn't about you meeting your friends for a beer at the park, and freedom of movement isn't about being able to leave your house and go to the pub. Freedom of assembly is about your right to assemble with other people protest publicly. None of these "freedom of x" are absolute.
- jariel 7y ago
  Not quite. Freedom of assembly is not about your right to protest, it's origin is more or less your right to assemble and discuss whatever, especially discussing creating a movement to overthrow Dear Leader. But it definitely extends to 'going to the pub' as well! This freedom, however, can be constitutionally curtailed if necessary. So it can get pretty fuzzy.
- Proziam 7y ago
  > Freedom of assembly is about your right to assemble with other people protest publicly. None of these "freedom of x" are absolute. I'm not sure I follow. The whole point of the bill of rights is to specify things the government is specifically not allowed to touch. It was so important they literally made it the first thing on the list. These rights are described as inalienable by the founding fathers. - in·al·ien·a·ble /inˈālēənəb(ə)l/ "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." - inalienable is a synonym for absolute, sacrosanct, nonnegotiable, and unassailable. By design, these freedoms are intended to be absolute. It's a serious tragedy that they have been whittled down to a shadow of their creators' intents.
  - anthonypasq 7y ago
    You know countries other than the USA exist right?
Nuzzerino 7y ago
> This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. Not sure how someone who cares about this stuff isn't already aware by now (judging from the surprised tone of your post), but Canada has been investigating, harassing, and interrogating people for some time now, for doing things like writing books that criticize Trudeau. Look into Ezra Levant.
- kspacewalk2 7y ago
  Precisely no one, without any exceptions, has ever been investigated, harassed and interrogated by "Canada" (presumably you meant the government) for doing things like writing books that criticize Trudeau. This is pure fantasy. Ezra Levant is an alt-right troll who even gets away with most of his alt-right trolling without well-deserved libel lawsuits.
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    I watched this whole thing. How much of it have you watched and what is your evidence that it was faked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw By the way, it's laughable to suggest that this is somehow a fantasy, implying that this is what someone wants to be true. In what world is that okay?
- smnrchrds 7y ago
  I live in Canada. I am quite familiar with Ezra Levant. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please educate me. Everything I have read about or by Ezra Levant has solidified the idea that he is yet another alt-right media personality wannabe who LARPs as a journalist and sues anyone who disagrees with him. I don't respect him, and I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    > I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously He acknowledged that this would be the case if he simply reported on it, which is why he brought a hidden camera to the interrogation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw My experiences with liberals while living on the west coast (in the US) was that the general idea of warning a person against somebody else was that people tend to disregard such warnings, and they prefer to see first hand how a person is before dealing with them (even in the extreme case of someone being a known rapist). Is that different in Canada, or do mainstream talking heads on TV take precedence over that convention? > Everything I have read about or by Ezra Levant has solidified the idea that he is yet another alt-right media personality wannabe who LARPs as a journalist and sues anyone who disagrees with him. Are you saying that this makes it okay? That's the sentiment the government seems to be relying on in this case, and if that's what you believe, then you're part of the problem.
jariel 7y ago
I could care less about your right to 'congregate' if you are putting my life at risk by doing so. The reason this is not 'Orwellian' as you suggest, is because there's a very real and legit threat right now. For god's sake, we're confined to our homes - that alone should be shocking enough. If the Ontario Gov. is watching people 'congregate' during regular times, for whatever reason, then this is bad. If they are using said powers to try to extend government reach so they can do nasty things after the threat ha passed, then this is bad. But I doubt both. The action is in the range of proportional and responsible, though I doubt it's having any effect. The next step is that they will require you to have a tracker app on your phone - or an ankle bracelet - merely because you've identified as having COVID-19. Again - scary but legit and proportional, given the situation. It's in these times we come pretty face to face with the results of individual actions with the community. Instead of thinking in classical liberal terms, or even staunch collectivism, just consider what's the appropriate action for people and governments to take, within the context. It's not that hard to consider, and from this more communitarian perspective, our governments are mostly doing the right thing.
mikekchar 7y ago
For me, from a government system perspective, it depends wholly on whether or not a state of emergency has been declared. There are things that governments can do that they normally should not do. However, there are things that a government really should do in certain emergencies. Tracking individuals during a pandemic is one of those things. Curtailing the freedom to assemble is another one of those things. It should take an act of parliament (or the equivalent) and it should be temporary (with possible extensions). Of course, the ironic this is that in 1984, "We have always been at war with Eurasia". That is the thing that legitimises the draconian measures. This is what Orwell warns about. However, I think it is important to understand that there is a big difference between creating an excuse for extrordinary measures and actually dealing with an emergency. It is critically important that we allow the latter while resisting the former. The difficulty is that this kind of action requires a nuanced response and large numbers of people put together often have difficulty with nuance. P.S. I'm talking in general and not commenting directly on the fine article.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

