ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

Forums › Off topic › ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

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

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1200440 19-Dec-2014 10:58

freitasm:
And for every fanatical who draws attention to himself there will be ones who don't. After Sydney it appears the known ones are equally as dangerous.

The ones that don't are probably using burner phones, in person meetings etc anyway. The terrorist events of late (Sydney, Boston etc) were not cases of targets not being able to be identified by other means, but the failure of intelligence and security agencies to appropriately respond to a threat. Why on earth would we give these incompetent agencies even more power, when they can't even get it right when it's staring them in the face?

So true. Both Boston and Sydney perpetrators have been flagged before and both were let go by the authorities who had ALREADY everything they needed to get a warrant and keep them locked up or under surveillance.

New laws won't make this easier. New laws will not automatically upgrade the slow brains behind implementation.

The problem is society is very wet.

If we lock up bad people as a pre-emptive measure, they suddenly take advantage of the rights the democracy that they despise has given them so that we end up releasing them...!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1200441 19-Dec-2014 10:58

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: At least the Government is taking the risks seriously and providing necessary additional tools.

Except that they aren't. Mass spying is a very poor tool when it comes to detecting and stopping terrorists.

A great tool for knowing what you're citizens are up to, tho.

In your opinion

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1200446 19-Dec-2014 11:01

heylinb4nz:

Taking it seriously means nothing if you aren't doing something meaningful to address it. This is why government and their agencies are always busy taking things seriously and coming up with meaningless ineffective guff to address it (at the tax payers expense)

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

Feel free people to continue adding other examples

Lots of action but what results ??? How long are we going to tolerate this level of uselessness from our government ?

This nonsense is a topic for a different thread

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1200454 19-Dec-2014 11:12

shk292:
connector: tl;dr all the replys but i think if there is anything the sydney seige has taught us it's that mass surveillance doesn't work. Australia had the power to intercept this guys comms and had every reason to, could have stopped it before it started but they didn't, instead they are probably intercepting the comms of some guy selling tinnys out the back of his house.

>government security agencies are a joke

I don't agree with the "you can be a terrorist without technology, therefore there is no point in electronic surveillance" argument. It's a bit like saying "you can hold up an airliner without a gun (ever had a broken wine bottle shoved in your face?) therefore there is no point in screening passengers for guns".

Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Not thinking like a terrorist\criminal are you. Even if its harder to go low tech you always take the lowest tech option available to minimize chance of being caught. The problem with people who make laws and the misguided people that support them is they DONT think from the criminals point of view, they think from one of only 3 views

1) this legislation will further my own agenda (more power\control, more money, career climbing)
2) this legislation make me feel safe
3) this legislation makes me look like i'm doing something

I love using firearms legislation for example as between Australia, NZ and the US Anti crowd there are so many gems that support the above (far to many to list here)...but this type of legislation is slowing permeating through many other areas as well that affect our lives

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1200464 19-Dec-2014 11:21

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

Taking it seriously means nothing if you aren't doing something meaningful to address it. This is why government and their agencies are always busy taking things seriously and coming up with meaningless ineffective guff to address it (at the tax payers expense)

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

Feel free people to continue adding other examples

Lots of action but what results ??? How long are we going to tolerate this level of uselessness from our government ?

This nonsense is a topic for a different thread

I love how your comments digress to the above when someone makes a well constructed post. Feel free to come up with a decent counter argument rather than. Government knows best herpy derp.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1200468 19-Dec-2014 11:23

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

Taking it seriously means nothing if you aren't doing something meaningful to address it. This is why government and their agencies are always busy taking things seriously and coming up with meaningless ineffective guff to address it (at the tax payers expense)

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

Feel free people to continue adding other examples

Lots of action but what results ??? How long are we going to tolerate this level of uselessness from our government ?

This nonsense is a topic for a different thread

I love how your comments digress to the above when someone makes a well constructed post. Feel free to come up with a decent counter argument rather than. Government knows best herpy derp.

None of these......

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

have diddly to do with the topic here lets move on and drop these and the ever recurrent fireams laws stuff. Make another thread if you want to pursue that.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1200469 19-Dec-2014 11:25

shk292: Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Except that it does place undue restrictions on liberties, and it's highly unlikely to help in the battle against terrorism.

