Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
1372 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 274


  Reply # 693815 30-Sep-2012 22:49 Send private message

networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous. 



I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous" Laughing

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

619 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34

Trusted

  Reply # 693816 30-Sep-2012 22:56 Send private message

JimmyH:
networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous. 



Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?


You are wasting your time Jimmy. Pearls before swine.



7251 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 693817 30-Sep-2012 22:56 Send private message

JimmyH:
networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous. 



I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous" Laughing

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?


No I am not trolling, this is how I feel, and there is a difference between posting my details for EVERYONE to see, and knowing that security agencies from various countries CAN look IF they want to.


1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 693918 1-Oct-2012 09:52 Send private message

TheUngeek: How so? Remembering this is nz and not a dictatorship ;)


This has been thoroughly proven to be an incorrect statement. Try a Google search next time ;)

The proposition that no person free of guilt has anything to hide can simply be disproven by requesting your credit card statements for the previous year, your internet banking information (customer number & password), your masturbation habits (times/frequencies/stimuli) and a naked photograph. If you're happy to provide these then I'm sure the internet can find something you are not happy to provide ;)

For information on specific fallacies this idea appears in, you have:

False Dilemma:

"Either one must divulge requested information, or one is guilty."

Affirmation of the Consequent:

1) People who are guilty will withhold information.
2) This person is withholding information.
3) Therefore, this person is guilty. <-- er, nope.


Some arguments against not caring that your privacy could be invaded.

1) You do not set the rules about what you have to 'hide' or be 'guilty' of and they may change.

If you have seen the YouTube video on speaking with the police you will understand the first part of this point well. You have no idea what may be considered 'wrong' or 'dangerous' about your personal life either now or any time in the future. Even the most innocent information may be used at a later time to prosecute you.

Once the rules have been set, how difficult do you think it will be to change them? What about for a special emergency - like the laws rushed into power under the Christchurch state of emergency? Much less difficult than you think.

2) You assume people listening to you have the correct information.

This should be at the forefront of everybody's minds right now. Kim Dotcom was spied upon illegally because of a communication error. A government agency broke the law it is supposed to protect - most likely deliberately because the suspension of belief required for their explanation is incredible. If these kind of 'mistakes' occur when direct governmental approval is required then imagine the mess if they were allowed to access everybody at any time. I'm sure you wouldn't mind having your month disrupted, hauled to prison and every aspect of your life examined because someone with the same birth date as you was overheard plotting to kill John Key. Not to mention the press coverage and your face on every paper/magazine & television. But I'm sure that is fair enough to improve our national security, right?

3) The final argument against providing your personal information to governmental agencies is that it sidesteps the real fallacy: factual innocence being relevant to any kind of prosecution.

The assumption is that a governmental agency monitoring you will find factual evidence proving your innocence for x - therefore you have nothing to fear. This is not true for many people but does not make them guilty of x as a result. This is why for any investigation, a government agent must prove (to a judge) why surveillance is necessary. Any investigator must prove a person's guilt; the accused party does not have to prove their innocence.

1146 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201

Subscriber

  Reply # 693921 1-Oct-2012 09:56 Send private message

networkn: 

No I am not trolling, this is how I feel, and there is a difference between posting my details for EVERYONE to see, and knowing that security agencies from various countries CAN look IF they want to.



Hell I object to the government being allowed to step foot on my property, let alone read all my digital secrets.



925 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 693922 1-Oct-2012 09:58 Send private message

*sigh*

I don't even know where to start...
Oh yes I do! I'll start with not caring and getting on with life happy in the fact big brother is watching my back :)

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 693931 1-Oct-2012 10:09 Send private message

Brendan:
...You are wasting your time Jimmy. Pearls before swine.


I don't know if you are seeing fit to model yourself on Jesus - "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." - or if you are you just saying that his advice to keep quiet if you have words of wisdom should be kept to? If the latter, I trust that you will be taking your own advice on board and will be keeping what you consider to be your own pearls of wisdom to yourself.

Alternatively, you could, of course, be referring to the "Pearls of Wisdom" comic strip which is about a dim pig and an arrogant rat. As you have told us thet we are the swine, I would then take it that you are saying that you consider yourself to be the arrogant rat?



2620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 694070 1-Oct-2012 12:00 Send private message

Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.


The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.


Legally spied on. 

