GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 48

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#868574 30-Jul-2013 14:34

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:

Just interested though on your answer. Do you feel its right the illegally obtained evidence is not used? Yes/No?

Yes, I feel that it is right that illegally obtained evidence should not be used.

Even to prove innocence?

You don't need to prove that you're innocent. The prosecutor needs to prove that you're guilty. You can use whatever evidence you like; it's only the prosecution who are bound to use only legally gathered evidence.

You right we don't need to prove innocence in a court of law.

I was however specifically thinking about illegally obtained information, after somebody is proven guilty. A case like David Bain for example.

In most cases, somebody like that would have to prove their innocence, come up with new supporting evidence to back up his claim that he is innocent. Im sure that here in NZ that if that kind of evidence came up, even though obtained illegally, it would/can be used.

PS: I know the D Bain case is probably a bad example because as far as I know there was no new evidence that proved he was not guilty.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#868593 30-Jul-2013 14:53

Klipspringer: I was however specifically thinking about illegally obtained information, after somebody is proven guilty. A case like David Bain for example.

In most cases, somebody like that would have to prove their innocence, come up with new supporting evidence to back up his claim that he is innocent. Im sure that here in NZ that if that kind of evidence came up, even though obtained illegally, it would/can be used.

No.... David Bain had to be proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). There is no onus to prove innocence (Although, if you can, it certainly helps). But a key tenet of our legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. (File sharing law aside - the very fact this still exists in this form is cause for concern)

In David Bain's case, the reasonable doubt bit is key. It's often very hard to prove innocence (even if you are). The ongoing saga around David Bain is was there evidence that was wrongly represented, or withheld from the trial that skewed the picture. There will always be cases of people convicted on a threshold of reasonable doubt that are truly innocent.

But the point is...the onus is to prove guilt, not innocence.

Twitter: ajobbins

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Trusted

#868598 30-Jul-2013 15:00

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: I was however specifically thinking about illegally obtained information, after somebody is proven guilty. A case like David Bain for example.

In most cases, somebody like that would have to prove their innocence, come up with new supporting evidence to back up his claim that he is innocent. Im sure that here in NZ that if that kind of evidence came up, even though obtained illegally, it would/can be used.

No.... David Bain had to be proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). There is no onus to prove innocence (Although, if you can, it certainly helps). But a key tenet of our legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. (File sharing law aside - the very fact this still exists in this form is cause for concern)

In David Bain's case, the reasonable doubt bit is key. It's often very hard to prove innocence (even if you are). The ongoing saga around David Bain is was there evidence that was wrongly represented, or withheld from the trial that skewed the picture. There will always be cases of people convicted on a threshold of reasonable doubt that are truly innocent.

But the point is...the onus is to prove guilt, not innocence.

Except in the case of copyright infringement :/

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#868601 30-Jul-2013 15:01

turnin: Besides do you think a terrorist is going to use an unencrypted connection. ?

If you so worried about your privacy then you can follow the same principle. Use a VPN to encrypt your information.

Dont use a VPN to the USA though. Because the spies are already recording all of your data there. Every Google search, every email. Thats been happening for years ...

Why does everybody get upset just because our government is going to have access to it? Other governments outside NZ have had access to this sort of data of ours for years.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#868602 30-Jul-2013 15:05

ajobbins:
But the point is...the onus is to prove guilt, not innocence.

Once proven guilty in a court you "guilty". Even if not guilty.

And once the above has happened.

Your only option left is to prove your innocence.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#868624 30-Jul-2013 15:29

Klipspringer: If you so worried about your privacy then you can follow the same principle. Use a VPN to encrypt your information.

Why should we have to? I don't want the burden, expense and inconvenience of having to encrypt anything and everything just so I don't get spied on by my government.

We have a right to privacy, and John Key is selling it off (Like everything else he has for sale).

Twitter: ajobbins

Geekzone support

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

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#868632 30-Jul-2013 15:36

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: If you so worried about your privacy then you can follow the same principle. Use a VPN to encrypt your information.

Why should we have to? I don't want the burden, expense and inconvenience of having to encrypt anything and everything just so I don't get spied on by my government.

We have a right to privacy, and John Key is selling it off (Like everything else he has for sale).

So you don't mind the other governments spying on you then? Just as long as its not our government?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#868640 30-Jul-2013 15:49

Klipspringer: So you don't mind the other governments spying on you then? Just as long as its not our government?

