GCSB

Forums › Off topic › GCSB

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

2816 posts

Uber Geek

#693815 30-Sep-2012 22:49

networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous"

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

MightyApe

You will find anything you want at MightyApe (affiliate link).

Brendan

707 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#693816 30-Sep-2012 22:56

JimmyH:
networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

You are wasting your time Jimmy. Pearls before swine.

networkn

Networkn
30201 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#693817 30-Sep-2012 22:56

JimmyH:
networkn:

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous"

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

No I am not trolling, this is how I feel, and there is a difference between posting my details for EVERYONE to see, and knowing that security agencies from various countries CAN look IF they want to.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#693918 1-Oct-2012 09:52

TheUngeek: How so? Remembering this is nz and not a dictatorship ;)

This has been thoroughly proven to be an incorrect statement. Try a Google search next time ;)

The proposition that no person free of guilt has anything to hide can simply be disproven by requesting your credit card statements for the previous year, your internet banking information (customer number & password), your masturbation habits (times/frequencies/stimuli) and a naked photograph. If you're happy to provide these then I'm sure the internet can find something you are not happy to provide ;)

For information on specific fallacies this idea appears in, you have:

False Dilemma:

"Either one must divulge requested information, or one is guilty."

Affirmation of the Consequent:

1) People who are guilty will withhold information.
2) This person is withholding information.
3) Therefore, this person is guilty. <-- er, nope.

Some arguments against not caring that your privacy could be invaded.

1) You do not set the rules about what you have to 'hide' or be 'guilty' of and they may change.

If you have seen the YouTube video on speaking with the police you will understand the first part of this point well. You have no idea what may be considered 'wrong' or 'dangerous' about your personal life either now or any time in the future. Even the most innocent information may be used at a later time to prosecute you.

Once the rules have been set, how difficult do you think it will be to change them? What about for a special emergency - like the laws rushed into power under the Christchurch state of emergency? Much less difficult than you think.

2) You assume people listening to you have the correct information.

This should be at the forefront of everybody's minds right now. Kim Dotcom was spied upon illegally because of a communication error. A government agency broke the law it is supposed to protect - most likely deliberately because the suspension of belief required for their explanation is incredible. If these kind of 'mistakes' occur when direct governmental approval is required then imagine the mess if they were allowed to access everybody at any time. I'm sure you wouldn't mind having your month disrupted, hauled to prison and every aspect of your life examined because someone with the same birth date as you was overheard plotting to kill John Key. Not to mention the press coverage and your face on every paper/magazine & television. But I'm sure that is fair enough to improve our national security, right?

3) The final argument against providing your personal information to governmental agencies is that it sidesteps the real fallacy: factual innocence being relevant to any kind of prosecution.

The assumption is that a governmental agency monitoring you will find factual evidence proving your innocence for x - therefore you have nothing to fear. This is not true for many people but does not make them guilty of x as a result. This is why for any investigation, a government agent must prove (to a judge) why surveillance is necessary. Any investigator must prove a person's guilt; the accused party does not have to prove their innocence.

Lias

5225 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#693921 1-Oct-2012 09:56

networkn:

No I am not trolling, this is how I feel, and there is a difference between posting my details for EVERYONE to see, and knowing that security agencies from various countries CAN look IF they want to.

Hell I object to the government being allowed to step foot on my property, let alone read all my digital secrets.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#693922 1-Oct-2012 09:58

*sigh*

I don't even know where to start...
Oh yes I do! I'll start with not caring and getting on with life happy in the fact big brother is watching my back :)

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#693931 1-Oct-2012 10:09

Brendan:
...You are wasting your time Jimmy. Pearls before swine.

I don't know if you are seeing fit to model yourself on Jesus - "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." - or if you are you just saying that his advice to keep quiet if you have words of wisdom should be kept to? If the latter, I trust that you will be taking your own advice on board and will be keeping what you consider to be your own pearls of wisdom to yourself.

Alternatively, you could, of course, be referring to the "Pearls of Wisdom" comic strip which is about a dim pig and an arrogant rat. As you have told us thet we are the swine, I would then take it that you are saying that you consider yourself to be the arrogant rat?

Linuxluver

5824 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#694070 1-Oct-2012 12:00

Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.

The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.

Legally spied on.

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#694083 1-Oct-2012 12:16

When yo 'accept' the terms for many of the apps you download to your smart-devices, you are authorising the developers/owner to collect data directly from your device.

You're saying it's OK that they know where you are and who you interact with. You've legalised their spying.
What the difference between (say) apple having access to this information, because you've said it's OK. And a government agency having access to it through a legitimate court order?

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#694107 1-Oct-2012 12:45

Linuxluver:
Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.

The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.

Legally spied on.

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)

Really Linuxluver you must stop this throwing around of activist halftruths or claims with no or unstable foundation.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines legitimate (adjective) as "2. a. Conformable to, sanctioned or authorized by, law or principle; lawful, justifiable; proper."

The verb transitive form carried the same meaning.

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?

Linuxluver

5824 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#694127 1-Oct-2012 13:00

John2010:
Linuxluver:
Jarno:
chevrolux: I think it is bizarre they aren't allowed to spy on NZ residents.

The GCSB is not allowed to spy on NZ residents because that is the job of the SIS. So don't worry, everyone can be legitimately spied on.

Legally spied on.

Legitimately is another issue entirely. :-)

Really Linuxluver you must stop this throwing around of activist halftruths or claims with no or unstable foundation.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines legitimate (adjective) as "2. a. Conformable to, sanctioned or authorized by, law or principle; lawful, justifiable; proper."

The verb transitive form carried the same meaning.

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?

They are not.

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not.

They are not the same in all contexts.

For example, there is no doubt that President Assad in Syria is the legal head of state. But his legitimacy as head of state in Syria is currently under armed, militant dispute.

Legality and legitimacy are not the same.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

networkn

Networkn
30201 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#694134 1-Oct-2012 13:06

They are not.

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not.

They are not the same in all contexts.

Nope in the context of legality which is all this topic is about really, you can't say it's not legitimate when it's legal. You may not LIKE it, which is a completely different thing, but it's legitimate if it's legal.

I think you are confusing the fact it doesn't FEEL right with it's not legitimate.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#694143 1-Oct-2012 13:11

@ Linuxluver

Well, true to form the defense of activists is to rejig reality into a falsehood to suit their beliefs.

But as far as I am concerned you'll have to take it up with the Oxford Dictionary people if you disagree. Let us all know how you get on, but until then I (and I suspect most) will put their lot in with the Dictionary's definition, not yours.

networkn

Networkn
30201 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#694422 1-Oct-2012 18:21

Well I am sure those with tinfoil hats will suggest this review is rigged blah blah but;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837715

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#694466 1-Oct-2012 20:06

oxnsox:
kyhwana2:
1080p: I am interested to know how the paranoid are able to explain how the station in Waihopai is able to capture and process the data transmitted via the Southern Cross cable.

As far as I am aware, the Waihopai station is near Blenheim and the Southern Cross cable lands near Auckand.

See?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells?or?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

There probably is such a room somewhere in Auckland, though i've not heard a sniff of existence about it, since anyone letting it slip would be in loads of trouble.

Why put it in Auckland when you can capture it all at the other end of the cable?
(saves on tinfoil hats too)

Sure, I'm happy to admit you may be right but I am yet to see a single - even theoretical - case in which the encryption I am using may be decrypted by a third 'MitM' party. The SIS/GCSB/NSA/FBI and any other acronym are welcome to my encrypted packets for all the good it will do them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6