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)  




____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



1770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68


  Reply # 694083 1-Oct-2012 12:16 Send private message

When yo 'accept' the terms for many of the apps you download to your smart-devices, you are authorising the developers/owner to collect data directly from your device.

You're saying it's OK that they know where you are and who you interact with. You've legalised their spying.
What the difference between (say) apple having access to this information, because you've said it's OK. And a government agency having access to it through a legitimate court order?

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 694107 1-Oct-2012 12:45 Send private message

Linuxluver:
Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.


The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.


Legally spied on. 

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)  


Really Linuxluver you must stop this throwing around of activist halftruths or claims with no or unstable foundation.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines legitimate (adjective) as "2. a. Conformable to, sanctioned or authorized by, law or principle; lawful, justifiable; proper."

The verb transitive form carried the same meaning.

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?



2620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 57

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 694127 1-Oct-2012 13:00 Send private message

John2010:
Linuxluver:
Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.


The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.


Legally spied on. 

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)  


Really Linuxluver you must stop this throwing around of activist halftruths or claims with no or unstable foundation.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines legitimate (adjective) as "2. a. Conformable to, sanctioned or authorized by, law or principle; lawful, justifiable; proper."

The verb transitive form carried the same meaning.

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?


They are not. 

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I  can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not. 

They are not the same in all contexts.

For example, there is no doubt that President Assad in Syria is the legal head of state. But his legitimacy as head of state in Syria is currently under armed, militant dispute.

Legality and legitimacy are not the same. 
 




____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



7251 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 694134 1-Oct-2012 13:06 Send private message



They are not. 

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I  can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not. 

They are not the same in all contexts. 


Nope in the context of legality which is all this topic is about really, you can't say it's not legitimate when it's legal. You may not LIKE it, which is a completely different thing, but it's legitimate if it's legal. 

I think you are confusing the fact it doesn't FEEL right with it's not legitimate.

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 694143 1-Oct-2012 13:11 Send private message

@ Linuxluver

Well, true to form the defense of activists is to rejig reality into a falsehood to suit their beliefs.

But as far as I am concerned you'll have to take it up with the Oxford Dictionary people if you disagree. Let us all know how you get on, but until then I (and I suspect most) will put their lot in with the Dictionary's definition, not yours.

7251 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 694422 1-Oct-2012 18:21 Send private message

Well I am sure those with tinfoil hats will suggest this review is rigged blah blah but;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837715

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 694466 1-Oct-2012 20:06 Send private message

oxnsox:
kyhwana2:
1080p: I am interested to know how the paranoid are able to explain how the station in Waihopai is able to capture and process the data transmitted via the Southern Cross cable.

As far as I am aware, the Waihopai station is near Blenheim and the Southern Cross cable lands near Auckand.

See?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells?or?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

There probably is such a room somewhere in Auckland, though i've not heard a sniff of existence about it, since anyone letting it slip would be in loads of trouble.

Why put it in Auckland when you can capture it all at the other end of the cable?
(saves on tinfoil hats too)


Sure, I'm happy to admit you may be right but I am yet to see a single - even theoretical - case in which the encryption I am using may be decrypted by a third 'MitM' party. The SIS/GCSB/NSA/FBI and any other acronym are welcome to my encrypted packets for all the good it will do them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





Trending now »

Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Speed limit when overtaking? Teach me please.
Created by nakedmolerat, last reply by Hobchild on 26-Oct-2014 00:11 (92 replies)
Pages... 5 6 7


House Auctions
Created by t0ny, last reply by mentalinc on 26-Oct-2014 08:58 (48 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4


VDSL, which router/modem sub $200?
Created by TeaLeaf, last reply by NonprayingMantis on 25-Oct-2014 19:48 (28 replies)
Pages... 2


Neon - Sky's new streaming service
Created by JarrodM, last reply by JimmyH on 25-Oct-2014 17:37 (29 replies)
Pages... 2


iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 3. Gonna get one?
Created by Dingbatt, last reply by tungsten on 25-Oct-2014 20:22 (115 replies)
Pages... 6 7 8


5Ghz AP recommendations?
Created by ubergeeknz, last reply by sbiddle on 24-Oct-2014 12:42 (12 replies)

Snap have failed our company!
Created by dafman, last reply by kornflake on 23-Oct-2014 17:41 (37 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Thief taunts 12 year old via stolen laptop
Created by macuser, last reply by charsleysa on 22-Oct-2014 23:49 (12 replies)


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.