Corrected headline: There Was A Network Outage
Edit: You can optionally add "Hours-Long" back in, since that's factual.
This is pure speculation based on anecdotal reports. Most of the reports started on twitter and the numbers - except for RBC - are negligible.
Check this link  from the article itself: it's clear that the numbers from RBC (3k+ reports) are the only ones that cannot be considered noise or a minor issue.
No court orders, no due process. Guess I'm just glad I'm not personally involved.
The protesters have been quite public about how well the police have treated them. The police have at least to date done nothing wrong. So I would not go to the extent to say the RCMP's honour has been harmed at all. Those days aren't gone.
However, this is the problem. Since the police have not been able to end the protest because of charter rights. This forced Trudeau's hand to declare martial law, but any and all peaceful protesters whose rights are infringed will be receiving compensation as per the emergency act.
The complaint this time isn't about the police using unnecessary force to brutalize the public. Our complaint is that they haven't upheld the law, and are acting like 'buddies' with the people that they are supposed to be ticketing/incarcerating.
We just want the police to do their fucking job.
What law have they not upheld? Some microscopic municipal bylaws? Can a municipal government create bylaws to criminalize peaceful assembly? I guess I have my answer, the Ottawa police says no.
>We just want the police to do their fucking job.
They have been so far. Great job Ottawa police.
He wasn't forced to do anything, it was his choice, against the wishes of many premiers.
Trudeau should have done what he did with the 2020 train blockade protests. Met with the protestors, had a dialogue about the issues (mandates) and come to a compromise conclusion.
I totally agree with you there. What happened to the Trudeau who would talk to anyone at town halls.
That's exactly what Melissa Lantsman asked right before Trudeau called her a nazi.
The RCMP do have enforcement duties at the Alberta border crossing and BC border crossing, both now open.
Judging RCMP for the inactions of a useless Ottawa city police force is inaccurate and misleading.
Interesting. This is the first I've heard of that.
Discussion starts in Part V / Section 46 at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/FullText.html
Gotta remember, Trudeau's father declared martial law during the october crisis. There were literally bombs going off, people dying, and I will say there was an emergency then. However, after that because of human rights abuses during that martial law. They scrapped it and replaced it with the emergency act which explicitly requires the government to maintain human rights.
Moreover, in the act, anything the government seizes must be returned to the people. The government doesn't get to just take your things.
The politicians writing the emergency act knew that future governments exercising the emergency act will infringe upon rights. So compensation is to be expected.
Now you have a problem. Any peaceful protesters can stick around and when they get arrested and removed from the area. They get nice retirement fund boosts from the government. So why would you even consider leaving if you want to leave?
Woah bud. Here's the act here.
This is literally the last resort. This is a 'national emergency that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."
Any other law. This is by definition Martial law. Martial law is the last resort. Which is why this has never ever been invoked before.
Just because the ministry of truth doesn't call it martial law is irrelevant.
Sorry you feel that way. Thanks, you enjoy your day as well.
Oh before you go, if you read the link I provided(section 46). The emergency act specifically disallows charter rights to be violated. So the accounts they have seized already? Under Section 6 of the Charter of unreasonable search and seizure? Ya the government will now be paying them compensation for violating their rights.
I'm very aware of our Charter, thank you very much. I recommend reading section 1 of the charter and understanding what reasonable means in the context of section 8 (not 6 as in your comment) from the Canadian legal perspective.
You're right, section 8.
There is to date no section 1 limitations or exemptions to peaceful assembly nor search and seizure.
Something that has been quite interesting is how many lawyers are frothing at the mouth right now. The emergencies act is going from academic to case law. Never before and there's clear charter right violations at the same time as the act being misused.
>I should have said "agenda" rather than biased, sorry.
I am very biased. I believe in charter rights that have been enshrined and defined by international treaty.
The reality that after years of covid restrictions impacting our rights. It's time, like the rest of the world, to return our rights. This protest was inevitable at the reasonable end of the pandemic.
Trudeau should have taken advice from his own party and not vilified the protest quite wrongly. Spoke with them, provided a roadmap to the exit. Instead here we are with charter right abuses and martial law
Oh what do you think about the City of Ottawa planning to euthanize pets of the protesters? https://twitter.com/OttawaBylaw/status/1494306645274509316?
