6 ms·

Everyone is so gung ho about all the companies that are throwing kill switches to Russia, and I'm just waiting for those same companies to start doing the same

Everyone is so gung ho about all the companies that are throwing kill switches to Russia, and I'm just waiting for those same companies to start doing the same thing to anyone they want, for any reason. It's already happening.

bluefirebrand 5y ago
Happened in Canada not even that long ago, and many people cheered about that too.
- hn_version_0023 5y ago
  I’m curious about the specifics here. Could you provide a link or summarize? Thank you kindly :)
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    They froze the accounts of people at the protests without due process, and passed legislation to let them to it to anyone who supported them "directly or indirectly". i.e. carte blanche to send anyone into digital/financial exile with no recourse. they repealed it soon after (I think), but the door is open for them or any other government to do it again.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      Seizing funds suspected to be linked to criminal activity during investigations (before any charges) is nothing new. Those who are being targeted today had no complaints 20 years ago when similar clauses where written into anti-terror/anti-terror-funding laws
      - nyanpasu64 5y ago
        The problem isn't seizing donations, it's freezing the entire bank accounts of people connected to donations.
        Retric 5y ago
        Providing material support can be a crime. It might not be obviously illegal, but those bank accounts are frozen because the owners of the bank accounts are being investigated just as if they had been sending money to Al-Qaeda. At least legally it all boils down to how the groups that received these donations are classified. Of course politically things are more complicated, but applying the same rules in different situations is why people where so concerned about this type of legislation in the first place.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Providing material support can be a crime. Yes, and? That's not a reason to freeze the account.
        DocTomoe 5y ago
        Of course that is reason to freeze the account, much like you would seize a gun from a gun owner who is suspected to have committed a crime with that gun.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        It's more like seizing every other gun they own too. But also the average person needs their guns to get groceries and pay the electric bill. And they need guns to get a lawyer...
        Retric 5y ago
        We also throw people in jail before trial which can make it quite difficult to pay the electric bill.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Yes, multiple things are bad. We shouldn't do that for people that aren't much of a flight risk.
    - rnk 5y ago
      There was due process. My understanding was because of the 1 week state of emergency they were explicitly allowed to do this. There were court orders ahead of time.
      - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
        Declaring a state of emergency is a way of saying "due process has been suspended", calling that itself due process is a bit too charitable imo
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        If there were court orders (i.e. the judicial system was given the opportunity to say no), what else would you call this? The power of the state is large. It is reined in by some of its own components, but it is foolish to imagine that in a society that is not explicitly anarchist that it would somehow be limited in the way you seem to imagine.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
What company wants to "throw kill switches to Russia" ? They are being told to do it (or heavily implied that they will be told to do it very soon if they don't do it beforehand). It's not that I don't see the risk of companies "doing the same thing to anyone they want", it's just that this is not the same as is happening w.r.t the Russian attack on Ukraine.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

Happened in Canada not even that long ago, and many people cheered about that too.

hn_version_0023 5y ago
I’m curious about the specifics here. Could you provide a link or summarize? Thank you kindly :)
- _dain_ 5y ago
  They froze the accounts of people at the protests without due process, and passed legislation to let them to it to anyone who supported them "directly or indirectly". i.e. carte blanche to send anyone into digital/financial exile with no recourse. they repealed it soon after (I think), but the door is open for them or any other government to do it again.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    Seizing funds suspected to be linked to criminal activity during investigations (before any charges) is nothing new. Those who are being targeted today had no complaints 20 years ago when similar clauses where written into anti-terror/anti-terror-funding laws
    - nyanpasu64 5y ago
      The problem isn't seizing donations, it's freezing the entire bank accounts of people connected to donations.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Providing material support can be a crime. It might not be obviously illegal, but those bank accounts are frozen because the owners of the bank accounts are being investigated just as if they had been sending money to Al-Qaeda. At least legally it all boils down to how the groups that received these donations are classified. Of course politically things are more complicated, but applying the same rules in different situations is why people where so concerned about this type of legislation in the first place.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Providing material support can be a crime. Yes, and? That's not a reason to freeze the account.
        DocTomoe 5y ago
        Of course that is reason to freeze the account, much like you would seize a gun from a gun owner who is suspected to have committed a crime with that gun.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        It's more like seizing every other gun they own too. But also the average person needs their guns to get groceries and pay the electric bill. And they need guns to get a lawyer...
        Retric 5y ago
        We also throw people in jail before trial which can make it quite difficult to pay the electric bill.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Yes, multiple things are bad. We shouldn't do that for people that aren't much of a flight risk.
  - rnk 5y ago
    There was due process. My understanding was because of the 1 week state of emergency they were explicitly allowed to do this. There were court orders ahead of time.
    - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
      Declaring a state of emergency is a way of saying "due process has been suspended", calling that itself due process is a bit too charitable imo
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        If there were court orders (i.e. the judicial system was given the opportunity to say no), what else would you call this? The power of the state is large. It is reined in by some of its own components, but it is foolish to imagine that in a society that is not explicitly anarchist that it would somehow be limited in the way you seem to imagine.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

What company wants to "throw kill switches to Russia" ? They are being told to do it (or heavily implied that they will be told to do it very soon if they don't do it beforehand). It's not that I don't see the risk of companies "doing the same thing to anyone they want", it's just that this is not the same as is happening w.r.t the Russian attack on Ukraine.