3 ms·

I know this will be an unpopular comment but I actually somewhat like it when governments show their totalitarian side. It's both a wake-up call for some in de

by Bender 6mo ago

I know this will be an unpopular comment but I actually somewhat like it when governments show their totalitarian side. It's both a wake-up call for some in denial and also drives my favorite type of innovation. That is, anything that subverts censorship. It won't be a lot of people but there will be splinter groups that break away from the big centralized platforms. It's not usually a big deal but it's also not nothing and that's maybe good enough for me. In the past this occurred in the US as a result of having a totalitarian style Attorney General John Ashcroft in the early 2000's. Many new protocols and applications popped up around his time and his leveraging of the fears around 9/11. There were many articles written about his time in power if anyone was curious.

nomel 6mo ago
But, is it possible to undo any of the policies put into place? Seems like once the machinery gets implemented, everyone in government embraces it (my assumption being due to all the spending/enrichment of friends/family gov contractors).
- HerbManic 6mo ago
  It has been said that the worst government is the one in power, regardless of time or location. That is because they rarely teardown the bad ideas of the past. Look to the US, regardless of the two parties, most of the time they just keep building on the pervious groups work no matter what the messaging to the people was. "They look after number one, you ain't even number two" - Frank Zappa
- Bender 6mo ago
  I honestly don't know how things will (d)evolve from here. Official back-doors a.k.a. lawful intercept to encryption is an interesting twist, not a new proposal by any means but in the past this always ended up being hush-hush with small trusted inner circles of people at tech and telephony companies as they could never get such laws passed. If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions. That leaves us plebs to monitor and find excuses to make arrest quotas. People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context. And you are right, such frameworks never go away even if they officially go away. There have been projects that have changed names so many times I can't even keep up with them. Total Information Awareness was renamed a few times. The lawful intercept code that was embedded in the firmware of all smart phones Carrier-IQ changed names a few times and last I checked it didn't even have a name any more which means people can't really talk about it.
  - axus 6mo ago
    > People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context. "As of late April 2026, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The charges stem from an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to say "8647," which prosecutors allege constitutes a threat of violence."
    - Bender 6mo ago
      That's a perfect example. People can interpret that in a dozen different ways. There was nothing explicitly stated yet one specific interpretation was chosen and acted upon.
  - tardedmeme 6mo ago
    Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. Most spy agencies find having to get a warrant from a judge for each target too cumbersome, so they tap into fiber cables and do unlawful intercept as well.
    - Bender 6mo ago
      Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdle. This is not some theory but directly from the horses mouths. I have spoken to all the executives at every company I have worked for and this is the general consensus in large companies.
      - tardedmeme 6mo ago
        Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.
Yizahi 6mo ago
You do realize that in all totalitarian states there is no significant "anti-censorship innovation" of note? Basically you are playing with fire and the only way playing with fire end is when everything burns to ashes. Not just the dust in the corner and that broken toy you don't like, but also everything you like too.
- Bender 6mo ago
  Oh I totally agree that once a nation goes entirely totalitarian nobody is circumventing anything. If people act even slightly suspicious it's boots on necks and gets far far worse from there. The UK, US and even Canada have quite a ways to go to reach that level even if people may think otherwise. A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more. Canada is still trying to take away everyone's firearms and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into felons by October.
  - qball 6mo ago
    >A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more. That is already true of Canada, as it is no longer possible to live like a Canadian [in the way they were hoping for] on immigrant wages. >and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into criminals The entire point of the gun bill is to do this. The purpose of a system is what it does.
newsclues 6mo ago
[flagged]
- jkaplowitz 6mo ago
  You do realize that that former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is not the Liberal leader who is currently pushing this bill, right? Justin Trudeau is now a private citizen with no official role in his party, in the House of Commons, or in government beyond what applies to any former leader/MP/PM (e.g. former PMs remain Privy Council members). The current Liberal leader Mark Carney has spent his whole career in the banking world, including running both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at different times, except for running for and winning his current political roles last year. Far from being elected again and again, he’s only been elected once ever in party office and once ever in public office. Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have very different policies on fiscal and economic matters, to the extent that Carney would probably be a Progressive Conservative if that party still existed at the federal level. There’s more I could say about the substance of Trudeau’s remark and comparing his China policy to that ofnother PMs like Harper, but that whole tangent is off-topic for this thread, since - again - Trudeau holds no role relevant to current Liberal legislative decisions.
  - newsclues 6mo ago
    I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies. Same party, same people, just a new leader, but it's the same direction. There was no 180 pivot for Canada, just a new "elbows up" slogan from another CCP puppet PM. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-to-attend-carney-fundraiser https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-...
    - jkaplowitz 6mo ago
      CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right. To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position. Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement. The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives. Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.

by Bender 6mo ago

nomel 6mo ago

But, is it possible to undo any of the policies put into place? Seems like once the machinery gets implemented, everyone in government embraces it (my assumption being due to all the spending/enrichment of friends/family gov contractors).

