Moment of Truth?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Moment of Truth?

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131778 18-Sep-2014 20:21

BarTender:
Yabanize: Check this out. https://imgur.com/a/4C8zX

Already posted it back on Page 20.. Compelling stuff.

I would love to see one comment from Greenwald or Snowden where they explicitly say they have an issue with activities of the NSA & GCBS while under a legal warrent to intercept traffic from a terrorist. Sadly many on this thread want to bring it back to terrorism yet Greenwald or Snowden specifically talk about it not being about terrorism. I wonder why they keep on doing that? Perhaps because they don't have any argument if terrorism isn't used as the excuse?

so you don't think surveillance for terrorism has any part of this thread, interesting how you just dismiss others arguments like that when all yours are based on others accusations with no proof put forward.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131785 18-Sep-2014 20:27

frankv:
KiwiNZ: If this Moment of rumour, innuendo and lies actually succeeds in derailing this election I wonder what the threads will be like on this Forum when people wake up and realise our country has been wrecked and KDC et al have moved on to fulfil their narcissism

The *ultimate* control in our democracy is that we can throw an evil-doer out after 3 years.

If this election is "derailed" to do that, then that *is* the democratic process, and by definition it is the right thing to do.

FUD is the last resort of someone who doesn't actually have a coherent argument... they said the same thing about the nuclear free issue, sending troops to Vietnam, buying American cars, buying Japanese cars, using DDT, not using DDT, giving women the vote, yadda yadda ...

Whilst I have no admiration for KDC, I think it's great that he has woken up the people to realise that their rights are being eroded, and in some cases, stolen. It's a pity that the people who we pay handsomely to safeguard us from the abuses of power (i.e. the Opposition parties) have been so totally inept.

You mean we can throw them out … if they let us.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#1131807 18-Sep-2014 20:53

BarTender:
Yabanize: Check this out. https://imgur.com/a/4C8zX

Already posted it back on Page 20.. Compelling stuff.

I would love to see one comment from Greenwald or Snowden where they explicitly say they have an issue with activities of the NSA & GCBS while under a legal warrent to intercept traffic from a terrorist. Sadly many on this thread want to bring it back to terrorism yet Greenwald or Snowden specifically talk about it not being about terrorism. I wonder why they keep on doing that? Perhaps because they don't have any argument if terrorism isn't used as the excuse?

Sadly Terrorists and their ilk don't advertise the fact on their fb pages or CV, makes it kind of difficult to only fish for them.
Sometimes you have to trawl and filter the catch......
and accept there will be some collateral damage.
How do you draw that line?
Or do you decide not to go fishing and go hungry?

Nothing in this space is as easily resolved as your individual morals or beliefs would dictate.
Think of how you, as a representative of your company, would respond to claims and counterclaims against your companies practices, products, or ethics, when you're locked into NDAs, supplier agreements and contracts that could ultimately impact much more than you and your employer.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131811 18-Sep-2014 20:57

jeffnz: so you don't think surveillance for terrorism has any part of this thread, interesting how you just dismiss others arguments like that when all yours are based on others accusations with no proof put forward.

Lets say you humor me for a second and actually listen to what Greenwald and Snowden have said. Completely putting aside the legitimate spying under a warrant on targeted individuals which I personally have no issue with and strongly adovate the GCSB has a vital role in NZ.

Lets just say that mass-surveillance has nothing to do with terrorism and principally for geo-political and for large commercial business reasons.

Would you still be so steadfast in your defense of mass surveillance since you have nothing to hide or fear knowing full that it has nothing to do with preventing terrorism?

Since that is the whole nub of Greenwalds & Snowdens arguments.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131814 18-Sep-2014 21:09

BarTender:
jeffnz: so you don't think surveillance for terrorism has any part of this thread, interesting how you just dismiss others arguments like that when all yours are based on others accusations with no proof put forward.

Lets say you humor me for a second and actually listen to what Greenwald and Snowden have said. Completely putting aside the legitimate spying under a warrant on targeted individuals which I personally have no issue with and strongly adovate the GCSB has a vital role in NZ.