Firstly, we already have the laws and the tools to spy on people, but a judge needs to be convinced of a threat before that can happen. Mass spying laws don't make the actual spying easier (in fact, they probably make it harder), but what they are saying they will do is help to IDENTIFY people that should be watched more closely.

There are many problems with that. In order to process that much information, you have to rely on computers and algorithms. This greatly increases the change that innocent people are picked up and flagged simply because of a set of circumstances that someone has decided might indicate terrorism. The laws then allow that person to be more closely monitored (have their privacy invaded) without any checks and balances to ensure they are a genuine threat.

The approach also relies on the algorithms being right, and constantly being adapted to changes in 'terrorist' behaviour. Basically, it would be so hard to get right, and if it wasn't right, it's as good as useless.

All the while every single citizen has their privacy invaded for nothing, and risk someone in government (now or in the future) using that information for other purposes if they desire.

Twitter: ajobbins

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1200470 19-Dec-2014 11:28

ajobbins:
shk292: Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Except that it does place undue restrictions on liberties, and it's highly unlikely to help in the battle against terrorism.

Firstly, we already have the laws and the tools to spy on people, but a judge needs to be convinced of a threat before that can happen. Mass spying laws don't make the actual spying easier (in fact, they probably make it harder), but what they are saying they will do is help to IDENTIFY people that should be watched more closely.

There are many problems with that. In order to process that much information, you have to rely on computers and algorithms. This greatly increases the change that innocent people are picked up and flagged simply because of a set of circumstances that someone has decided might indicate terrorism. The laws then allow that person to be more closely monitored (have their privacy invaded) without any checks and balances to ensure they are a genuine threat.

The approach also relies on the algorithms being right, and constantly being adapted to changes in 'terrorist' behaviour. Basically, it would be so hard to get right, and if it wasn't right, it's as good as useless.

All the while every single citizen has their privacy invaded for nothing, and risk someone in government (now or in the future) using that information for other purposes if they desire.

"Every single citizen has their privacy invaded"..... really!!!!!! I take it the Government is employing 75,000+ new staff to deal with this. Guess what you and I are just not important enough.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1200471 19-Dec-2014 11:32

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

Taking it seriously means nothing if you aren't doing something meaningful to address it. This is why government and their agencies are always busy taking things seriously and coming up with meaningless ineffective guff to address it (at the tax payers expense)

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

Feel free people to continue adding other examples

Lots of action but what results ??? How long are we going to tolerate this level of uselessness from our government ?

This nonsense is a topic for a different thread

I love how your comments digress to the above when someone makes a well constructed post. Feel free to come up with a decent counter argument rather than. Government knows best herpy derp.

None of these......

Where do we start
- 1kmh speed tolerance
- 1.5m passing distance around cyclists
- anti smacking law
- thumbhole stock on a rifle = pistol grip therefore its an MSSA
- a ton of other useless firearms laws aimed at legal owners (real dumb stuff) email me for a list.
- Hamilton city council public safety act, $20,000 fine for homeless people peeing in public

have diddly to do with the topic here lets move on and drop these and the ever recurrent fireams laws stuff. Make another thread if you want to pursue that.

The topic is "bad legislation" namely your prized Survelliance Laws, in order to make conclusions about 1 new law you need to look at other bad legislation to make the case that Government are realllllly good at coming up with bad legislation.

You would have us believe they are perfect and dont get it wrong, and all their legislation has good intention for protecting us poor little people.

Newsflash buddy, its not all good, and in fact some of it is so stupid and self serving its borderline criminal to waste tax payer money coming up with such tripe.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1200488 19-Dec-2014 11:37

KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
shk292: Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Except that it does place undue restrictions on liberties, and it's highly unlikely to help in the battle against terrorism.

Firstly, we already have the laws and the tools to spy on people, but a judge needs to be convinced of a threat before that can happen. Mass spying laws don't make the actual spying easier (in fact, they probably make it harder), but what they are saying they will do is help to IDENTIFY people that should be watched more closely.

