Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 48
4644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868497 30-Jul-2013 13:30
2 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: 

Your so called law enforcement is not working




It's working fine. He and his cronies were convicted on charges that could be, you know, proven. And if the police seriously believe he is a real threat to the community then they can get a warrant to spy on him and then use that evidence against him. 

As much I agree with you that he's a nut job, I also have to agree with KiwiNZ that there really doesn't appear to be a case for him to be a particular danger to society. You can be sure the police are keeping tabs on him though - if he starts looking serious I imagine they'll make sure to get it right next time. These 'technicalities' are there for a reason - they stop innocent people being sent to prison.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 868500 30-Jul-2013 13:35
Send private message

Something interesting I saw in Wikipedia

Homegrown or imported terrorism is not new to the United States or Europe. The United States has uncovered a number of alleged terrorist plots that have been successfully suppressed through domestic intelligence and law enforcement. The United States has begun to account for the threat of homegrown terrorism, as shown by increased volume of literature on the subject in recent years and increased number of terrorist websites since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, began posting beheading videos in 2003. A July 2009 document by the FBI estimated that there were roughly 15,000 websites and web forums that support terrorist activities, with around 10,000 of them actively maintained. 80% of these sites are on U.S.-based servers.


Whats the general geekzone viewpoint on this?

Lets just say for a minute, there were a lot of active terrorist type websites right here in New Zealand. On New Zealand based servers.

We had one terror attack right here in Wellington. A few people were blown up in lambton Quay. New Zealad based websites are buzzing with information and possible plots for the next possible bombing.

In a time like this. What more important? Personal online privacy? Or flushing out these terrorist operations?

4644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868506 30-Jul-2013 13:39
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: Something interesting I saw in Wikipedia

Homegrown or imported terrorism is not new to the United States or Europe. The United States has uncovered a number of alleged terrorist plots that have been successfully suppressed through domestic intelligence and law enforcement. The United States has begun to account for the threat of homegrown terrorism, as shown by increased volume of literature on the subject in recent years and increased number of terrorist websites since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, began posting beheading videos in 2003. A July 2009 document by the FBI estimated that there were roughly 15,000 websites and web forums that support terrorist activities, with around 10,000 of them actively maintained. 80% of these sites are on U.S.-based servers.


Whats the general geekzone viewpoint on this?

Lets just say for a minute, there were a lot of active terrorist type websites right here in New Zealand. On New Zealand based servers.

We had one terror attack right here in Wellington. A few people were blown up in lambton Quay. New Zealad based websites are buzzing with information and possible plots for the next possible bombing.

In a time like this. What more important? Personal online privacy? Or flushing out these terrorist operations?


Well if all the web sites were buzzing and some idiot still managed to blow up Lambton Quay after posting about it on Facebook, then blanket surveillance failed again, just like every other time.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 868512 30-Jul-2013 13:41
Send private message

SaltyNZ:

As much I agree with you that he's a nut job, I also have to agree with KiwiNZ that there really doesn't appear to be a case for him to be a particular danger to society. You can be sure the police are keeping tabs on him though - if he starts looking serious I imagine they'll make sure to get it right next time. These 'technicalities' are there for a reason - they stop innocent people being sent to prison.


Interesting point, "technicalities are there for a reason"

In this case, lets say there was substantial evidence available proving him guilty. But that evidence was obtained illegally and therefore not used.

Does that mean he is innocent?

Do you feel its right that the illegally obtained evidence is not used?

Surely evidence is evidence. No matter how obtained? Surely then illegally obtained evidence proving one "not guilty" should also not be used?

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 868514 30-Jul-2013 13:47
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Well if all the web sites were buzzing and some idiot still managed to blow up Lambton Quay after posting about it on Facebook, then blanket surveillance failed again, just like every other time.


That blanket surveillance would not have worked.

As ajobbins mentioned earlier. Government has the power and authority to monitor international communications and threats.

There is no power or authority to monitor threats coming from inside NZ.



13311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6264

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868519 30-Jul-2013 13:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

If websites were "buzzing" with evidence of an attack and it was not picked up on I don't believe anymore powers would have resulted in a different outcome, incompetence multiplied many times is still incompetence. The GCSB has shown it has plenty of that.

As for post attack, the Government already has powers to make executive decisions and declare a state of emergency etc. 




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


4644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868521 30-Jul-2013 13:57
2 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: 

Do you feel its right that the illegally obtained evidence is not used?



There are many reasons why illegally obtained evidence cannot be used, and the rules have been refined over literal centuries to balance the interests of society in the apprehension of criminals with the interests of innocent individuals not to have their persons or properties forcibly invaded. Firstly, having very strict rules around what evidence may be used helps to ensure that the evidence is not tainted. Illegal evidence is much easier to falsify or plant, or accidentally damage or contaminate. False or otherwise bad evidence is much more likely to be detected when very strict rules are followed.

Secondly, the collection of evidence in many cases involves the use of state-sanctioned force against the suspect and/or their property. For example, police with a warrant can break into your house, mess it up, and arrest you if you resist them for doing so. If there were no penalties against improper collection of evidence then police who didn't like you could break into your house at will, mess up you and your stuff, and then leave after 'unfortunately' not finding anything. Damage already done, even if you are completely innocent.

But there are serious penalties for police who do that, and that protects you from them.