Lets just say that mass-surveillance has nothing to do with terrorism and principally for geo-political and for large commercial business reasons.

Would you still be so steadfast in your defense of mass surveillance since you have nothing to hide or fear knowing full that it has nothing to do with preventing terrorism?

Since that is the whole nub of Greenwalds & Snowdens arguments.

Do you object to passenger screening on the off chance someone is up to no good?

I'm content with surveillance to find terrorist or criminal suspects. It's just a modern equivalent of using snitches etc. If you need a warrant just to look for crims on line how can you expect to find them? It becomes a Catch 22 - you can't look until you've got a warrant but you can't apply for a warrant until you've looked for and identified your suspect!

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1131815 18-Sep-2014 21:10

BarTender:
jeffnz: so you don't think surveillance for terrorism has any part of this thread, interesting how you just dismiss others arguments like that when all yours are based on others accusations with no proof put forward.

Lets say you humor me for a second and actually listen to what Greenwald and Snowden have said. Completely putting aside the legitimate spying under a warrant on targeted individuals which I personally have no issue with and strongly adovate the GCSB has a vital role in NZ.

Lets just say that mass-surveillance has nothing to do with terrorism and principally for geo-political and for large commercial business reasons.

Would you still be so steadfast in your defense of mass surveillance since you have nothing to hide or fear knowing full that it has nothing to do with preventing terrorism?

Since that is the whole nub of Greenwalds & Snowdens arguments.

Please enlighten me as to who would be the large commercial entities in NZ that would benefit from mass surveillance.

I guess the police just use Google to find potential of actual terrorists etc.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

testha

116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#1131844 18-Sep-2014 22:26

Geektastic:

I'm content with surveillance to find terrorist or criminal suspects. It's just a modern equivalent of using snitches etc. If you need a warrant just to look for crims on line how can you expect to find them? It becomes a Catch 22 - you can't look until you've got a warrant but you can't apply for a warrant until you've looked for and identified your suspect!

Is it ok for you that the police comes by your house anytime they want to? To go through all your picture albums, files, letters, folders without a warrant. They also join you and your friends at the pub, just listening in what you got to say. They also read every letter you write, even the ones going to your lawyer, health provider and those naughty little messages you exchanged with your wife. They also listen to and write down every word once you pick up the receiver.

I mean how are they supposed to catch a criminal without looking through all these houses, without going through all your communication?

This is the equivalent of mass surveillance in the none digital age, but somehow people agreed that this is not ok.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131850 18-Sep-2014 22:43

testha:
Geektastic:

I'm content with surveillance to find terrorist or criminal suspects. It's just a modern equivalent of using snitches etc. If you need a warrant just to look for crims on line how can you expect to find them? It becomes a Catch 22 - you can't look until you've got a warrant but you can't apply for a warrant until you've looked for and identified your suspect!

Is it ok for you that the police comes by your house anytime they want to? To go through all your picture albums, files, letters, folders without a warrant. They also join you and your friends at the pub, just listening in what you got to say. They also read every letter you write, even the ones going to your lawyer, health provider and those naughty little messages you exchanged with your wife. They also listen to and write down every word once you pick up the receiver.

I mean how are they supposed to catch a criminal without looking through all these houses, without going through all your communication?

This is the equivalent of mass surveillance in the none digital age, but somehow people agreed that this is not ok.

They'd be very welcome - and extremely bored.

The point is that even if they did do this, they'd keep it up for about 5 minutes before realising they were wasting their time.

If you don't want to risk anyone (even, you know, hackers and stuff) reading your online things, post nothing online.

I'm old enough at 46 to remember the quaint notion of a world without any of this stuff and believe me, I will go back just as soon as I can figure out how to make the flux capacitor in my De Lorean flux again.

Imagine the sheer joy of whole days out of the office with not a single phone call....

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1131854 18-Sep-2014 22:53

Geektastic:
testha:
Geektastic:

I'm content with surveillance to find terrorist or criminal suspects. It's just a modern equivalent of using snitches etc. If you need a warrant just to look for crims on line how can you expect to find them? It becomes a Catch 22 - you can't look until you've got a warrant but you can't apply for a warrant until you've looked for and identified your suspect!

