7 ms·

> The government’s action is troubling enough, but what should really disturb us is the ease and invisibility with which it is being done. This is such a great

> The government’s action is troubling enough, but what should really disturb us is the ease and invisibility with which it is being done. This is such a great point. I'm not sure why it needs to be made over and over again, but it seems that's the only way it doesn't get buried. Let's play a game. I will be the institution, you will be the person. You will get ability to record me with your cellphone and post stuff online to complain about various issues. I will get the ability to see all your financial transactions, listen to all your communications, track your location, arrest you when I don't like you recording me, smear you online and pressure companies to ban you from literally any service imaginable, including banking. Both of us will be bound by the legal framework, but when I don't like it, I will have the ability declare the state of emergency and scrap all the rules. Also, I will have sovereign immunity when I break the rules. Also, many of my actions will be secret because of national security. Oh, and I will be doing all the things described above using your money. Sounds fair?

btbuildem 5y ago
You forgot the part that as an individual I am practically invisible to the institution, and it would take a mob of mes to attract Sauron's eye.
- throw10920 5y ago
  In a digital world, the Eye of Sauron is multi-threaded. (your statement isn't true when it comes to virtual + automated surveillance)
  - daedlanth 5y ago
    My dagger is multi threaded too.
    - techdragon 5y ago
      It’s also smaller than a gnat’s tooth in terms of practical power against them.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Yes, the error in the metaphor is that the eye of sauron was one eye. Automated surveillance is millions of eyes that track, record, and calculate a billion times faster than the human eye.
    - paulnpace 5y ago
      And it saves all observations forever for future review and analysis.
- superkuh 5y ago
  You think that, until one day you wake up to the pounding of the FBI (or CSIS...) on your door at 6am. I thought I was a no one, I literally used the same Lotr metaphor as you, but in 2009/2010 during the occupy and wikileaks protests the US government must have decided I was enough (despite never going to a protest and commiting no crimes) and they raided me and ruined my life. I was never charged with a crime. Never even indicted. Their action was simply to ruin my life and scare me. It can happen to you too. Even if you think you're a no one.
  - techdragon 5y ago
    You don’t have to have committed a crime to be suspected of one. Investigation alone can be damaging enough depending on circumstances.
  - btbuildem 5y ago
    And how did you attract their attention?
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  Do you mean to suggest that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear?
  - btbuildem 5y ago
    No, what I am suggesting is that as an "individual contributor" you're unlikely to merit an outlay of resources to do anything about your antics until your actions are somehow significant.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Unlikely implies non zero risk. Additionally, you’re making the fair strong assumption that the state has to expend more than a nominal amount of resources to crush you, when is it becoming easier and easier to do so without significant effort.
ladallada 5y ago
I'm all for putting more transparency and reasonable bounds on the process formally, but I think you're missing two points: 1. While having formal bounds would be great, in this case, it hasn't been shown yet that they applied force unreasonably and beyond what those bounds should be. Some people want to believe they froze assets of innocent bystanders or small local donors, but that's just conjecture right now. 2. In your example, am I also blocking the biggest commercial boarder crossing between Canada and US? If so, I'm surprised you've not yet thrown tear gas at me, put me in handcuffs and physically forced me to move. And that instead you chose to simply freeze my bank accounts until I move. I say that, because again, while I do like what the article points out, yes freezing assets is a big deal, and yes having bounds and guards and protections from abuse is important, I'm all for that. But my impression in this case is actually the government is trying to limit the blast radius and choose the lesser of two evils in order to force the convoys to stop blocking the boarder and major roads. Instead of tear gas and physical force, which often impact a ton of innocent protesters that are legally and peacefully protesting, they went for a more targeted approach, where by blocking bank accounts you can be more specific exactly who you target, and it is also a more civil way to force you to move.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- repsilat 5y ago
  The border crossing was unblocked without much fuss, and without the use of wild emergency powers. Several arrests were made. No "tear gas", wtf. A Canadian MP has claimed that a small-donor constituent had their bank account frozen. In any case it sounds like despite their rhetoric (calling protestors and their supporters white supremacists and lawbreakers), the government wasn't going ham and using these broad powers on all of them. Good for them. Regardless, it's not encouraging -- the powers granted were very broad, weren't needed when granted, and obviously aren't needed now even though the government won't give them up. And I'm not sure about how targeted the response has been. Aside from the rhetoric, peaceful protestors have been met with violence. Funds donated to support them have been blocked.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
makeitdouble 5y ago
