Surveillance - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Forums › Off topic › Surveillance - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

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

3867 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1740002 15-Mar-2017 20:13

blakamin:

If anyone has an interest in what governments can do with data in the future, here's a little history lesson of what one person with some power did to many, many people using old data the govt had gathered previously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Plecker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

This is relatively recent history.

While communication improvements in the last few decades give the ability to shine more light on abhorrent state/government behaviour, events of recent years show this does not eliminate the behaviour.

Syria had a reasonably modern society, and its government has dropped chemical weapons on its citizens. Any citizen with a digital footprint there that may have even passing links to the rebellion would likely have cause for significant concern.
Ukraine has a modern society. They were invaded by a larger neighbour and world leaders issued some strongly worded letters to the invaders. Would the new 'owners' of the country tread lightly with existing state-harvested metadata?
The USA has a modern society, and a radical new leader has recently taken steps that a couple of years ago I would have thought just would never be possible.

If a Trump-like figure took power in NZ would I want him to be able to troll through the last couple of years of my digital footprints? Absolutely not.

If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11817449

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Referral links to services I use, really like, and may be rewarded if you sign up:
PocketSmith for budgeting and personal finance management. A great Kiwi company.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1740003 15-Mar-2017 20:14

muppet:

"There are at least four good reasons to reject this argument solidly and uncompromisingly: The rules may change, it’s not you who determine if you’re guilty, laws must be broken for society to progress, and privacy is a basic human need."

- Debunking The Dangerous "If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear"

Two more reasons:

Do you trust the government to not get you mixed up with someone else who perhaps does have something to hide (perhaps similar name, birth date, address, ...)?

Do you believe the government is competent enough to keep information private?

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1740007 15-Mar-2017 20:23

Dynamic:

blakamin:

If anyone has an interest in what governments can do with data in the future, here's a little history lesson of what one person with some power did to many, many people using old data the govt had gathered previously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Plecker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

This is relatively recent history.

While communication improvements in the last few decades give the ability to shine more light on abhorrent state/government behaviour, events of recent years show this does not eliminate the behaviour.

Syria had a reasonably modern society, and its government has dropped chemical weapons on its citizens. Any citizen with a digital footprint there that may have even passing links to the rebellion would likely have cause for significant concern.
Ukraine has a modern society. They were invaded by a larger neighbour and world leaders issued some strongly worded letters to the invaders. Would the new 'owners' of the country tread lightly with existing state-harvested metadata?
The USA has a modern society, and a radical new leader has recently taken steps that a couple of years ago I would have thought just would never be possible.

If a Trump-like figure took power in NZ would I want him to be able to troll through the last couple of years of my digital footprints? Absolutely not.

If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11817449

Yeah... 150+ years of BS all up, since he used data going back to the early 1800's to ruin peoples lives until recently.

That Dunedin thing is a WTF moment. Scary.

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1740072 15-Mar-2017 22:08

networkn:

dafman:

And in response to your second question, I might be. Or someone just like me, which is why I asked the question. Delving deep through your private digital life because I'm legally entitled/tasked to.

And you are comfortable with this?

I'm not.

I have no problem with targeted surveillance with just cause, but blanket surveillance, no.

Yes, if you are appointed by an appropriate Authority and do so in line with appropriate guidelines, with reasonable grounds (you believe I pose a threat to the country or it's citizens, with some evidence), you are most welcome to Surveil me.

None of this is what the OP was about. The Police made an error and this caused untold misery for this poor guy. Even after that do I think that surveillance is necessary? Yes I do.

If you disagree, make sure you vote for a party or move to a country that promises they will not surveil you.. Oh wait...

I interpreted your earlier posts as defending blanket surveillance of all civilians by government. Perhaps incorrectly - your comments above clarify that you think surveillance should only occur where there are reasonable grounds that someone poses a threat to the country or citizens. We agree.

Torque

379 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1740087 15-Mar-2017 22:23

scuwp:
My thoughts are along similar lines to @andrewNZ. Coming from my past life in law enforcement; if the average NZ punter actually knew what went on after dark they would lock themselves in a well stocked safe room and never come out. Sitting at home in their comfy houses all tucked up nice and tight choosing their next binge series to watch, oblivious to the different world outside that only some get to truly see and experience, some sadly as victims. I see it as a necessity in this era however there needs to be checks, balances, and controls on what or who can act on that information.

Agree to a point, but largely unrelated to the discussion about surveillance.

MikeB4:
The various Government services that may use surveillance have small resources and as such they need to narrowly target their activities. The reality is they have no interest in me and the vast majority of the citizens of Aotearoa.

This. Blanket surveillance isn't that resource intensive (in the relative sense), targeted surveillance is.

Dynamic:

If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes

Did his occupation/nature of employment allow him access to any information/data not otherwise publically obtainable? If not, occupation is no more relevant than if he were an IT Professional or a plumber for instance.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1740112 16-Mar-2017 03:28

MikeB4:

The various Government services that may use surveillance have small resources and as such they need to narrowly target their activities. The reality is they have no interest in me and the vast majority of the citizens of Aotearoa.

