GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 48

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#864343 23-Jul-2013 15:30

99% of those opposed actually have no idea of the facts of what they are opposing

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9543

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#864351 23-Jul-2013 15:38

networkn:

Knowing the Government has access to these things, and the representatives they trust also, is not the same as the public having access to it.

I don't expect 'the public' to have access to it. But The Government is made of people. Those people have power. Power corrupts. Whenever you give the government power to invade your privacy and take away your rights, it is inevitable that it comes back to bite. Seriously, just read your history. It's full of sad stories of people giving away their rights and then paying for it later. Sure, there are the big ones mentioning which will get you in trouble with the FUG, but there are also the little ones, like this, or this, or this. The more information you let The Government have about you, the easier it is for someone to go bad and make your life unpleasant.

So it's simple really; no, I don't trust The Government any further than I can spit it. They should have the absolute minimum information about me, my family, or anyone else that is required in order to provide the services they are required to provide, and no more. If they want more than that then they should have to explain why to a judge, who should need to agree first. If they can't even get past that pretty minor hurdle then maybe they really don't need that information.

Yes, perhaps that does mean that some people who should arguably be behind bars are not. But that's the price you pay to remain safe in the knowledge that it will be that much harder for someone who has power to do it to you.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864353 23-Jul-2013 15:43

TheUngeek: 99% of those opposed actually have no idea of the facts of what they are opposing

The source for your statistics ?

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

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#864355 23-Jul-2013 15:45

SaltyNZ: [It's full of sad stories of people giving away their rights and then paying for it later. Sure, there are the big ones mentioning which will get you in trouble with the FUG, but there are also the little ones, like this, or this, or this. The more information you let The Government have about you, the easier it is for someone to go bad and make your life unpleasant.

Wow
I see the opposite.
I'm not sure if their is suppose to be anything whats wrong with these examples you provided???? I'm glad the government had the tools to catch these criminals and put them away.

Sad stories? The examples you provided have happy endings

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#864356 23-Jul-2013 15:46

Asking all I know why they don't like it. The news. On here.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864358 23-Jul-2013 15:48

SaltyNZ:
networkn:

Knowing the Government has access to these things, and the representatives they trust also, is not the same as the public having access to it.

I don't expect 'the public' to have access to it. But The Government is made of people. Those people have power. Power corrupts. Whenever you give the government power to invade your privacy and take away your rights, it is inevitable that it comes back to bite. Seriously, just read your history. It's full of sad stories of people giving away their rights and then paying for it later. Sure, there are the big ones mentioning which will get you in trouble with the FUG, but there are also the little ones, like this, or this, or this. The more information you let The Government have about you, the easier it is for someone to go bad and make your life unpleasant.

So it's simple really; no, I don't trust The Government any further than I can spit it. They should have the absolute minimum information about me, my family, or anyone else that is required in order to provide the services they are required to provide, and no more. If they want more than that then they should have to explain why to a judge, who should need to agree first. If they can't even get past that pretty minor hurdle then maybe they really don't need that information.

Yes, perhaps that does mean that some people who should arguably be behind bars are not. But that's the price you pay to remain safe in the knowledge that it will be that much harder for someone who has power to do it to you.

The problem is that YOU asked ME to send YOU the details, as if such an action was comparable to the Government having access to it, which is NOT the case. Suggesting it is, is why protests like this have no credibility.

Every day you trust others to do the right thing, every day your data is accessible to people you haven't met and have no idea on their trust worthiness of. At the end of the day IF my data is exposed, I actually wouldn't prefer it to be exposed, but if it was, I don't have anything to hide.

If as a result of a leak my bank account details were leaked, that would be a pain, but I am legally covered from losses, and it's not the end of the world.

If someone directly wants to know what religion if any I am affiliated with, I'll give them that, I am not embarrassed, ashamed or concerned about it being public knowledge. My political views are pretty clearly on display many places in geekzone, and other forums too, as I assume are yours.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

friendlymonkey

180 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#864361 23-Jul-2013 15:49

TheUngeek: 99% of those opposed actually have no idea of the facts of what they are opposing

The same could be said about those who support it

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864362 23-Jul-2013 15:49

TheUngeek: Asking all I know why they don't like it. The news. On here.

hmmm ok so a guess.

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

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#864369 23-Jul-2013 15:52

Either way its going ahead and the only difference you might see will be when its used to bust criminals or terrorists

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864375 23-Jul-2013 15:56

I have no issue with Governments having the ability to detect and investigate but there needs to be checks and balances, oversight and redress. The GCSB has already demonstrated a preparedness to operate ultra vires current legislation.

