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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 29

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129455 15-Sep-2014 21:12

BarTender: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Nice quote but the big MOT produced absolutely NO evidence at all that any of Dotcom claims are true. All we had was a few guys saying this is what is happening without actually backing it up with documents or anything remotely evidential to prove it.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#1129462 15-Sep-2014 21:27

I already heard that 2 years ago. Whats new?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1129464 15-Sep-2014 21:30

marmel:
BarTender: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Nice quote but the big MOT produced absolutely NO evidence at all that any of Dotcom claims are true. All we had was a few guys saying this is what is happening without actually backing it up with documents or anything remotely evidential to prove it.

I think the thing people need to ask is do you really think Assange or Snowden would choose living in the situation they are in now just for giggles.

Plus if you read the previous page others have already said everyone should expect that nothing on the Internet is secure.

So which is it then??

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129468 15-Sep-2014 21:32

BarTender:
marmel:
BarTender: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Nice quote but the big MOT produced absolutely NO evidence at all that any of Dotcom claims are true. All we had was a few guys saying this is what is happening without actually backing it up with documents or anything remotely evidential to prove it.

I think the thing people need to ask is do you really think Assange or Snowden would choose living in the situation they are in now just for giggles.

Plus if you read the previous page others have already said everyone should expect that nothing on the Internet is secure.

So which is it then??

We also know that they both have had access to millions of documents. Do you really believe that not one of those documents could provide any evidence to what they were claiming?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1129470 15-Sep-2014 21:37

I see so many people making this about Kim Dotcom or the Labour party when that is a very naive and myopic way to look at this issue.

Assess the facts for what they are, and allow them to be property scrutinised.

Just because you don't like the guy bringing the information, don't automatically discount it or assume it untrue.

Likewise, just because you don't like a particular political party, saying they 'would do it to' doesn't make it OK.

If evidence turns out to be untrue, then it's untrue and the reputations of those who brought it will suffer as a result.

However, if it does turn out to be true - regardless of who the government is, we as citizens should insist that changes are made.

For what it's worth, Ed Snowden has been extremely correct in basically everything he has released to date - and that alone (Forget Dotcom) should be cause for further investigation.

Twitter: ajobbins

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129477 15-Sep-2014 21:45

ajobbins: I see so many people making this about Kim Dotcom or the Labour party when that is a very naive and myopic way to look at this issue.

Assess the facts for what they are, and allow them to be property scrutinised.

Just because you don't like the guy bringing the information, don't automatically discount it or assume it untrue.

Likewise, just because you don't like a particular political party, saying they 'would do it to' doesn't make it OK.

If evidence turns out to be untrue, then it's untrue and the reputations of those who brought it will suffer as a result.

However, if it does turn out to be true - regardless of who the government is, we as citizens should insist that changes are made.

For what it's worth, Ed Snowden has been extremely correct in basically everything he has released to date - and that alone (Forget Dotcom) should be cause for further investigation.

This thread is all about "The Moment of Truth" which was set up and financed by Dotcom. People aren't being naive, they are discussing that apparent failure of Dotcom to actually produce any evidence of his claims after he has been building it up for weeks. You refer to evidence being true or untrue, what evidence? I refer to my post above, don't you think it's a little bizarre that Snowden couldn't provide a single document out of the millions he has to back up his claims?

I see the CEO of the southern cross cable has also rubished the claims stating it would be physically impossible for the cable to be tapped in the way claimed.

“It is a physical impossibility to do it without us knowing. There is just no way it can be done. I can give you absolute assurances from Southern Cross – and me as a Kiwi – that there are no sites anywhere on the Southern Cross network that have to do with interception or anything else the NSA or GCSB might want to do,” Briscoe said.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#1129478 15-Sep-2014 21:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd0p96miSK8#t=20

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#1129484 15-Sep-2014 21:54

That is because tbe cable has not been 'Tapped'.
But that is not to say that there in no requirement to provide a meta data feed.
Or that meta data is siphoned off without the operators clear knowledge.

There is plenty of opportunity for both sides to put their hands on their heartsand provide supporting ddocumentation

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1129486 15-Sep-2014 21:55

marmel:
This thread is all about "The Moment of Truth" which was set up and financed by Dotcom.

Who funded it isn't relevant. The facts need to be examined.

People aren't being naive, they are discussing that apparent failure of Dotcom to actually produce any evidence of his claims after he has been building it up for weeks. You refer to evidence being true or untrue, what evidence? I refer to my post above, don't you think it's a little bizarre that Snowden couldn't provide a single document out of the millions he has to back up his claims?

a) And if they can't produce evidence now, then the claims will be refuted. Who said the evidence has to be released there and then for it to be true?
b) I find it less conceivable that Snowden would be willing to risk his impeccable reputation with claims that weren't true. Same for Greenwald. They have so much to lose if wrong, and have no vested interest in New Zealand politics

I see the CEO of the southern cross cable has also rubished the claims stating it would be physically impossible for the cable to be tapped in the way claimed.

Ed Snowden disputes that, and is, on balance, likely more reliable.