Until they do.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1740161 16-Mar-2017 09:46

blakamin:

Dynamc: If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11817449

That Dunedin thing is a WTF moment. Scary.

While I completely agree with 'that Dunedin thing is a WTF moment' it is something *anyone* could do, that it's a [rogue] government employee is more of a happenstance. There's been no misuse of government information identified in that article and it has absolutely zero to do with mass surveillance.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1740183 16-Mar-2017 10:58

Another aspect that has to be considered is where surveillance takes place.

The threshold for deploying surveillance equipment to monitor activity within private property should be very high.

Tracing back illegal material or activity conducted over the internet back to a private dwelling via a correct IP address is more acceptable. No different than tracing a threatening phone call.

But again, this has to lead to an investigation that identifies an individual before any arrest is contemplated, not an individual arrested based on demographic assumptions.

Mike

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1740434 16-Mar-2017 18:08

IcI:

@scuwp: ... oblivious to the different world outside ...

Unfortunately, NZ media publishers don't help the situation. There really is not enough media coverage of international events.

And there is often way too much coverage of local events. This can give rise to a distorted perception of what is happening.

For example a murder enquiry, the news covers it day after day after day until a few days after an arrest, then they cover it day after day after day for the trial and then day after day after day for sentencing, then again at any parole hearings etc etc etc. This can give the perception that there is a LOT of murder as opposed to the one, distorting people perceptions.

A good example of this is terrorism, if you remove 9/11 as a statistical anomaly the death rate in the USA due to terrorists over the last 20 years (or longer) is lower than people killed by lightening, by sharks, or by vending machines falling on them. And it pales into insignificance to the number of Americans Murdered each year by Americans, over 15,000 each year, which in its self is insignificant compared to the number of people who die because of medical errors (well over 200,000 a year IIRC).

If they REALLY wanted to save lives, they would surveil the doctors.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1740493 16-Mar-2017 20:11

Dratsab:

blakamin:

Dynamc: If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11817449

That Dunedin thing is a WTF moment. Scary.

While I completely agree with 'that Dunedin thing is a WTF moment' it is something *anyone* could do, that it's a [rogue] government employee is more of a happenstance. There's been no misuse of government information identified in that article and it has absolutely zero to do with mass surveillance.

Totally, but it makes you wonder what would happen if a d-head like that DID have access....

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1740546 16-Mar-2017 22:29

blakamin:

Dratsab:

blakamin:

Dynamc: If I manage to annoy a government employee could that place me at risk? Apparently in NZ the answer is yes. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11817449

That Dunedin thing is a WTF moment. Scary.

While I completely agree with 'that Dunedin thing is a WTF moment' it is something *anyone* could do, that it's a [rogue] government employee is more of a happenstance. There's been no misuse of government information identified in that article and it has absolutely zero to do with mass surveillance.

Totally, but it makes you wonder what would happen if a d-head like that DID have access....

Who says he didn't?

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1740577 17-Mar-2017 06:23

This whole argument is BS.

Most of the posters here will post more damning information on a public forum than surveillance will ever pickup then cry "oh my privacy is being invaded" when someone snaps them going through a red light or speeding.

Really... Get over it. If one violent criminal is captured by a slight, and mostly unknown invasion of my privacy that has been a good day.

And to the OP if you want to ask that question at least link to an article that has the situation you are referring to, i.e. an innocent that was watched and that caused then to be convicted of a crime they were not guilty of.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1740578 17-Mar-2017 06:38

dickytim:
Most of the posters here will post more damning information on a public forum than surveillance will ever pickup then cry "oh my privacy is being invaded" when someone snaps them going through a red light or speeding.

Pretty sure that's the opposite of this thread, from either side of the debate.

SaltyNZ

8232 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1740624 17-Mar-2017 09:14

PaulBags:
dickytim:

Most of the posters here will post more damning information on a public forum than surveillance will ever pickup then cry "oh my privacy is being invaded" when someone snaps them going through a red light or speeding.

Pretty sure that's the opposite of this thread, from either side of the debate.

Indeed. There are reasonable arguments to be made for both points of view, and that one isn't any of them. It serves only to distract from the real issues.

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

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1740647 17-Mar-2017 10:38

dickytim:

This whole argument is BS.

Most of the posters here will post more damning information on a public forum than surveillance will ever pickup then cry "oh my privacy is being invaded" when someone snaps them going through a red light or speeding.

Really... Get over it. If one violent criminal is captured by a slight, and mostly unknown invasion of my privacy that has been a good day.

And to the OP if you want to ask that question at least link to an article that has the situation you are referring to, i.e. an innocent that was watched and that caused then to be convicted of a crime they were not guilty of.

If you had read past the first post, you would have found the link. Apart from that, you are missing the point. What people put up on public fora is what they choose to reveal. That choice is absent when you are subjected to mass surveillance.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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