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

adw

175 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24

#864377 23-Jul-2013 15:59

That's what I mean by being too comfortable, we take our civil liberties for granted and believe that things will always be the same when we wake up in the morning. That's how erosion of liberty works, mainly by apathy. These freedoms are the freedoms that our forebears went to war to protect - some of you are saying you can't find an extra hour or 'don't consider them important enough'

This legislation is occurring because the GCSB broke the law (and no one should be above the law - unfortunately it leads to cases being thrown out of court) - their defence was that they could not understand Section 14 of the GCSB Act, which states with the utmost clarity that "[n]either the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident." Are you not seriously concerned by the illiteracy of the people you're happy to hand even more power to?

Michael Wigley is concerned about the serious risk of extra-judicial overreach and says the idea that the existing GCSB law is unclear is patently false. He says: “Any second year law student could understand the law.” But the GCSB apparently couldn't - so the government is going to give them even wider powers.

The right to privacy is fundamental in a democracy and reinforces other fundamental rights, such as rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly. The proposed restrictions on the right to privacy are too general to be proportionate to the Bills' objectives.
This Bill and the issues surrounding it are too important to be treated flippantly (I don't know any hippies going, I'm sure there'll be some but we're all business owners and would often be considered core National supporters). It should be above politics and reviewed properly and thoroughly not rushed through with a one vote majority. People aren't saying that the legislation doesn't need to be reviewed, just that it needs to be reviewed correctly. It needs to be legally sound and resilient - this Bill in its current form is not - it is widely open to abuse.

There will also be a public meeting at Auckland's Mt Albert War Memorial Hall on Thursday evening. The speakers will be Dame Anne Salmond, Dr Rodney Harrison, QC (who presented the Law Society submission on the bill), TechLiberty's Thomas Beagle, and Kim Dotcom luckily some people think they can be productive.

And for all those of you who don't have the time you'd be surprised how much time you can make when something is important. Get up at 5am instead of 6am on Saturday to clear those inboxes and then get to the march - if you can't make a difference, who can?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#864379 23-Jul-2013 16:01

"If as a result of a leak my bank account details were leaked, that would be a pain, but I am legally covered from losses, and it's not the end of the world."

You are correct you are covered but hey how can you prove it wasn't you who withdrew that money this is where you'll have a problem. They had your account number, dob, full name addres ph num, passwords, email addresses. Hell you don't need much to obtain a birth cert for someone else. You are assuming that the bank will take your word for it. Actually you'll need to prove that someone else took it or unlawfully had access.

How can you prove that if they had all that information and had it lawfully???

Again just accepting they can and should have all this information is wrong.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864382 23-Jul-2013 16:06

jtbthatsme: "If as a result of a leak my bank account details were leaked, that would be a pain, but I am legally covered from losses, and it's not the end of the world."

You are correct you are covered but hey how can you prove it wasn't you who withdrew that money this is where you'll have a problem. They had your account number, dob, full name addres ph num, passwords, email addresses. Hell you don't need much to obtain a birth cert for someone else. You are assuming that the bank will take your word for it. Actually you'll need to prove that someone else took it or unlawfully had access.

How can you prove that if they had all that information and had it lawfully???

Again just accepting they can and should have all this information is wrong.

I know it's covered, and I trust it's covered and the issues around how do they prove etc etc are just not really issues I am concerned about it. Chances are the information leak will be known about, they will identify the list of leaked users and they will be included in the protection with very few questions asked.

Also I'd like to see someone withdraw money from my account with all of those details regardless. They would ask security questions, ask for photo ID etc, none of which they would have.

Your fears are unfounded and reek of tinfoil hat conspiracy. Personally you should be more worried about 100 other things that happen every day.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9543

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#864388 23-Jul-2013 16:07

networkn:

The problem is that YOU asked ME to send YOU the details, as if such an action was comparable to the Government having access to it, which is NOT the case.

You're absolutely right. They're completely different: you can refuse to tell me.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41042

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864392 23-Jul-2013 16:08

The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous for various reasons:

- You are not the person deciding what is collected or not
- Rules may change and something collected now about yourself may not be relevant but in two years time a coup happens and all the information collected about you can be used with no good reason at all
- Many times we read about incorrect information being collected

It's not about hiding things, but just that some people rather have their say on what's available to others.

People seem to forget the "nothing to hide" is opposite to privacy rights. If people have nothing to hide (and if privacy laws didn't exist in New Zealand) then I gather you folks would have no problems with me changing the system to show your email address and IP address in every post here on Geekzone?

Read this.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 48