We are very lucky in this country that we can trust our police. But they are people just like everyone else, and that is why we have rules in place to limit their powers.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


13311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6264

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868526 30-Jul-2013 14:02
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

As much I agree with you that he's a nut job, I also have to agree with KiwiNZ that there really doesn't appear to be a case for him to be a particular danger to society. You can be sure the police are keeping tabs on him though - if he starts looking serious I imagine they'll make sure to get it right next time. These 'technicalities' are there for a reason - they stop innocent people being sent to prison.


Interesting point, "technicalities are there for a reason"

In this case, lets say there was substantial evidence available proving him guilty. But that evidence was obtained illegally and therefore not used.

Does that mean he is innocent?

Do you feel its right that the illegally obtained evidence is not used?

Surely evidence is evidence. No matter how obtained? Surely then illegally obtained evidence proving one "not guilty" should also not be used?


Enforcement agencies know the rules of evidence, these rules are not secret therefore, there is no excuse for them gaining and trying to use evidence they have obtained illegally.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 868529 30-Jul-2013 14:04
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 

Do you feel its right that the illegally obtained evidence is not used?



There are many reasons why illegally obtained evidence cannot be used, and the rules have been refined over literal centuries to balance the interests of society in the apprehension of criminals with the interests of innocent individuals not to have their persons or properties forcibly invaded. Firstly, having very strict rules around what evidence may be used helps to ensure that the evidence is not tainted. Illegal evidence is much easier to falsify or plant, or accidentally damage or contaminate. False or otherwise bad evidence is much more likely to be detected when very strict rules are followed.

Secondly, the collection of evidence in many cases involves the use of state-sanctioned force against the suspect and/or their property. For example, police with a warrant can break into your house, mess it up, and arrest you if you resist them for doing so. If there were no penalties against improper collection of evidence then police who didn't like you could break into your house at will, mess up you and your stuff, and then leave after 'unfortunately' not finding anything. Damage already done, even if you are completely innocent.

But there are serious penalties for police who do that, and that protects you from them.


We are very lucky in this country that we can trust our police. But they are people just like everyone else, and that is why we have rules in place to limit their powers.


Granted and I agree 100% with you.

Just interested though on your answer. Do you feel its right the illegally obtained evidence is not used? Yes/No?

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user


  Reply # 868534 30-Jul-2013 14:08
Send private message

Klipspringer: Something interesting I saw in Wikipedia

Homegrown or imported terrorism is not new to the United States or Europe. The United States has uncovered a number of alleged terrorist plots that have been successfully suppressed through domestic intelligence and law enforcement. The United States has begun to account for the threat of homegrown terrorism, as shown by increased volume of literature on the subject in recent years and increased number of terrorist websites since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, began posting beheading videos in 2003. A July 2009 document by the FBI estimated that there were roughly 15,000 websites and web forums that support terrorist activities, with around 10,000 of them actively maintained. 80% of these sites are on U.S.-based servers.


Whats the general geekzone viewpoint on this?

Lets just say for a minute, there were a lot of active terrorist type websites right here in New Zealand. On New Zealand based servers.

We had one terror attack right here in Wellington. A few people were blown up in lambton Quay. New Zealad based websites are buzzing with information and possible plots for the next possible bombing.

In a time like this. What more important? Personal online privacy? Or flushing out these terrorist operations?

Privacy is more important. Should we take bloodsamples from EVERYONE everytime they drive a car "just in case". The best way to avoid terrorism is to stop launching missiles at them . Besides do you think a terrorist is going to use an unencrypted connection. ? Which is john keys solution for business communication. The states had sandy hook and boston . Despite 8 years of my, yours and everyone elses emails chats searches etc. Clearly it didnt help. Its ridiculous.

13311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6264

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868549 30-Jul-2013 14:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

Reinforces my comment regarding incompetence

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8981153/Phone-records-given-to-inquiry

These guys are too stupid to be given more power




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


4644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868553 30-Jul-2013 14:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: 

Just interested though on your answer. Do you feel its right the illegally obtained evidence is not used? Yes/No?


Yes, I feel that it is right that illegally obtained evidence should not be used.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 868555 30-Jul-2013 14:18
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 

Just interested though on your answer. Do you feel its right the illegally obtained evidence is not used? Yes/No?


Yes, I feel that it is right that illegally obtained evidence should not be used.


Even to prove innocence?

4644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868556 30-Jul-2013 14:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 

Just interested though on your answer. Do you feel its right the illegally obtained evidence is not used? Yes/No?


Yes, I feel that it is right that illegally obtained evidence should not be used.


Even to prove innocence?


You don't need to prove that you're innocent. The prosecutor needs to prove that you're guilty. You can use whatever evidence you like; it's only the prosecution who are bound to use only legally gathered evidence.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


Awesome
4810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1062

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 868562 30-Jul-2013 14:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

 Klipspringer: But you seem to forget that there are terrorists right here inside New Zealand which we can do nothing about (home grown terrorism) Read back a few pages. Tami Iti and his cronies.


You didn't say domestic terrorism, or even just terrorism. You specifically said international terrorism hence my comment.

Home grown terrorism is one of the biggest threats to America. Boston Marathon Bombings probably the most recent example.


And how well did their 'intelligence' serve them then? How much freedom do you have to give away for 'protection' from the 'bad guys'. And what happens when someone decides you are the 'bad guy'?

Given a bunch of your private information, a bit of time and someone who knows what they are doing I am sure you could make even the most law abiding, good intended citizen look like a master criminal.

Better still if you can remove access to it for every one buy yourself, and then selectively use it as evidence as and where you see fit (even if out of context). Basically what is happening to Kim Dotcom right now.




Twitter: ajobbins


1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 48
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.