HerbManic 6mo ago
It has been said that the worst government is the one in power, regardless of time or location. That is because they rarely teardown the bad ideas of the past. Look to the US, regardless of the two parties, most of the time they just keep building on the pervious groups work no matter what the messaging to the people was. "They look after number one, you ain't even number two" - Frank Zappa
Bender 6mo ago
I honestly don't know how things will (d)evolve from here. Official back-doors a.k.a. lawful intercept to encryption is an interesting twist, not a new proposal by any means but in the past this always ended up being hush-hush with small trusted inner circles of people at tech and telephony companies as they could never get such laws passed. If this passes I suspect it will be much harder to monitor terrorist activities as terrorists will just move to self hosted or non technical solutions. That leaves us plebs to monitor and find excuses to make arrest quotas. People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context. And you are right, such frameworks never go away even if they officially go away. There have been projects that have changed names so many times I can't even keep up with them. Total Information Awareness was renamed a few times. The lawful intercept code that was embedded in the firmware of all smart phones Carrier-IQ changed names a few times and last I checked it didn't even have a name any more which means people can't really talk about it.
- axus 6mo ago
  > People will need to be careful how they speak as anything that can be taken out of context will be taken out of context. "As of late April 2026, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The charges stem from an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to say "8647," which prosecutors allege constitutes a threat of violence."
  - Bender 6mo ago
    That's a perfect example. People can interpret that in a dozen different ways. There was nothing explicitly stated yet one specific interpretation was chosen and acted upon.
- tardedmeme 6mo ago
  Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. Most spy agencies find having to get a warrant from a judge for each target too cumbersome, so they tap into fiber cables and do unlawful intercept as well.
  - Bender 6mo ago
    Most countries currently have laws that openly require telecommunications providers, but not messaging apps, to do lawful intercept. This isn't hidden. That is the official legal implementation but not really how it works. Large tech companies are incentivized to cooperate with governments and will do so without hesitation. Governments can make it nearly impossible to operate a business. Cooperation clears that hurdle. This is not some theory but directly from the horses mouths. I have spoken to all the executives at every company I have worked for and this is the general consensus in large companies.
    - tardedmeme 6mo ago
      Okay? But it's not a secret legal agreement that you do lawful intercept. It's literally the law.

Yizahi 6mo ago

You do realize that in all totalitarian states there is no significant "anti-censorship innovation" of note? Basically you are playing with fire and the only way playing with fire end is when everything burns to ashes. Not just the dust in the corner and that broken toy you don't like, but also everything you like too.

Bender 6mo ago
Oh I totally agree that once a nation goes entirely totalitarian nobody is circumventing anything. If people act even slightly suspicious it's boots on necks and gets far far worse from there. The UK, US and even Canada have quite a ways to go to reach that level even if people may think otherwise. A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more. Canada is still trying to take away everyone's firearms and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into felons by October.
- qball 6mo ago
  >A sign that we are approaching such levels would be nobody wants to enter those nations legally or illegally any more. That is already true of Canada, as it is no longer possible to live like a Canadian [in the way they were hoping for] on immigrant wages. >and still trying to figure out how they will avoid turning many of their citizens into criminals The entire point of the gun bill is to do this. The purpose of a system is what it does.

newsclues 6mo ago

[flagged]

jkaplowitz 6mo ago
You do realize that that former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is not the Liberal leader who is currently pushing this bill, right? Justin Trudeau is now a private citizen with no official role in his party, in the House of Commons, or in government beyond what applies to any former leader/MP/PM (e.g. former PMs remain Privy Council members). The current Liberal leader Mark Carney has spent his whole career in the banking world, including running both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at different times, except for running for and winning his current political roles last year. Far from being elected again and again, he’s only been elected once ever in party office and once ever in public office. Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have very different policies on fiscal and economic matters, to the extent that Carney would probably be a Progressive Conservative if that party still existed at the federal level. There’s more I could say about the substance of Trudeau’s remark and comparing his China policy to that ofnother PMs like Harper, but that whole tangent is off-topic for this thread, since - again - Trudeau holds no role relevant to current Liberal legislative decisions.
- newsclues 6mo ago
  I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies. Same party, same people, just a new leader, but it's the same direction. There was no 180 pivot for Canada, just a new "elbows up" slogan from another CCP puppet PM. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-to-attend-carney-fundraiser https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/china-allies-paid-2000-...
  - jkaplowitz 6mo ago
    CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right. To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position. Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement. The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives. Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.