> Anyone who believes for a moment that the information they collect can't be deanonymized is deluding themselves. This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. What are you visualizing? I get it we need to ensure our privacy and that in these times we lost civil liberties that never again reappear, but I'm wondering what you're thinking with "some straight-up Orwellian evil".

thefounder 7y ago
http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian http://www.letmewikipediathatforyou.com/?q=Orwellian
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  No, 1984 is a whole list of dysfunction. If you're saying that "if this happens then the book will happen", that's foolish and alarmist. This isn't going to lead directly to the two minute hate. I get that it possibly puts us on that path, but saying "if you invent fire you're going to end up at Fahrenheit 451" seems dishonest.
Proziam 7y ago
'Citizen, we see that you have been assembling and have fined you $1,000 for the greater good' "But I need money for rent so I was just selling all my worldly possessions!" (Nice Version) 'Citizen, you now owe us taxes.' (Less Nice Version) 'Citizen, you engaged in criminal commerce and we now imprison you and take your money/property' This may not be normal or have much precedent in Canada, but there is precedent for the entire above scenario in the US. [0]Las Vegas has now implemented fines for any non-essential business that remains open. Basically a straight-up death sentence for most small businesses who are living paycheck to paycheck. [1] And police seizures are a common, well-known, and certifiably evil practice in the US. It's difficult for me to imagine how this power could not end up being abused by someone. [0]https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start-compliance-checks-on-defiant-nonessential-businesses/article_f0620396-6b16-11ea-9ceb-ab35bf40ec49.html https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/las-vegas-police-start... [1]https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01/27/civil-forfeiture-south-carolina-police-property-seizures-taken-exclusive-investigation/2457838002/ https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-depth/news/taken/2019/01...

borkt 7y ago

No one is forcing you to carry a cellphone, and a cellphone really isn’t an inalienable right. There’s a pretty easy solution to this problem if you don’t want to tracked. I’m not in support of what they are doing, but its a bit different than if it were being done with a government mandated biochip or ankle monitor rather than with a phone you voluntarily carry

Traster 7y ago
You're being incredibly narrow with your definition of voluntary there. Are you seriously suggesting people giving up their cell phone is a reasonable price to pay for not being tracked by the government? Edit: In 1776, Adam Smith argued that poverty is the inability to afford "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without."
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  There's a difference between not being able to own a smartphone (because you can't afford one) and not carrying one because you left it at home.
thefounder 7y ago
Of course you could subvert the surveillance (by mot carrying a phone, credit card or communication device) but people are supposed to enjoy privacy rights by default not by subverting the government. Btw now the cash payments are banned in many places so how are you supposed to avoid being tracked and enjoy your privacy rights?
twojacobtwo 7y ago
Given that a cellphone is necessary for many people to conduct their daily lives/business now[0] and that necessity is increasing over time, your argument quickly boils down to "no one is forcing you to take part in society". Sure, it may true, but what a terrible standard to set or defend. [0] e.g. If I didn't carry a cell phone, I would be fired because I am expected to be reachable while away from the office. This is not a unique situation.

mrtksn 7y ago

Isn't it how the world runs since maybe a decade now? Google and Facebook, American companies, know pretty much everything about everyone. It has been revealed that these companies are being tapped by three-letter agencies and it was revealed that rough employees leaked data about their users to other governments. Private data has been sold and stolen too. Maybe, the way to go is not as simple as protesting against openly using this data for a fight on a pandemic. I don't advocate that it should be the way it is now, I simply don't like pretending that something is happening NOW. It has happened long time ago.