I don't like this either but as I'm not a citizen of those countries my rights and power there is significantly less. I rely on my own government to protect me from that. Eg. If the US spies on me, alleges I have committed a crime and wants to extradite me based on that information - I would want my government to stand up for me, tell them to F-off and that illegal spying on it's citizens voids any 'evidence' they think they had (Just as you have pointed out in the terror raids cases illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible).

The government should be there to serve the best interests of it's citizens, not the other way around.

Twitter: ajobbins

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#868643 30-Jul-2013 15:54

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
But the point is...the onus is to prove guilt, not innocence.

Once proven guilty in a court you "guilty". Even if not guilty.

And once the above has happened.

Your only option left is to prove your innocence.

Again....no.

Innocence is not equal to not guilty. You either meet the jury's threshold for guilty, or you do not (not guilty), Beyond that it doesn't matter.

Especially in case of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you may not need any different evidence, you may simply seek to show that the evidence was misrepresented, that the jury was impartial or otherwise influence, council was in some way inadequate, witnesses withheld, incorrect or misrepresented. Basically, you can seek to somehow weaken the prosecution argument to a point where a jury is no longer satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is very different to 'proving innocence'

Twitter: ajobbins

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#868645 30-Jul-2013 15:57

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: If you so worried about your privacy then you can follow the same principle. Use a VPN to encrypt your information.

Why should we have to? I don't want the burden, expense and inconvenience of having to encrypt anything and everything just so I don't get spied on by my government.

We have a right to privacy, and John Key is selling it off (Like everything else he has for sale).

So you don't mind the other governments spying on you then? Just as long as its not our government?

Do you believe the gcsb cant crack encrypted mail.? I strongly believe that the communications I have with my clients should be private. Its called commercial sensitivity and its not that far removed from the reasons you have curtains on your bedroom. The desire of privacy does not mean you are plotting terrorism.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#868664 30-Jul-2013 16:15

turnin:
Do you believe the gcsb cant crack encrypted mail.? I strongly believe that the communications I have with my clients should be private.

If you want privacy don't use the internet.

Nothing you send via the internet is private.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 506

#868668 30-Jul-2013 16:18

Klipspringer aint no body got time for this

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#868673 30-Jul-2013 16:22

turnin: Do you believe the gcsb cant crack encrypted mail.? I strongly believe that the communications I have with my clients should be private. Its called commercial sensitivity and its not that far removed from the reasons you have curtains on your bedroom. The desire of privacy does not mean you are plotting terrorism.

Absolutely.

Klipspringer, there are many perfectly legitimate activities that go on that could potentially be used against you, either blatantly, or without your knowledge.

Perhaps you had a prescription for some pseudoephedrine last year when you legitmately went to you doctor for a cold. After filling the script, later that day you call a work college and talk business, but unbeknown to you - his brother in law, who he had spoken to earlier in the week is a former P-addict. The telephone meta data links you to him, and you then qualify for upgraded surveillance as a possible P-cook. You're employer is then asked to hand over your personnel file as part of an investigation into your activities and therefore becomes aware you're under suspicion of a crime - and you miss out on the promotion they were about to offer you as they start to question your trust. Your colleage who you phoned gets the same treatment - not because he did anything wrong, but simply because he was inconveniently associated with two unrelated people who each did separate and unrelated things that some analyst decided was worth looking into.

At this point, after a more detailed investigation - the government is satisfied you haven't commuted a crime, so no harm right? Apart from the fact your perfectly legitimate and private activities have now cost you and your college a promotion and the trust of your employer.

This kind of things might sound a little far fetched right now, but is it really? This is exactly the kind of stuff the Government seek to do. They want access to every possible piece of information so they can start to draw conclusions about people based of huge supply of often unrelated or irrelevant information.

Twitter: ajobbins

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#868674 30-Jul-2013 16:23

Klipspringer:
turnin:
Do you believe the gcsb cant crack encrypted mail.? I strongly believe that the communications I have with my clients should be private.

If you want privacy don't use the internet.

Nothing you send via the internet is private.

Yes that's true but up to now I could use pgp and be reasonably certain that my communications would not be viewable. Watch how Andrea vance will never get another email . Shame for the concept of free media. I suppose by the same principle if you dont want to be naked on youtube just dont make love to your wife.

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user

#868717 30-Jul-2013 16:51

Would the Rainbow Warrior Bombing be the first known terror attack in NZ 1985?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart – posing as married couple Sophie and Alain Turenge and having Swiss passports – were identified as possible suspects with the help of a Neighborhood Watch group.

Government sponsored terrorism with love from France.

Or would it be the earlier Terrorism where pesky villagers wouldn't shift so their houses were burnt down, NZG sponsored? Maybe they don't count for some particular reason?

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 48