GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 48

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41044

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864396 23-Jul-2013 16:13

SaltyNZ:
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.

But you can't refuse to tell the government. Actually you won't even know the government is looking over your shoulder, until it's time for the noose to tighten.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Everyone's loyalties should be to the country (and Queen), not to the government. Governments change at the whim of the people, unless they take power by force.

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.

bradstewart

4338 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864397 23-Jul-2013 16:13

networkn:
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.

That's such a lazy argument to make. Your disagreement with very valid concerns of others does not render them invalid nor worthy of such cheap dismissal.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864398 23-Jul-2013 16:13

SaltyNZ:
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.

That is SO not the point. Clearly there is no reasoning with you, so I won't waste my day trying.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#864399 23-Jul-2013 16:14

And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#864404 23-Jul-2013 16:17

TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

How can you ensure that and prove that ?

It can be proved that information has been misused, it is very hard to prove it has not. Therefore there needs to be checks and balances, oversight and redress.

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41044

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864408 23-Jul-2013 16:18

TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

Not if they change the rules. Not if they have a rogue employee.

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.

Dell

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

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#864413 23-Jul-2013 16:21

Wow you have to be kidding right. We're not talking about walking into the bank are we. This is your online security.

Do you think that when you gave your security questions to the bank they write it on a piece of paper and store it away??? Come on you are an intelligent man but we've not had to use a lot more than a pin number and a few identifiers to even walk into a bank to get money out even without photo identification (which I should point out takes only a birth cert and IRD number to start the process of getting).

If they have access to your account information they have access to your account and it's a case of if and when it is found out (not everyone actually checks bank balances every day). You are correct like I said you are covered and when it is found out then yes eventually it will be refunded and put right. Do you think when a creditor is asking why you've not paid your bills they're just simply going to believe you might have been hacked or had a civil servant misuse their position they're more likely to think and believe that you are the one who are making up excuses.

Do I think or believe that this is likely to happen not really but it doesn't change that it does and can at times.

No tin hat here but thanks for the insult I'm just being a realist and yes you are correct there is a lot more things I worry about every day than this but that does not change that I have a right to privacy it is a basic human right and to flippantly give away that right is not ok.

As my earlier post stated I do support greater powers but not in this state and no one should. The NZ legal system has a lot of flaws I do not believe that making another huge one will make things better. You really are supporting a ambulance at the bottom of the hill here. Shame you can't see that it needs a review to be one before implementation not afterwards.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9544

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#864414 23-Jul-2013 16:21

TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

Have you by any chance actually read the bill? The Minister - the Prime Minister - is completely in charge, and whatever he says, goes, as long as he says it is necessary for the purposes of security. Or at least it was; I admit not having read a new draft based on the changes announced in the news this morning yet. It certainly doesn't sound like those changes mean the oversight has any more real teeth than the previous version, but I should in fairness read it first.

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

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

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864415 23-Jul-2013 16:22

bradstewart:
networkn:
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.

That's such a lazy argument to make. Your disagreement with very valid concerns of others does not render them invalid nor worthy of such cheap dismissal.

I don't consider it lazy, I don't consider their concerns valid considering all the existing information the government has access to and has done for years. I don't consider it valid compared to all the much more likely scenarios of data breach that exist every day.

doozy

245 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Trusted

#864417 23-Jul-2013 16:23

TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

You know what ... with the amount of 'data breaches' from govt agencies in the past year, I am not even remotely comfortable with this. Too much data already accidentally ends up in the hands of the public now. I also would seriously question the skills of those involved in maintaining any sort of database where this information is stored, one screwed up data entry/table and bam, your name ends up with the details of, who knows ... someone else posting in this thread.