It's usually sold as a benefit to the consumer (it protects against fraud is the usual claim) but this isn't new. All kinds of transactions can trip automated detection systems leading to account freezes.
I agree that without a court order it's shady but it's not as though this is really that new. The primary change in the legislation is pushing banks to freeze and report the accounts to the agency responsible for dealing with money laundering.
Do I agree with it? Not entirely. However it's not a new thing and exists in widespread use in most of the world in one form or other.
Or in thinking about it further, it could have been thoughts of self preservation on the banks part. In order to keep a decent portion of their customer base from transferring their funds to "offshore" banks, of some sort, they simply closed their proverbial doors for a time, to let the panic die down.
Should we call it a "conspiracy theory" when people take rational reactions to articles published on major news sites, like taking all of their money out of banks out of fear that they might be labelled a "designated person" to be frozen out of all financial services?
Unprecedented times being under martial law and the government saying they'll seize political opponent bank accounts. Conspiracy theories aren't even needed when it's publicly showed on the media's frontpage.
>If it happened any other time (and it does) it would be a normal network failure.
No other outage can be connected here. So we can't blame an AWS outage.
Can you to show ANY other time when Canadian banks went down together like this.
Apart from that Canada thing I know many people who were labelled a "consipracy theorist" for saying the virus came from Wuhan lab, they were labelled nutjobs for saying that the government would implement vaccine passports to restrict where you could and couldn't go. They said the government would force you to be vaccinated, etc.
My stance on those issues is not necessarily the same as those friends, but I am just saying, it seems the conspiracy theorists are hitting quite a few points lately.
The craziness is the specifics of certain conspiracy theories. For example the idea that covid itself is a conspiracy, or the there is a conspiracy to suppress ivermectin.
I have to agree with the view that outlandish conspiracy thinking isn't only wrong, it is actively dangerous and should be argued against strenuously. It was a large part of Nazi propaganda that motivated a genocide, so that is an existence proof of a danger associated with such unhinged thinking if it's allowed to go unchallenged in public discourse.
I'm not aware of any government forcing you to get vaccinated, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Anyone without a booster had their ability to participate in society "deactivated", like in a bad Science Fiction movie. What's more terrifying are the people who want to convince the rest of us that this should be normal and is not completely insane.
Jeffery Epstein (nothing in particular, just literally everything about him)
Gulf of Tonkin
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
And those are just the very obvious ones. I find that a Bayesian way of looking at the world tends to drive up the credibility of various "conspiracy theories" which would otherwise seem fairly unlikely.
Pretty sure that's been known for a long time, and that investigations (at least in name) have taken place:
What am I missing? Is it just the "pedophile island" part in particular? (Genuinely curious.)
From the article you linked, here's just a few snippets that showed he was not treated like he should have been.
"After a contested hearing in January 2011, and an appeal, he stayed registered in New York State as a "level three" (high risk of repeat offense) sex offender, a lifelong designation. At that hearing the Manhattan District Attorney argued unsuccessfully that the level should be reduced to a low-risk "level one" and was chided by the judge. Despite opposition from Epstein's lawyer that he had a "main" home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the judge confirmed he personally must check in with the New York Police Department every 90 days. Though Epstein had been a level-three registered sex offender in New York since 2010, the New York Police Department never enforced the 90-day regulation, though non-compliance is a felony."
"On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff's office, was after 3+1⁄2 months allowed to leave the jail on "work release" for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. This contravened the sheriff's own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours."
" According to the Miami Herald, the non-prosecution agreement "essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes". At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: "Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims.""
And yes, this is all has been known. What's not known is why, which is the conspiracy. The why is extremely important because of the likelihood that some of the world's most powerful are involved.
I sure hope I don't "mysteriously" go missing in a few days...
It's not even concealed
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "force" is.
If to you "force" means a literal gun literally aimed at your head (not literally as in figuratively) then you're right, no force has been applied yet.
