I have nothing to hide and that is my problem. I don't want the neighbours to know.

MikeB4: I have nothing to hide however if the Government wants to know that they should prove to a Judge that they need to know. Then there is oversight and a record. Fishing trips without reasonable cause have no place in a democracy.

I agree with this. I don't mind being put under surveillance if a warrant was gained, showing reason.

networkn:

 

 

 

I agree with this. I don't mind being put under surveillance if a warrant was gained, showing reason.

 

You mean like the warrant that started this thread? Welcome to your new life as a sex criminal.

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

 

 

I agree with this. I don't mind being put under surveillance if a warrant was gained, showing reason.

 

 

You mean like the warrant that started this thread? Welcome to your new life as a sex criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that was horrible, I feel for the guy. it made for sombering reading. However, if we stopped issuing warrants and taking down crooks, because of a few cases that go wrong, the harm to society would be much higher. 

I believe that accusations for sex crimes should be handled MUCH more carefully. Obviously it's critical to protect the potential victim, but wow, the accused's life is basically over no matter the outcome too. There will always be those who think "where there is smoke there is fire".

60K GBP doesn't seem a lot for what they put him through I don't think, but not sure you could EVER find enough money to compensate him. Maybe if they relocated him and his family to another country and he could start over. 

networkn:

 

However, if we stopped issuing warrants and taking down crooks, because of a few cases that go wrong, the harm to society would be much higher. 

 

Actually, I agree with you on this. There are special cases where surveillance is warranted (no pun intended) and necessary. I do have an issue with the blind faith assumption of many people that if something comes from an 'authority', that is all you need to trust it. Experience has repeatedly shown that authority is not to be trusted. It needs to be constantly challenged, questioned and held to account. People make mistakes, but when the mistake, whether malicious or not, is from people acting for a State authority, the consequences of it can be huge for the victims. That is why we need robust checks and balances.

Dynamic:

 

I came across the article linked below this morning which, while not directly related to indiscriminate government surveillance, gives an example of how a completely innocent party's life has been left in tatters (along with members of his extended family) due to law enforcement officials 'getting it wrong' in one form or another.

 

gzt:

Dynamic:

 

I came across the article linked below this morning which, while not directly related to indiscriminate government surveillance, gives an example of how a completely innocent party's life has been left in tatters (along with members of his extended family) due to law enforcement officials 'getting it wrong' in one form or another.

 

I'm amazed the compensation was so low. Approx NZ$120K.

Same. My biggest fear, or consequence would be not being able to see my kids. I think that would literally kill me. The thought of it makes me feel like being sick. I don't think any amount of money could compensate me for that.

networkn: My biggest fear, or consequence would be not being able to see my kids. I think that would literally kill me. The thought of it makes me feel like being sick. I don't think any amount of money could compensate me for that.

That's exactly what I was thinking, and why I started this thread when I saw that article.

I don't see how police can realistically justify the arrest of any individual based on a household IP address ...

Search and seizure, would have been justified if they'd had the right IP address.

Another reason to not be excessively trusting of authority is that the people 'in charge' often get swept up in the panic de jour. In the case cited in this thread, it was the overreaction caused by the Jimmy Saville episode in the UK. Here we had our own 'day care sexual abuse hysteria' with the Peter Ellis case. If he really is innocent, what a travesty. How would you like to be in his shoes? Even if he is not, 99% of what was being spouted at the time is patent nonsense. The children just said what they thought their incompetent questioners wanted to hear. 

scuwp:

 

How much has been prevented by effective use of surveillance and measured actions taken responsibly?  This is rarely published...

 

Indeed, because 'national security'. Which is a pretty weak argument, really. The smart crooks assume they're being watched without being told. The dumb ones will still do dumb stuff even if you tell them not to.

There are plenty of people who can demonstrate the basic maths to show that blanket surveillance and profiling doesn't work (for example, this page) as it simply throws up an enormous load of false positives when you look for something rare, even if your test is unreasonably accurate. In the first example, if 1% of people are sick, there is only a 50% chance that a positive result is true. Consider terrorists - how many are there in NZ? A 1% chance implies 45,000 terrorists in NZ, which is surely rubbish. Let's assume there are "only" 450 terrorists in NZ ... In that case, a positive result from this 99% effective test is only 0.5% likely to yield a true terrorist.

And that's why we don't publish the effectiveness of blanket surveillance. Because if the public knew that 99.5% of the information it provided was rubbish, they'd demand we did something more useful with all that money instead.

And as a counterpoint, there were plenty of terrorists for which specific knowledge was already available, and yet they were not stopped. The 9/11 hijackers were known to authorities, the FBI was tipped off about the underpants bomber by his father, Russian security warned the FBI about the Boston Marathon bombers, and the French and Belgian attackers were already known and in some cases previously convicted.

But if maths - and the available evidence - are all wrong, then all that doubt and misinformation can be easily dispelled. Tell us who you caught.

Trust is earned, not demanded. I would do what the law requires me to do, but I see no reason to trust any service - even a government one - that simply demands I trust them just because and refuses to do anything to show they deserve it.

SaltyNZ:

 

 

 

Many +1's.

Rikkitic:

 

SaltyNZ:

 

 

 

 

Many +1's.

 

 

 

I wish I could -1 many times :-)