Retric 7y ago

Traffic has been monitored based on cellphone data for years. What’s Orwellian is outlawing gatherings and most people feel that’s a reasonable tradeoff in a pandemic. If you’re complaining about something I would suggest non removable cellphone batteries and the ability to record location and conversations while the phone seems to be off.

shoulderfake 7y ago
This. At a time like this take all your privacy concerns and throw them out the window. Id rather be healthy and spied on than in a woefully unprepared Toronto hospital. This city and province are about to take a beating. My mom works at a hospital downtown and she says they have no idea what they are doing and no plan for the influx of cases whatsoever. On top of that, the general public are about as smart as a truck tire so you can't rely on any cultural responsibility from your fellow citizen. Just the other day a crowd lined up down the block in front of a video game store to grab a copy of a newly released game which was available to download.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  >At a time like this take all your privacy concerns and throw them out the window. No. Once "a time like this" is over, you're not getting your privacy back.
  - sigmaprimus 7y ago
    Exactly right! It amazes me how close to our current reality the movie "V for Vendetta"'s reality was.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Okay, now imagine that in a decade or so, we stare down a new virus which is far more threatening than COVID-19. One that will outright kill more people regardless of age. It's either your personal freedoms or death. Choose one. In a pandemic situation we can't afford to be choosy about our personal freedoms. We have to accept that our privacy concerns are limited, then be prepared to take them back when the situation is dealt with. You can regain your rights. You can't regain your life, or the lives of those that were killed by your negligence.

ryandrake 7y ago

There's already a way to break up groups of people and send them home. College towns have known how to do this for decades: Send one or two officers over and break up the party. We don't need high-tech mass surveillance for this. We don't see this happening yet in the US or Candada because their governments want to look like they're doing something, holding news conferences and nicely asking people to pretty please stay home, but the governments don't want to actually do anything (enforcement).

kingaillas 7y ago

This is a situation where the often nebulous "good of society" is straight up in conflict with personal freedom. I'm in favor of opt-in for something like using location data (info the government doesn't normally have because it is private companies with the info, at least in the US), but it won't work at all for limiting pandemic response, because someone that doesn't opt-in can spread the virus. So even if everyone else opts-in and allows location usage (perhaps time-limited or whatever) to fight this pandemic, it just takes one infected person to opt-out and destroy containment efforts. Just like South Korea's patient 31. I can't think of a general solution for this, for a case where full cooperation is needed. If it is crossing a very big red line to interfere with freedom of assembly in the midst of a pandemic, then one tool I can think of is to charge/prosecute people that take risks that cause harm to others. Not just a fine, rich people could effectively ignore restrictions. I mean serious charges, attempted murder or assault for every other person they infect. You want to unlimited freedom, then take unlimited personal responsibility for the harm you cause. The other solutions are to split hairs somewhat. The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress, so delegate to the States to forbid assembly in pandemics. But, not being an attorney, I don't know if that legal strategy flies. Another is language lawyering, the 1st Amendment specifically mentions "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Obvious workaround is to consider an infected person not peaceful, they are after all, attacking everybody around them with trillions of microscopic invaders. You can gather only if you can prove you aren't infected.

gruez 7y ago
>I mean serious charges, attempted murder or assault for every other person they infect. >You want to unlimited freedom, then take unlimited personal responsibility for the harm you cause. How would you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was infected by the accused? Maybe it works fine in the early stages of an outbreak, but when you have thousands infected in a city, it isn't fair to charge whoever the police arrested with "infecting" every person that came within 6ft of him who wound up sick.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jdsully 7y ago

