Canadian Bill Would Strip Internet Access From 'specified Persons', No Warrant

In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?

If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing. The court will not take the case.

>econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors,

They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks terminate the bank accounts.

In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized.

>as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

Protesting the government, in front of parliament is mischief? Political prisoners.

>n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.

Which was found to be unconstitutional.

But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about abuse in the future by other governments?

Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou...

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors

Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest.

Court found:

> The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."

"There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.

I can't believe that people are defending that.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

But it isn't. I've gone the route of writing my representatives but when most people support the measures or at least don't oppose them they can easily laugh in your face or outright lie to you, claiming that protests aren't banned when they are (e.g. covid times) and things like that.

Most people here probably called me some government/media pushed negative label just for protesting to uphold freedom/constitutional rights/human rights.

It's not that easy to advocate effectively once you realize gov/media funded propaganda permeates really well.

Please avoid snarky tropes like this on HN. We're trying for something different here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

  (6) Any order made under subsection (1) must be published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in Council directs otherwise in the order.

This is a disgusting power grab. 'Because I said so, trust me' is not a justification.

China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are completely reliant on foreign trade for their economy.

Russia is pretty much in war economy now, they have no choice but to escalate and invade Eastern Europe. They have no chance of winning, but that never matters to crazy people.

The Internet and social media in its current form makes it easier for social groups to get larger and more intellectually and ideologically homogenous. As these groups get larger, it becomes harder for individuals to communicate across groups or think for themselves because there are various in-group moderation mechanisms (filtering, banning, ranking, deplatforming, cancel culture, etc). Eventually, the echo chambers become large enough to fight over who gets to run a nation's government. The winner turns into a government that moderates its people (like it always did before it became the government). Multiple such governments emerge around the world. This happened in cycles in the past as well, but modern technology facilitates the process.

To prevent this, we must realize two democratic principles simultaneously: "one shall have the freedom to decide what one sees and hears" and "one shall have the freedom to express whatever they like". It wasn't possible to realize both principles simultaneously in the past without a central authority because if someone is doing something in a public space, you cannot selectively filter them out. If you cover your eyes and ears, you block out not just that person, but everyone else as well. So we came up with rules for behavior in public spaces and wrote them into law. This didn't drastically raise the probability of a democratic society turning authoritarian because there were physical limits on practical group size. It was very hard to rally a large group of intellectually homogenous people. But the Internet and social media completely broke this safeguard imposed by physics. Now, echo chambers form naturally and grow rapidly.

To fix this, we must normalize not moderating or filtering content online in any centralized manner. Instead, we build user-configurable client-side content filters and ranking algorithms so that each individual can decide what they see and post, but nobody can decide what anybody else sees or posts.

We need to replace server-side content filters and ranking algorithms with offline solutions controlled by each individual on their own device. Get rid of likes and dislikes, and get rid of server-curated feeds. Have the server send a raw RSS feed of everything posted in the past day (or whatever time window, sparsely randomly sampled if there's too much) at once, then get it ranked and filtered on the user's device based on the user's preferences and viewing history, and then fetch the actual media associated with those feed entries.

This will, somewhat counterintuitively, increase social cohesion by limiting the inter-group rift between individuals and prevent the formation of large echo chambers. People will be more likely to engage with eachother in good faith. Authoritarian patterns will be more likely to naturally dissolve.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

You can remove the "seem". They go specifically into that line of business to benefit from juicy corruption.

It's not hypocritical, there's no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech in the EU like there is in the US. Chat Control is widely opposed in the EU and I don't agree with it, but it's not hypocritical nor inconsistent with how the EU treats freedom of expression.

Here are the limitations placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights:

> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

You won't find those conditions in the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.

I was opposed to freezing bank accounts during the trucker convoys, even though I was opposed to how the convoys were performing their protests. These kinds of measures—and capabilities of governments in general—are anti-democracy in nature and in my opinion, should be rejected by everyone who values democracy.

I'm all for keeping dangerous people offline. I'm all for protecting fellow Canadians from online dangers. We can find better ways to do this, though. I'm very disappointed that such poor judgement is being used by our current government.

The worst part is that seemingly no one gets to know what the cause of the ban is, and there are so few checks or balances before the decision is acted on. It's absolutely bizarre.

I have only ever been to one restaurant where this was the case (and it was not a very good restaurant in my opinion, so I do not intend to go back there even if they have a real menu, unless they also improve their food and management), but they provided a iPad to any customer who needed it for this purpose (I did not need it, since I was not alone and was with another customer who had their own iPad). (I think it might be better to post the menu on the wall for customers to read. It might be suitable to use e-paper displays if they sometimes change but not very often; this is more reliable and does not require as much power, nor emit too much light.)

ICE does this with location data from mobile apps. They simply buy from a private vendor the information about where specific people are. Then they go detain them.

Some real life friends of mine are on a work crew with some migrants. ICE pulled their truck over, asked the migrants to identify themselves (with different names than they’d been using), they complied, and ICE drove off with them after detaining them.

I asked “Did they have their mobile phones with them?” “Yes.” People literally are carrying around a tracking device, voluntarily, with apps installed on them, voluntarily, that report their location to government authorities who want to detain them.