This is a great representation of the situation. Not taking anything from it, I’m curious why it bother you so much now, when it has always been that way, in particular for a non negligeable portion of the population (minorities, poors etc.) And what takes do you see succeeding to improve the situation compared to what these minorities tried up until now (to anchor the conversation, I don’t think “going back” is realistic, the cat is out of the bag)
PKop 5y ago
"The sovereign is he who decides on the exception" -Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception
sebastianconcpt 5y ago
Great summary of the rules removed of all the semantic mitigations that the political class and statists love to spread on their rethoric.
agentultra 5y ago
This is literally not what happened in Canada. The Emergencies Act does not allow the government to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must also be agreed to by the provinces. It's use has a fixed duration and scope of action. It was designed to prevent executive over-reach while still allowing the government, at the federal level, to respond to unprecedented situations that require it. Everyone who was arrested at the illegal occupation is being given the same rights and freedoms everyone gets in this country. The accounts and crypto wallets being frozen and seized are those that belong to people organizing and funding the occupation. Everyone arrested is getting their day in court. I've been involved in many peaceful protests and am not afraid that the Canadian government is suddenly going to arresting people without giving them a court hearing and freezing the assets of dissidents. That would be in violation of our laws and I suspect our democracy is strong enough that anyone trying to get away with that... wouldn't be able to.
- webXL 5y ago
  > It's use has a fixed duration and scope of action. Sounds like "15 days to flatten the curve". > Everyone who was arrested at the illegal occupation is being given the same rights and freedoms everyone gets in this country. The accounts and crypto wallets being frozen and seized are those that belong to people organizing and funding the occupation. "occupation" is an interesting word choice. Others might describe it as a protest against an unwarranted violation of their rights and freedoms. The "occupation" was a response to new (rash) government policies, undertaken to make them reverse those rash policies. This is what healthy democracies do.
  - agentultra 5y ago
    > Others might describe it as a protest against an unwarranted violation of their rights and freedoms. They can call it what they want. The courts will decide whether they were peacefully demonstrating as you suggest. Section 2(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what gives Canadians the right to free and peaceful assembly... within certain limits. It doesn't give the right to riot, hate speech, or blockade lawful activities; nor does it give us the right to impede the authorities from managing a demonstration. It has only been tried a handful of times. If you push the limits or break the rules you can face arrest. But you'll get your day in court and plead your case. We'll have to wait and see what comes of these trials.
allisdust 5y ago
Sounds fair as long as you are representing my views. When the coin flips I will get the unfairness of it. This is what current supporters of the regime (I guess we can now call it that) don't understand yet.
- ladallada 5y ago
  You're talking to one right now. So let's discuss. My view is that everyone has the right to protest whenever and whatever. And you can also as part of your protest show a little bit of civil disobedience, like break a few windows, burn a fire can, chant loudly through the night keeping everyone awake, or block some roads. Something to really get people to pay attention and really listen to what you have to protest about and see how serious you take the matter. But after people did notice you, and did listen, and after they've asked you to please stop your civil disobedience now and continue your protest within the laws, if you still continue with civil disobedience, well it is normal for the government to then follow up with threats of consequences, like tear gas, handcuffs, jail time, fines, account freezes, etc. And if you still refuse after the treats, then it's normal for the government to follow through with it after all that, and force you to now obey the civil laws. This I feel is true of all protests, may I agree or not with the protesters. You can continue to protest, but you can't be breaking the laws forever. We can't have people block the biggest commercial boarder between Canada and US all year long because they're protesting. Once the message has been heard, if people didn't care, it means you don't have support, and you kind of have to accept that. You can keep protesting normally hoping to slowly build more and more support, but you can't keep civil disobedience going on until you get support, because that's starting to get closer to coercion.
  - NhanH 5y ago
    You made a lot of hidden assumptions in both of your replies so it’s a bit hard to response. But let me try one: if I claim that they can’t use physical force because they (the government) didn’t have the popular support and risk facing overwhelming violence escalation, what is your response to that? (I’m not saying that it is the case, more to question some of your assumptions in this situation) > if you still continue with civil disobedience, well it is normal for the government to then follow up with threats of consequences, like tear gas, handcuffs, jail time, fines, account freezes, etc. More to the point, the government are free to follow up the threat in a court case in front of a judge, and the fact that they didn’t is the problem

btbuildem 5y ago

You forgot the part that as an individual I am practically invisible to the institution, and it would take a mob of mes to attract Sauron's eye.