I’m concerned this isn’t being done through the proper legal channels. The emergency powers act would allow the suspension of civil liberties and permit this. However short of that a mayor shouldn’t have this power.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago

I doubt the information is really anonymized in the first place. Making it really anonymous requires will, skill, incentive, hierarchical validation and resources. Not doing it on the other hand, is the path of least resistance. Plus the last 2 decades have proven you can not only get away with it, but people calling you on it have a high chance of paying the price for it.

yongjik 7y ago

Everybody loves to talk about government overreach, but if a total war (such as WW2) strikes Canada, the US, or any other freedom-loving country, they will round up millions of young people, give each of them a rifle, and tell them exactly what to do, where to sleep, what to eat, and a whole bunch of others, and eventually shove them into a transport ship and tell them to run into a trench and start shooting people. Penalty for desertion is death. Somehow, all of this is constitutional, and these countries didn't descend into Orwellian hell after WW2. Context matters, and desperate times often require desperate measures. I consider quoting 1984 as a very lazy form of argument, because it can be applied to everything the government does, regardless of context. It has no predictive power, and is no better than Godwin's law.

Proziam 7y ago
> Somehow, all of this is constitutional, and these countries didn't descend into Orwellian hell after WW2. Context matters, and desperate times often require desperate measures. The US has been stripping rights from its citizens as its national pastime since WW2. We spy on our citizens, and the world. We took away the rights of minorities to own arms, then extended that out to the rest of the populace piece by piece. We've manufactured new laws that allow civil forfeiture, put innocent people into "plea out or risk your entire life" situations, and allow the complete disregard for the 4th amendment (see police dog signals, no-knock raids, etc). Oh, and we decided that we'd just imprison every person of a specific group during the war. If the technology existed to make all of the above easier, it would have been used without question. It exists now. > "Drafts exist" Yes, war is another evil. The existence of one evil doesn't somehow make the other thing 'not evil' or even 'less evil' > I consider quoting 1984 as a very lazy form of argument because it can be applied to everything the government does, regardless of context. It has no predictive power, and is no better than Godwin's law. I'm not 'quoting' 1984 I'm using the term Orwellian because everyone understands that to mean 'over-reaching surveillance state that does bad things to people' which is exactly what is being discussed.
- yongjik 7y ago
  > The US has been stripping rights from its citizens as its national pastime since WW2. Back in 1946, black people couldn't sit on any empty seat of the bus they damn liked. What are you talking about?

drbojingle 7y ago

Is the issue here that someone has the ability to do this? You know People give up information willingly to Facebook right? And Cell service companies have the ability to do this for likely decades. At the very least they've known which tower you connect to. tbh, I doubt the Government, in this situation, cares who you are. The issue is that groups will spread disease, keep the economy slow and overburden the healthcare system. They don't need your name! They're probably going to the cell service providers and saying 'yo, give me the lat long of group of 10 or more clustered in a 6 meter radius'. Maybe they're asking for names but it's not like they need them.

lm28469 7y ago

I keep reading people talking about "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of movement" in the context of covid quarantines. Freedom of assembly isn't about you meeting your friends for a beer at the park, and freedom of movement isn't about being able to leave your house and go to the pub. Freedom of assembly is about your right to assemble with other people protest publicly. None of these "freedom of x" are absolute.

jariel 7y ago
Not quite. Freedom of assembly is not about your right to protest, it's origin is more or less your right to assemble and discuss whatever, especially discussing creating a movement to overthrow Dear Leader. But it definitely extends to 'going to the pub' as well! This freedom, however, can be constitutionally curtailed if necessary. So it can get pretty fuzzy.
Proziam 7y ago
> Freedom of assembly is about your right to assemble with other people protest publicly. None of these "freedom of x" are absolute. I'm not sure I follow. The whole point of the bill of rights is to specify things the government is specifically not allowed to touch. It was so important they literally made it the first thing on the list. These rights are described as inalienable by the founding fathers. - in·al·ien·a·ble /inˈālēənəb(ə)l/ "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." - inalienable is a synonym for absolute, sacrosanct, nonnegotiable, and unassailable. By design, these freedoms are intended to be absolute. It's a serious tragedy that they have been whittled down to a shadow of their creators' intents.
- anthonypasq 7y ago
  You know countries other than the USA exist right?