“It is a physical impossibility to do it without us knowing. There is just no way it can be done. I can give you absolute assurances from Southern Cross – and me as a Kiwi – that there are no sites anywhere on the Southern Cross network that have to do with interception or anything else the NSA or GCSB might want to do,” Briscoe said.

Anyway, Didn't John Key say today they trialled something on the SX cable?

Twitter: ajobbins

RickD

280 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#1129487 15-Sep-2014 21:57

ajobbins: I see so many people making this about Kim Dotcom or the Labour party when that is a very naive and myopic way to look at this issue.

Assess the facts for what they are, and allow them to be property scrutinised.

Just because you don't like the guy bringing the information, don't automatically discount it or assume it untrue.

Likewise, just because you don't like a particular political party, saying they 'would do it to' doesn't make it OK.

If evidence turns out to be untrue, then it's untrue and the reputations of those who brought it will suffer as a result.

However, if it does turn out to be true - regardless of who the government is, we as citizens should insist that changes are made.

For what it's worth, Ed Snowden has been extremely correct in basically everything he has released to date - and that alone (Forget Dotcom) should be cause for further investigation.

It is about Dotcom because he is using the allegations as part of his election campaign. I think people would give much more time understanding the facts if this hadn't been used in an attempt to win/steal votes.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129489 15-Sep-2014 21:59

ajobbins:
marmel:
This thread is all about "The Moment of Truth" which was set up and financed by Dotcom.

Who funded it isn't relevant. The facts need to be examined.

People aren't being naive, they are discussing that apparent failure of Dotcom to actually produce any evidence of his claims after he has been building it up for weeks. You refer to evidence being true or untrue, what evidence? I refer to my post above, don't you think it's a little bizarre that Snowden couldn't provide a single document out of the millions he has to back up his claims?

a) And if they can't produce evidence now, then the claims will be refuted. Who said the evidence has to be released there and then for it to be true?
b) I find it less conceivable that Snowden would be willing to risk his impeccable reputation with claims that weren't true. Same for Greenwald. They have so much to lose if wrong, and have no vested interest in New Zealand politics

I see the CEO of the southern cross cable has also rubished the claims stating it would be physically impossible for the cable to be tapped in the way claimed.

Ed Snowden disputes that, and is, on balance, likely more reliable.

“It is a physical impossibility to do it without us knowing. There is just no way it can be done. I can give you absolute assurances from Southern Cross – and me as a Kiwi – that there are no sites anywhere on the Southern Cross network that have to do with interception or anything else the NSA or GCSB might want to do,” Briscoe said.

Anyway, Didn't John Key say today they trialled something on the SX cable?

I think you are missing the point that the whole basis of this charade tonight was to provide the proof and they failed in a spectacular way. They have been working on this for weeks if not months and yet all they could do was make claims without backing them up.

If there was any proof to begin with I think tonight would have been the opportune time to produce it surely??

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#1129491 15-Sep-2014 22:02

I can't remember the exact quote (I wish I could remember where I got it from)... But I am reminded of it...

"When you present an argument, ensure that you present facts, and not just opinions that you desperately wish were facts"

N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129494 15-Sep-2014 22:05

Talkiet: I can't remember the exact quote (I wish I could remember where I got it from)... But I am reminded of it...

"When you present an argument, ensure that you present facts, and not just opinions that you desperately wish were facts"

N

Perfectly sums it up. I mean some of these guys flew half way around the world for this?

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1129509 15-Sep-2014 22:33

At the end of the day, all countries spy. They all collect data on bad people.

The modern world requires them to take action so we can trip around largely in blissful ignorance of the evil wolf that is out there circling the sheep pen. How many 9/11's or London Underground bombings have been foiled because of this? They will never say but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it is more than a few.

There is sweet FA in any of my comms that would be remotely interesting to them and frankly I couldn't care less if they look if that is what it takes to stamp on the sort of people who cut off journalists heads for entertainment and to satisfy religious delusion.

Generally I would prefer they did not look - and good evening to Bob at the NSA, how ya doin? - but really I am not going to lose sleep if they do.

I will however lose sleep - and possibly my life - if governments of generally good nations are forced by traitors like Snowden to stop hunting the evil that walks among us and plots to blow us up on buses, kill us on planes, stab us in London streets and so on. Just because it has not happened here yet means nothing - the easier we make it, the sooner they will do it here because it becomes too hard elsewhere.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#1129510 15-Sep-2014 22:37

Rappelle: Sure, DotCom paid for the event, and no solid evidence was provided, but are you really going to sit back and dismiss all the significant allegations that have been made by 3 of the most credible human rights persons in the world? I am genuinely disgusted by how the media has already reacted, and by the position people are taking against what has been presented simply due to the involvement of Kim Dotcom. If you are still voting for National without any doubt in your mind, then you are almost certainly being willfully ignorant toward what has contracted over the last few weeks.

The apathy and blindness of a large number of people (who get a say by voting) in NZ is simply abhorrent.

So Dotcom and others make claims and produce no evidence. John Key denies and produces documents backing this up.

Who is really being blind here?

I think most Nat supporters are reasonably level headed and would rather see some evidence before accepting claims made at a show produced by a convicted fraudster. If I was an Internet Mana supporter I would be feeling very disappointed right about now.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 29