throw10920 5y ago
In a digital world, the Eye of Sauron is multi-threaded. (your statement isn't true when it comes to virtual + automated surveillance)
- daedlanth 5y ago
  My dagger is multi threaded too.
  - techdragon 5y ago
    It’s also smaller than a gnat’s tooth in terms of practical power against them.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Yes, the error in the metaphor is that the eye of sauron was one eye. Automated surveillance is millions of eyes that track, record, and calculate a billion times faster than the human eye.
  - paulnpace 5y ago
    And it saves all observations forever for future review and analysis.
superkuh 5y ago
You think that, until one day you wake up to the pounding of the FBI (or CSIS...) on your door at 6am. I thought I was a no one, I literally used the same Lotr metaphor as you, but in 2009/2010 during the occupy and wikileaks protests the US government must have decided I was enough (despite never going to a protest and commiting no crimes) and they raided me and ruined my life. I was never charged with a crime. Never even indicted. Their action was simply to ruin my life and scare me. It can happen to you too. Even if you think you're a no one.
- techdragon 5y ago
  You don’t have to have committed a crime to be suspected of one. Investigation alone can be damaging enough depending on circumstances.
- btbuildem 5y ago
  And how did you attract their attention?
TechBro8615 5y ago
Do you mean to suggest that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear?
- btbuildem 5y ago
  No, what I am suggesting is that as an "individual contributor" you're unlikely to merit an outlay of resources to do anything about your antics until your actions are somehow significant.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    Unlikely implies non zero risk. Additionally, you’re making the fair strong assumption that the state has to expend more than a nominal amount of resources to crush you, when is it becoming easier and easier to do so without significant effort.

ladallada 5y ago

I'm all for putting more transparency and reasonable bounds on the process formally, but I think you're missing two points: 1. While having formal bounds would be great, in this case, it hasn't been shown yet that they applied force unreasonably and beyond what those bounds should be. Some people want to believe they froze assets of innocent bystanders or small local donors, but that's just conjecture right now. 2. In your example, am I also blocking the biggest commercial boarder crossing between Canada and US? If so, I'm surprised you've not yet thrown tear gas at me, put me in handcuffs and physically forced me to move. And that instead you chose to simply freeze my bank accounts until I move. I say that, because again, while I do like what the article points out, yes freezing assets is a big deal, and yes having bounds and guards and protections from abuse is important, I'm all for that. But my impression in this case is actually the government is trying to limit the blast radius and choose the lesser of two evils in order to force the convoys to stop blocking the boarder and major roads. Instead of tear gas and physical force, which often impact a ton of innocent protesters that are legally and peacefully protesting, they went for a more targeted approach, where by blocking bank accounts you can be more specific exactly who you target, and it is also a more civil way to force you to move.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
repsilat 5y ago
The border crossing was unblocked without much fuss, and without the use of wild emergency powers. Several arrests were made. No "tear gas", wtf. A Canadian MP has claimed that a small-donor constituent had their bank account frozen. In any case it sounds like despite their rhetoric (calling protestors and their supporters white supremacists and lawbreakers), the government wasn't going ham and using these broad powers on all of them. Good for them. Regardless, it's not encouraging -- the powers granted were very broad, weren't needed when granted, and obviously aren't needed now even though the government won't give them up. And I'm not sure about how targeted the response has been. Aside from the rhetoric, peaceful protestors have been met with violence. Funds donated to support them have been blocked.
throwaway4aday 5y ago

makeitdouble 5y ago

This is a great representation of the situation. Not taking anything from it, I’m curious why it bother you so much now, when it has always been that way, in particular for a non negligeable portion of the population (minorities, poors etc.) And what takes do you see succeeding to improve the situation compared to what these minorities tried up until now (to anchor the conversation, I don’t think “going back” is realistic, the cat is out of the bag)