Is it ok for you that the police comes by your house anytime they want to? To go through all your picture albums, files, letters, folders without a warrant. They also join you and your friends at the pub, just listening in what you got to say. They also read every letter you write, even the ones going to your lawyer, health provider and those naughty little messages you exchanged with your wife. They also listen to and write down every word once you pick up the receiver.

I mean how are they supposed to catch a criminal without looking through all these houses, without going through all your communication?

This is the equivalent of mass surveillance in the none digital age, but somehow people agreed that this is not ok.

They'd be very welcome - and extremely bored.

The point is that even if they did do this, they'd keep it up for about 5 minutes before realising they were wasting their time.

If you don't want to risk anyone (even, you know, hackers and stuff) reading your online things, post nothing online.

I'm old enough at 46 to remember the quaint notion of a world without any of this stuff and believe me, I will go back just as soon as I can figure out how to make the flux capacitor in my De Lorean flux again.

Imagine the sheer joy of whole days out of the office with not a single phone call....

Perhaps you should post all of your passwords here then :)

<br>

Also do you protect your phone with a PIN? And your computer with a password?

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1131861 18-Sep-2014 23:17

Oh well, when companies fail because competing companies produce literally identical products at the same time, as there are numerous cases of, I hope the people who say there is no problem with mass surveillance will house the directors, their staff and their families in their own homes without complaint.
I guess Intellectual property is a thing of the past, pity for innovation, never mind.

There are many cases where govt surveillance has enabled espionage and we have seen how governments can use that information to blackmail, bully and smear political opponents with the assistance of once respected main stream media.

Hypothetically, lets say 10 years down the track a policy change means the govt have a problem with porn, a huge one, they make it illegal and scroll backwards and apply retrospective charges. The same could happen with copyright, perhaps even political opinion, then what , and please don't say it can't happen. If the tpp is signed the US congress will have a great deal of say in NZ law.

The effects of MASS surveillance destroy privacy and anonymity, thats a huge fundamental step for a society to take without discussion. I really don't think that one government has that right especially when it is misleading the populous about the issue.
It's against the US constitution for a start, if you really feel safe in the hands of government that has absolutely no quarms with misleading the public then perhaps choose another country like China, people lost their lives fighting for freedoms and liberty and here we are 60 years later throwing it away out of apathy.
People should be wary of govenments, a government does not need to be trusted, it does not increase the efficacy of a govt, it's just an admin system

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/glenn-greenwald-us-privacy-92400.html#ixzz3DfKodrim

In the past 6 weeks we have learned a lot of secrets about NZ politics, so far everyone who has shown us these more than likely truths has been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, including Greenwald.
I understand why people can make the mistake of thinking these are simply "election stunts" but then, I also understand why dogs can tie themselves up in their leads.

testha

116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#1131888 19-Sep-2014 00:43

Geektastic:

If you don't want to risk anyone (even, you know, hackers and stuff) reading your online things, post nothing online.

Its not about what I voluntary post or write online in social media. When was the last time you wrote a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in a letter box? Our main communication is now online, including texts and all VOIP calls. It is really hard nowadays to not do it digital. You will be left behind, outpaced by all the others that use digital communication. This is something that you can't avoid. But still all of this information is being monitored and has the potential to be used against you. Not because you have criminal intentions, just because you would rather keep something private.

Imagine an active All Blacks star being gay. Being gay is not illegal, but its still frowned up by quite a few people in our society. Maybe he doesnt think it matters, so he decides to keep it a secret. Thanks to most communication being online nowadays there is a trail between him and his boyfriend saved in a database of the NSA. The local GCSB has access to this database. What if a politician would like to start a public conversation about LGBT cause he can gain from it. He can just get the data without any kind of fear to get caught, because the whole process is so secret "We dont comment about secret service activities". So he forwards this to a payed attack blogger and gets what he wants.