There are many problems with that. In order to process that much information, you have to rely on computers and algorithms. This greatly increases the change that innocent people are picked up and flagged simply because of a set of circumstances that someone has decided might indicate terrorism. The laws then allow that person to be more closely monitored (have their privacy invaded) without any checks and balances to ensure they are a genuine threat.

The approach also relies on the algorithms being right, and constantly being adapted to changes in 'terrorist' behaviour. Basically, it would be so hard to get right, and if it wasn't right, it's as good as useless.

All the while every single citizen has their privacy invaded for nothing, and risk someone in government (now or in the future) using that information for other purposes if they desire.

"Every single citizen has their privacy invaded"..... really!!!!!! I take it the Government is employing 75,000+ new staff to deal with this. Guess what you and I are just not important enough.

Ever heard of a computer ?? they can process massive amounts of information and come up with tight lists of people....doesn't necessarily have to be for terrorist reasons either. They were doing a Colmar brunton poll the other day over phone for "Cash Jobs" imagine you answered it under Colmar Bruntons privacy only to have IRD on your back because government decided that had to have that info...nothing to do with terrorism...but can be misused.

What about finding people with Anti Government sentiment ?? easy as, search Geekzone and find me....its my democratic right to have differing views to elected elite (I didnt vote for them), could try and make my life difficult or paint me as someone im not because I dont agree with their half baked policies.

Oh but no...you say...our elected superiors only have our best interests at heart, they are competent and would never misuse power or make bad legislation would they now ?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1200496 19-Dec-2014 11:49

heylinb4nz:

Ever heard of a computer ?? they can process massive amounts of information and come up with tight lists of people....doesn't necessarily have to be for terrorist reasons either. They were doing a Colmar brunton poll the other day over phone for "Cash Jobs" imagine you answered it under Colmar Bruntons privacy only to have IRD on your back because government decided that had to have that info...nothing to do with terrorism...but can be misused.

What about finding people with Anti Government sentiment ?? easy as, search Geekzone and find me....its my democratic right to have differing views to elected elite (I didnt vote for them), could try and make my life difficult or paint me as someone im not because I dont agree with their half baked policies.

Oh but no...you say...our elected superiors only have our best interests at heart, they are competent and would never misuse power or make bad legislation would they now ?

Goodbye / ignore

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1200500 19-Dec-2014 11:51

ajobbins:
shk292: Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Except that it does place undue restrictions on liberties, and it's highly unlikely to help in the battle against terrorism.

Firstly, we already have the laws and the tools to spy on people, but a judge needs to be convinced of a threat before that can happen. Mass spying laws don't make the actual spying easier (in fact, they probably make it harder), but what they are saying they will do is help to IDENTIFY people that should be watched more closely.

There are many problems with that. In order to process that much information, you have to rely on computers and algorithms. This greatly increases the change that innocent people are picked up and flagged simply because of a set of circumstances that someone has decided might indicate terrorism. The laws then allow that person to be more closely monitored (have their privacy invaded) without any checks and balances to ensure they are a genuine threat. .

Now I'm going to ask the "so what?" question. So, I'm flagged as a potential terrorist because I'm discussing blowing up a base. I'm surveilled and it turns out I'm discussing BF4 strategies. Surveillance stops. So what?

ajobbins: The approach also relies on the algorithms being right, and constantly being adapted to changes in 'terrorist' behaviour. Basically, it would be so hard to get right, and if it wasn't right, it's as good as useless.

what are these assertions based on? Are you an expert in electronic surveillance and artificial intelligence algorithms? Or just making stuff up?

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1200517 19-Dec-2014 12:05

heylinb4nz:
shk292:
connector: tl;dr all the replys but i think if there is anything the sydney seige has taught us it's that mass surveillance doesn't work. Australia had the power to intercept this guys comms and had every reason to, could have stopped it before it started but they didn't, instead they are probably intercepting the comms of some guy selling tinnys out the back of his house.

>government security agencies are a joke

I don't agree with the "you can be a terrorist without technology, therefore there is no point in electronic surveillance" argument. It's a bit like saying "you can hold up an airliner without a gun (ever had a broken wine bottle shoved in your face?) therefore there is no point in screening passengers for guns".

Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Not thinking like a terrorist\criminal are you. Even if its harder to go low tech you always take the lowest tech option available to minimize chance of being caught. The problem with people who make laws and the misguided people that support them is they DONT think from the criminals point of view, they think from one of only 3 views

1) this legislation will further my own agenda (more power\control, more money, career climbing)
2) this legislation make me feel safe
3) this legislation makes me look like i'm doing something

Wow, your omniscient knowledge about terrorists' methods seems matched only by your paranoia and distrust of the goverment. So terrorists and thieves "always use lowest tech available" do they? They'd never spend thousands of dollars learning to fly airliners for instance, when they could use a truck bomb? They'd never use VHS timer circuits when a simple mechanical fuse would do? They'd never send emails when they could send a letter? They'd never hack a website when they could spray paint a building?

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1200521 19-Dec-2014 12:22

shk292:
heylinb4nz:
shk292:
connector: tl;dr all the replys but i think if there is anything the sydney seige has taught us it's that mass surveillance doesn't work. Australia had the power to intercept this guys comms and had every reason to, could have stopped it before it started but they didn't, instead they are probably intercepting the comms of some guy selling tinnys out the back of his house.

>government security agencies are a joke

I don't agree with the "you can be a terrorist without technology, therefore there is no point in electronic surveillance" argument. It's a bit like saying "you can hold up an airliner without a gun (ever had a broken wine bottle shoved in your face?) therefore there is no point in screening passengers for guns".

Electronic surveillance makes planning and executing significant terror acts much harder. It will detect a proportion of attacks that would otherwise not be detected. Sure, it's not perfect but if it helps in the battle against terrorists without placing undue restrictions on liberties, then it sounds like a good idea.

Not thinking like a terrorist\criminal are you. Even if its harder to go low tech you always take the lowest tech option available to minimize chance of being caught. The problem with people who make laws and the misguided people that support them is they DONT think from the criminals point of view, they think from one of only 3 views

1) this legislation will further my own agenda (more power\control, more money, career climbing)
2) this legislation make me feel safe
3) this legislation makes me look like i'm doing something

Wow, your omniscient knowledge about terrorists' methods seems matched only by your paranoia and distrust of the goverment. So terrorists and thieves "always use lowest tech available" do they? They'd never spend thousands of dollars learning to fly airliners for instance, when they could use a truck bomb? They'd never use VHS timer circuits when a simple mechanical fuse would do? They'd never send emails when they could send a letter? They'd never hack a website when they could spray paint a building?

9/11 happened in a country that spends NZs entire GDP on security, and they couldnt stop it. Hell they have trouble stopping even the most obvious threat right under their noses.

Why do we keep giving government more and more money and more power to effective blumble about like a bunch of bafoons ?. They seems no end of people willing to wholesale all their other fellow citizens rights away to achieve whatever.

MrJonathanNZ

54 posts

Master Geek

#1200554 19-Dec-2014 13:20

Geektastic:
freitasm:
And for every fanatical who draws attention to himself there will be ones who don't. After Sydney it appears the known ones are equally as dangerous.

The ones that don't are probably using burner phones, in person meetings etc anyway. The terrorist events of late (Sydney, Boston etc) were not cases of targets not being able to be identified by other means, but the failure of intelligence and security agencies to appropriately respond to a threat. Why on earth would we give these incompetent agencies even more power, when they can't even get it right when it's staring them in the face?

So true. Both Boston and Sydney perpetrators have been flagged before and both were let go by the authorities who had ALREADY everything they needed to get a warrant and keep them locked up or under surveillance.

New laws won't make this easier. New laws will not automatically upgrade the slow brains behind implementation.

The problem is society is very wet.

If we lock up bad people as a pre-emptive measure, they suddenly take advantage of the rights the democracy that they despise has given them so that we end up releasing them...!

You can't use pre-emptive and democracy in the same sentence when it pertains to law.
In a democratic society every person is innocent until proven guilty, using pre-emptive detention means that someone is guilty before their innocence can be proven by court of law.
To lock someone up for something they "might" do is highly undemocratic.

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