PKop 5y ago

"The sovereign is he who decides on the exception" -Carl Schmitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception

sebastianconcpt 5y ago

Great summary of the rules removed of all the semantic mitigations that the political class and statists love to spread on their rethoric.

agentultra 5y ago

This is literally not what happened in Canada. The Emergencies Act does not allow the government to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must also be agreed to by the provinces. It's use has a fixed duration and scope of action. It was designed to prevent executive over-reach while still allowing the government, at the federal level, to respond to unprecedented situations that require it. Everyone who was arrested at the illegal occupation is being given the same rights and freedoms everyone gets in this country. The accounts and crypto wallets being frozen and seized are those that belong to people organizing and funding the occupation. Everyone arrested is getting their day in court. I've been involved in many peaceful protests and am not afraid that the Canadian government is suddenly going to arresting people without giving them a court hearing and freezing the assets of dissidents. That would be in violation of our laws and I suspect our democracy is strong enough that anyone trying to get away with that... wouldn't be able to.

webXL 5y ago
> It's use has a fixed duration and scope of action. Sounds like "15 days to flatten the curve". > Everyone who was arrested at the illegal occupation is being given the same rights and freedoms everyone gets in this country. The accounts and crypto wallets being frozen and seized are those that belong to people organizing and funding the occupation. "occupation" is an interesting word choice. Others might describe it as a protest against an unwarranted violation of their rights and freedoms. The "occupation" was a response to new (rash) government policies, undertaken to make them reverse those rash policies. This is what healthy democracies do.
- agentultra 5y ago
  > Others might describe it as a protest against an unwarranted violation of their rights and freedoms. They can call it what they want. The courts will decide whether they were peacefully demonstrating as you suggest. Section 2(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what gives Canadians the right to free and peaceful assembly... within certain limits. It doesn't give the right to riot, hate speech, or blockade lawful activities; nor does it give us the right to impede the authorities from managing a demonstration. It has only been tried a handful of times. If you push the limits or break the rules you can face arrest. But you'll get your day in court and plead your case. We'll have to wait and see what comes of these trials.

allisdust 5y ago

Sounds fair as long as you are representing my views. When the coin flips I will get the unfairness of it. This is what current supporters of the regime (I guess we can now call it that) don't understand yet.

ladallada 5y ago
You're talking to one right now. So let's discuss. My view is that everyone has the right to protest whenever and whatever. And you can also as part of your protest show a little bit of civil disobedience, like break a few windows, burn a fire can, chant loudly through the night keeping everyone awake, or block some roads. Something to really get people to pay attention and really listen to what you have to protest about and see how serious you take the matter. But after people did notice you, and did listen, and after they've asked you to please stop your civil disobedience now and continue your protest within the laws, if you still continue with civil disobedience, well it is normal for the government to then follow up with threats of consequences, like tear gas, handcuffs, jail time, fines, account freezes, etc. And if you still refuse after the treats, then it's normal for the government to follow through with it after all that, and force you to now obey the civil laws. This I feel is true of all protests, may I agree or not with the protesters. You can continue to protest, but you can't be breaking the laws forever. We can't have people block the biggest commercial boarder between Canada and US all year long because they're protesting. Once the message has been heard, if people didn't care, it means you don't have support, and you kind of have to accept that. You can keep protesting normally hoping to slowly build more and more support, but you can't keep civil disobedience going on until you get support, because that's starting to get closer to coercion.
- NhanH 5y ago
  You made a lot of hidden assumptions in both of your replies so it’s a bit hard to response. But let me try one: if I claim that they can’t use physical force because they (the government) didn’t have the popular support and risk facing overwhelming violence escalation, what is your response to that? (I’m not saying that it is the case, more to question some of your assumptions in this situation) > if you still continue with civil disobedience, well it is normal for the government to then follow up with threats of consequences, like tear gas, handcuffs, jail time, fines, account freezes, etc. More to the point, the government are free to follow up the threat in a court case in front of a judge, and the fact that they didn’t is the problem