Now replace All Black with another profession (Judge, teacher, Network Engineer, journalist...), replace being gay with someone liking a certain none popular band, collecting weapons, Japanese tentacle movies. Replace it with someone that had a depression, divorce, marriage issues and therapy. Or replace it with a gambling/drinking problem, affair, certain kink, secret hobby. Depending on your opinion, some of these may be morally questionable.

But none of them are illegal.

There are a lot of reasons to keep communication and private data online secret and and not accessible to other people. Some people are happy with a boring life. Some people would like to keep certain proof of their private life private. And then someone ask these people what they would do to keep these things private, we got a problem. You can ruin certain people and their families life. You cant trust decisions anymore. Has this politician voted against a law because he thinks its in the best interest of his voters? Or did he made an agreement to keep certain none illegal things private? Do you trust every politician to have a morally perfect personality and make the right decission? What about judges? Journalists? How much do you trust all kinds of people to always make the right decision?

There is so much potential for abuse with that data. It can be used to form public opinion, to get favorable decisions, to get laws passed that are not in the best interest of the society.

I am not against targeted surveillance, its needed to catch the bad ones. But mass surveillance is a whole different matter.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1131896 19-Sep-2014 01:32

turnin:
In the past 6 weeks we have learned a lot of secrets about NZ politics, so far everyone who has shown us these more than likely truths has been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, including Greenwald.
I understand why people can make the mistake of thinking these are simply "election stunts" but then, I also understand why dogs can tie themselves up in their leads.

We've learnt exactly zero secrets. Secret means that people didn't know. People did know.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1131916 19-Sep-2014 06:54

testha:
Geektastic:

If you don't want to risk anyone (even, you know, hackers and stuff) reading your online things, post nothing online.

Its not about what I voluntary post or write online in social media. When was the last time you wrote a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in a letter box? Our main communication is now online, including texts and all VOIP calls. It is really hard nowadays to not do it digital. You will be left behind, outpaced by all the others that use digital communication. This is something that you can't avoid. But still all of this information is being monitored and has the potential to be used against you. Not because you have criminal intentions, just because you would rather keep something private.

Imagine an active All Blacks star being gay. Being gay is not illegal, but its still frowned up by quite a few people in our society. Maybe he doesnt think it matters, so he decides to keep it a secret. Thanks to most communication being online nowadays there is a trail between him and his boyfriend saved in a database of the NSA. The local GCSB has access to this database. What if a politician would like to start a public conversation about LGBT cause he can gain from it. He can just get the data without any kind of fear to get caught, because the whole process is so secret "We dont comment about secret service activities". So he forwards this to a payed attack blogger and gets what he wants.

Now replace All Black with another profession (Judge, teacher, Network Engineer, journalist...), replace being gay with someone liking a certain none popular band, collecting weapons, Japanese tentacle movies. Replace it with someone that had a depression, divorce, marriage issues and therapy. Or replace it with a gambling/drinking problem, affair, certain kink, secret hobby. Depending on your opinion, some of these may be morally questionable.

But none of them are illegal.

There are a lot of reasons to keep communication and private data online secret and and not accessible to other people. Some people are happy with a boring life. Some people would like to keep certain proof of their private life private. And then someone ask these people what they would do to keep these things private, we got a problem. You can ruin certain people and their families life. You cant trust decisions anymore. Has this politician voted against a law because he thinks its in the best interest of his voters? Or did he made an agreement to keep certain none illegal things private? Do you trust every politician to have a morally perfect personality and make the right decission? What about judges? Journalists? How much do you trust all kinds of people to always make the right decision?

There is so much potential for abuse with that data. It can be used to form public opinion, to get favorable decisions, to get laws passed that are not in the best interest of the society.

I am not against targeted surveillance, its needed to catch the bad ones. But mass surveillance is a whole different matter.

As it happens, I write letters to my mother every couple of weeks. On paper. With a fountain pen. It's a habit from boarding school where we were required to write home every Sunday and had no phone access.

I still say no one has explained how to get around the Catch 22 I referred to above.

testha

116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#1131987 19-Sep-2014 10:13

Geektastic:
testha:
Geektastic:

If you don't want to risk anyone (even, you know, hackers and stuff) reading your online things, post nothing online.