Tarawera Ultra 2015 done, bring on 2016

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864419 23-Jul-2013 16:25

SaltyNZ:
TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

Have you by any chance actually read the bill? The Minister - the Prime Minister - is completely in charge, and whatever he says, goes, as long as he says it is necessary for the purposes of security. Or at least it was; I admit not having read a new draft based on the changes announced in the news this morning yet. It certainly doesn't sound like those changes mean the oversight has any more real teeth than the previous version, but I should in fairness read it first.

So what? In every investigation there has to be a person who makes the decisions about what and how data is collected. I despise Helen Clarke, but still would have been ok if she had been the person responsible for making that decision.

Not one person has given a valid argument against the collection of this data and how it disadvantages me significantly compared to the potential to ensure criminals are able to be more properly prosecuted.

HP

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41044

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#864421 23-Jul-2013 16:26

Good point. EQC emails leaking information, ACC databases leaked, public WINZ kiosks with access to internal documents and databases.

Sure, I feel safe already knowing the government has the best track record in security and data protection.

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.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9544

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#864424 23-Jul-2013 16:27

networkn:

I don't consider it lazy, I don't consider their concerns valid considering all the existing information the government has access to and has done for years. I don't consider it valid compared to all the much more likely scenarios of data breach that exist every day.

Yes, but the actual point you seem to be missing is that in all other cases where there is a potential for privacy breach, you get to choose whether or not to risk it. Think Facebook is selling your info? Don't be on Facebook. Think the banks are selling you purchasing history to advertisers? Switch banks, hell, use cash. All those other potentials still give you a choice. Granted sometimes it's not a great one, but the choice is still yours.

You have no choice but to give the government anything they are authorised to take. If you even get the choice - as Mauricio said, in many cases the fact that the information is being taken from you will be secret anyway - then you will simply be fined, imprisoned or whatever until you give in.

Those other cases I mentioned earlier might have had 'happy endings' as you put it - although the woman who was perved at is no less perved at just because the guy was caught - but if the power hadn't been there in the first place there would not need to be a story with any ending, happy or otherwise.

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

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

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 555

#864434 23-Jul-2013 16:30

doozy:
TheUngeek: And there goes the incorrect common argument from the opposed.
Government law enforcement agencies are all that see the info. Not the public not ministers etc

You know what ... with the amount of 'data breaches' from govt agencies in the past year, I am not even remotely comfortable with this. Too much data already accidentally ends up in the hands of the public now. I also would seriously question the skills of those involved in maintaining any sort of database where this information is stored, one screwed up data entry/table and bam, your name ends up with the details of, who knows ... someone else posting in this thread.

Best you go find a nice comfy cave then, because this is the real world and bad things happen in it ... some things you just have to trust people a little, 99.9% of the time everything works.

You know that a lot of the major systems around the country (government and private) are run by by people who come here ?

Hands up who can crash the NZ economy while sitting on the loo with their laptop! ;-)

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#864437 23-Jul-2013 16:34

SaltyNZ:
networkn:

I don't consider it lazy, I don't consider their concerns valid considering all the existing information the government has access to and has done for years. I don't consider it valid compared to all the much more likely scenarios of data breach that exist every day.

Yes, but the actual point you seem to be missing is that in all other cases where there is a potential for privacy breach, you get to choose whether or not to risk it. Think Facebook is selling your info? Don't be on Facebook. Think the banks are selling you purchasing history to advertisers? Switch banks, hell, use cash. All those other potentials still give you a choice. Granted sometimes it's not a great one, but the choice is still yours.

You have no choice but to give the government anything they are authorised to take. If you even get the choice - as Mauricio said, in many cases the fact that the information is being taken from you will be secret anyway - then you will simply be fined, imprisoned or whatever until you give in.

Those other cases I mentioned earlier might have had 'happy endings' as you put it - although the woman who was perved at is no less perved at just because the guy was caught - but if the power hadn't been there in the first place there would not need to be a story with any ending, happy or otherwise.

You DO have a choice, you could leave New Zealand, or vote in a party who won't do this to you. Oh Wait.....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 48