Nuzzerino 7y ago

> This is a precursor to some straight-up Orwellian evil. Not sure how someone who cares about this stuff isn't already aware by now (judging from the surprised tone of your post), but Canada has been investigating, harassing, and interrogating people for some time now, for doing things like writing books that criticize Trudeau. Look into Ezra Levant.

kspacewalk2 7y ago
Precisely no one, without any exceptions, has ever been investigated, harassed and interrogated by "Canada" (presumably you meant the government) for doing things like writing books that criticize Trudeau. This is pure fantasy. Ezra Levant is an alt-right troll who even gets away with most of his alt-right trolling without well-deserved libel lawsuits.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  I watched this whole thing. How much of it have you watched and what is your evidence that it was faked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw By the way, it's laughable to suggest that this is somehow a fantasy, implying that this is what someone wants to be true. In what world is that okay?
smnrchrds 7y ago
I live in Canada. I am quite familiar with Ezra Levant. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please educate me. Everything I have read about or by Ezra Levant has solidified the idea that he is yet another alt-right media personality wannabe who LARPs as a journalist and sues anyone who disagrees with him. I don't respect him, and I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  > I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously He acknowledged that this would be the case if he simply reported on it, which is why he brought a hidden camera to the interrogation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__GmSk24qw My experiences with liberals while living on the west coast (in the US) was that the general idea of warning a person against somebody else was that people tend to disregard such warnings, and they prefer to see first hand how a person is before dealing with them (even in the extreme case of someone being a known rapist). Is that different in Canada, or do mainstream talking heads on TV take precedence over that convention? > Everything I have read about or by Ezra Levant has solidified the idea that he is yet another alt-right media personality wannabe who LARPs as a journalist and sues anyone who disagrees with him. Are you saying that this makes it okay? That's the sentiment the government seems to be relying on in this case, and if that's what you believe, then you're part of the problem.

jariel 7y ago

I could care less about your right to 'congregate' if you are putting my life at risk by doing so. The reason this is not 'Orwellian' as you suggest, is because there's a very real and legit threat right now. For god's sake, we're confined to our homes - that alone should be shocking enough. If the Ontario Gov. is watching people 'congregate' during regular times, for whatever reason, then this is bad. If they are using said powers to try to extend government reach so they can do nasty things after the threat ha passed, then this is bad. But I doubt both. The action is in the range of proportional and responsible, though I doubt it's having any effect. The next step is that they will require you to have a tracker app on your phone - or an ankle bracelet - merely because you've identified as having COVID-19. Again - scary but legit and proportional, given the situation. It's in these times we come pretty face to face with the results of individual actions with the community. Instead of thinking in classical liberal terms, or even staunch collectivism, just consider what's the appropriate action for people and governments to take, within the context. It's not that hard to consider, and from this more communitarian perspective, our governments are mostly doing the right thing.

mikekchar 7y ago

For me, from a government system perspective, it depends wholly on whether or not a state of emergency has been declared. There are things that governments can do that they normally should not do. However, there are things that a government really should do in certain emergencies. Tracking individuals during a pandemic is one of those things. Curtailing the freedom to assemble is another one of those things. It should take an act of parliament (or the equivalent) and it should be temporary (with possible extensions). Of course, the ironic this is that in 1984, "We have always been at war with Eurasia". That is the thing that legitimises the draconian measures. This is what Orwell warns about. However, I think it is important to understand that there is a big difference between creating an excuse for extrordinary measures and actually dealing with an emergency. It is critically important that we allow the latter while resisting the former. The difficulty is that this kind of action requires a nuanced response and large numbers of people put together often have difficulty with nuance. P.S. I'm talking in general and not commenting directly on the fine article.