Its not about what I voluntary post or write online in social media. When was the last time you wrote a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in a letter box? Our main communication is now online, including texts and all VOIP calls. It is really hard nowadays to not do it digital. You will be left behind, outpaced by all the others that use digital communication. This is something that you can't avoid. But still all of this information is being monitored and has the potential to be used against you. Not because you have criminal intentions, just because you would rather keep something private.

Imagine an active All Blacks star being gay. Being gay is not illegal, but its still frowned up by quite a few people in our society. Maybe he doesnt think it matters, so he decides to keep it a secret. Thanks to most communication being online nowadays there is a trail between him and his boyfriend saved in a database of the NSA. The local GCSB has access to this database. What if a politician would like to start a public conversation about LGBT cause he can gain from it. He can just get the data without any kind of fear to get caught, because the whole process is so secret "We dont comment about secret service activities". So he forwards this to a payed attack blogger and gets what he wants.

Now replace All Black with another profession (Judge, teacher, Network Engineer, journalist...), replace being gay with someone liking a certain none popular band, collecting weapons, Japanese tentacle movies. Replace it with someone that had a depression, divorce, marriage issues and therapy. Or replace it with a gambling/drinking problem, affair, certain kink, secret hobby. Depending on your opinion, some of these may be morally questionable.

But none of them are illegal.

There are a lot of reasons to keep communication and private data online secret and and not accessible to other people. Some people are happy with a boring life. Some people would like to keep certain proof of their private life private. And then someone ask these people what they would do to keep these things private, we got a problem. You can ruin certain people and their families life. You cant trust decisions anymore. Has this politician voted against a law because he thinks its in the best interest of his voters? Or did he made an agreement to keep certain none illegal things private? Do you trust every politician to have a morally perfect personality and make the right decission? What about judges? Journalists? How much do you trust all kinds of people to always make the right decision?

There is so much potential for abuse with that data. It can be used to form public opinion, to get favorable decisions, to get laws passed that are not in the best interest of the society.

I am not against targeted surveillance, its needed to catch the bad ones. But mass surveillance is a whole different matter.

As it happens, I write letters to my mother every couple of weeks. On paper. With a fountain pen. It's a habit from boarding school where we were required to write home every Sunday and had no phone access.

That is nice of you, what about 99.9% of your remaining communication?

I still say no one has explained how to get around the Catch 22 I referred to above.

We may not like it, but 100% security is an illusion. Mass surveillance wont help you to catch terrorists that know how to use encryption and hide their traces. Mass surveillance also wont help you to catch criminals who dont communicate about their plans and say eff it, I had enough and start shooting people. But we can try to avoid making people frustrated. And for the remainder we can use the good old police work that kept us save so far. Last time I checked any kind of weapons are not free, you could follow the trail of money, collect evidence and then do targeted surveillance to get proof.

What about the crazy ones like Breivik? Also hard to scan their communication if they are single nutters who plan it in secret on their own.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1131989 19-Sep-2014 10:25

Geektastic:
I still say no one has explained how to get around the Catch 22 I referred to above.

I'll have a go at that...

Reposted below:

I'm content with surveillance to find terrorist or criminal suspects. It's just a modern equivalent of using snitches etc. If you need a warrant just to look for crims on line how can you expect to find them? It becomes a Catch 22 - you can't look until you've got a warrant but you can't apply for a warrant until you've looked for and identified your suspect!

There is no black/white division of "crims" and "us". I'll bet that *every* person in this country breaks some law every day. So there is no absolute requirement for the Govt to catch every crim. The fact that a few get away is a price that we're prepared to pay, because giving that much power to the state gives them the opportunity to control and oppress all of us.

Not only that... If the Govt can successfully repress the terrorists/dissidents/radicals/independent thinkers/nonconformists, they don't need to listen to them. And when you're on the receiving end of that, a dissident/radical/independent thinker/nonconformist might consider terrorism as a suitable way to make themselves heard.

As an example, look at Northern Ireland... centuries of exploitation followed by decades of repression and terrorism has (generally speaking) become peaceful now that Sinn Fein has a voice.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29