If to you "force" includes regulations and arm-twisting of employers and retailers to require employees and patrons to get vaccinated, then force most definitely has been applied. That force does involve figurative guns to people's heads. If the government decrees that employers must do X, employers will do X on pain of whatever the decree says (fines, cancellation of business licenses, etc.). Fines are backed by guns: if you scofflaw enough then you will end up in prison, and if you resist arrest you will end up roughed up or dead, as in the government's agents will rough you up and possibly kill you, and they'll use firearms in the process.
I.e., the threat of force is force.
The law recognizes this. "Assault with a deadly weapon" doesn't mean that the weapon was actually physically applied to the victim -- it means that de minimis a threat was made to apply it physically to the victim.
It's quite disingenuous to say that governments haven't forced anyone to get vaccinated. In many cases there are literally no laws requiring it, or requiring anyone to require it, but the impression given to the public, and to employers, retailers, etc., is very much that force is being threatened. Even if in the end there are no actual laws making it so, for the average person there might as well have been.
Back to assault with a deadly weapon, I doubt that using a realistic toy weapon would vitiate the charge. If the victim cannot trivially tell what that the deadly weapon isn't actually a deadly weapon, then the assault has to be considered as being with a deadly weapon. The same must be true for coercion with pretend-laws and decrees -- if the victims are led by their victimizers to believe that force is being threatened, then force is being threatened.
This is probably due to a lack of language skills on your part. Multiple countries are discussing it and it's de facto already required in France, for example.
Lab leak, cloth masks being ineffective, Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction being made up, Vietnam war Gulf of Tonkin, Epstein Pedophile island. JFK multiple gun theory hasn't been proven but seems more likely than not.
These are all now generally accepted facts but were once considered conspiracy theories.
It surprises me that an adult (that presumably lives in the US) wouldn't be aware of at least some of these.
Stating that conspiracy theories turn out to be true seems to imply that nobody actually conspires to hide anything.
> I know many people who were labelled a "consipracy theorist" for saying the virus came from Wuhan lab
It was always the case that the right answer to this is, "we haven't seen enough evidence to say this is the case. It is possible, but there are also lots of natural sources it could have come from." This is still the case as far as I know. (?)
"Insufficient evidence of X so far" being misinterpreted as "X is impossible and if you believe in X you are a bad person" is pretty much the story of science communications for this pandemic. It seems like a really big problem.
> they were labelled nutjobs for saying that the government would implement vaccine passports to restrict where you could and couldn't go.
Restricting movement was always on the table. If someone was called a nutjob for understanding that, the person who called them a nutjob wasn't really taking the situation very seriously. The conspiracy theorist (in the pejorative sense) angle comes from the implication that there's some evil behind-the-scenes motivation for it, when it is just an expected pandemic response.
> They said the government would force you to be vaccinated, etc.
Same here. Mandatory vaccinations have always been a possibility in some places. That's not a conspiracy theory (in the pejorative sense). The idea that this implies some malicious behavior on the part of the government, is.
Their websites aren't exactly known for being robust. This is a non-story.
Similar to ETH gas prices.
But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the even rarer cases when no blocks get mined for an hour or more.
Welp, I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Tell me more!
I suppose you meanan exchange, but that's quite different.
> Russian envoy urges Justin Trudeau to call Vladimir Putin to discuss Ukraine crisis
3 days ago:
> Canada to send lethal weapons, $500-million loan to Ukraine as it girds for possible war
Don't they all use Interac for a variety of services including e-transfers?
Sure, but 1 thing going down doesn't take down your entire corp. That would be some extremely bad design.
Doesn't really explain all the major banks going offline at around the same time. https://twitter.com/AB_inmate/status/1494079461347643392
No conspiracy. This is just people reacting to the news they will be seizing the accounts of political opponents.
I'm not sure I understand how that tweet offers proof the banks went offline. Only one of the four charts in that tweet shows a number of reports that I would consider significant (3000 vs less than a hundred for the other three).
I was able to use my Canadian accounts to do several transactions smack in the middle of this supposed outage without issue.
I wonder which rule I broke this time?
Does @dang work to ask a user?
I think dang can flag a post himself, but more likely it's from users. It takes more than one user to mark it as flagged; I don't know how many it takes.