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 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 48
2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 874454 9-Aug-2013 11:19
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 

Your home is not a public place.



But it's easier for me to listen in at your window than to listen in on the Southern Cross cable. Which one is more private?


My point is you can expect a certain level of privacy at home.

The same can't be said about any public place.

Which one is more private? The data when inside the southern cross cable sure. But thats only because there is a huge mass of water protecting it. The southerncross cable is not the internet. The internet is hundreds and thousands of computers, routers, cables all linking together, (all totally out of your control) you have no control of how that data flows. Some of your data may flow via china without your knowledge, some via Nigeria. (IP traffic sometimes just takes the shortest path). Are you confident nobody is snooping on any of it? Its ridiculous for you to even assume that your info is private when it is already open to an infinite amount of vulnerabilities.

Your ISP won't guarantee your privacy. You dont pay for internet privacy. Why do you assume your data is safe when it flows through its routers? Why do you assume your emails are not vulnerable once they leave your PC? Or gmails servers? Or while they are stored on the gmail servers?

Why do people not use public wifi for their banking etc ??? Why do people worry about stuff like this? Is there such a difference between using a public wifi or somebody just snooping on your data anyway further down on the internet?? The threats are already there that's why. People have built big businesses on online security. Its silly to just assume your online activity is private.



3180 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 904

Trusted

  Reply # 874458 9-Aug-2013 11:23
4 people support this post
Send private message

I'm not going to read most of this thread and this will be my last post to it. But I just have to say these sort of discussions always scare me. Every time someone says something along the lines of "It won't affect me because I'm a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide." it just makes me want to cry.

Do you completely and utterly trust the current government, every possible government to come and every person in positions where they could have access to this information now or in the future, both local and foreign, to never misuse or even make mistakes when analysing all this data...?

4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 874459 9-Aug-2013 11:24
2 people support this post
Send private message

But again, this discussion is not about how a criminal might hack in and grab stuff that they're not supposed to. This discussion is about whether we want to allow the government to *always* be sucking up *everything*. They are completely different issues, and conflating them is unhelpful.

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.




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 # 874477 9-Aug-2013 11:31
Send private message

SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?

4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 874481 9-Aug-2013 11:34
2 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?


Well, apparently it's stealing if the bits are Lady Gaga's latest abortion, but not if the bits are my emails. So the question is, is it stealing if I email myself Lady Gaga's latest abortion?




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 # 874483 9-Aug-2013 11:35
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?


Well, apparently it's stealing if the bits are Lady Gaga's latest abortion, but not if the bits are my emails. So the question is, is it stealing if I email myself Lady Gaga's latest abortion?


I don't think "watching the traffic" can be classified as stealing.


4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 874488 9-Aug-2013 11:40
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?


Well, apparently it's stealing if the bits are Lady Gaga's latest abortion, but not if the bits are my emails. So the question is, is it stealing if I email myself Lady Gaga's latest abortion?


I don't think "watching the traffic" can be classified as stealing.



OK, so as long as I merely watch the bits of a Lady Gaga song going past, rather than specifically asking someone to send them to me, then the copy that ends up on my computer isn't stealing? Gotcha.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user


  Reply # 874523 9-Aug-2013 12:35
Send private message

slightly ironic but , despite your data being freely available to Government, Sopa is back ! Now with Jail time for music streamers.  
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/streaming/?akid=2242.2166055.sGuLC7&rd=1&t=1


119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user


  Reply # 874647 9-Aug-2013 16:12
Send private message

The empire strikes again.

Encrypted email service thought used by Snowden shuts down
http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/encrypted-email-thought-used-snowden-002557925.html

Your free to do what we tell you.

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 874689 9-Aug-2013 17:07
Send private message

Klipspringer:
JimmyH:
Klipspringer:
freitasm:
Exactly as I said: better security at the memorial. Be it cameras, etc. You have no expectation of privacy in public.

Using this vandalism as support for a carte blanche for the GCSB to have powers over EVERYONE is way beyond the benefits proposed.



The internet is a public place.


No, actually it isn't.

Some parts of it are arguably public, like posting an opinion on a publicly searchable forum such as this one. The rest aren't.

Emails - say my bank statements, or between me and a doctor about a relatives medical condition - definitely aren't. Neither are activities such as accessing my employers email system using webmail, or logging onto the bank's site to check my balance. All of these are clearly private. And, just like steaming my letters open or tapping my telephone, without reasonable cause sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant the State should have no business intercepting or reading any of these.


hmmm don't think I agree with you.

Of course the internet is a public place. If it was not there is no ways it would be such a success.

I agree with what you are saying that there is a perceived privacy. But actually you not very private on the internet at all. Anything you send, receive, type is already not 100% secure. Some sites are more secure than others. I don't belive there is such a thing as 100% privacy on the internet. With some effort, a third party can already access your information. In some cases, its not even very hard. Ie a google employee reading your gmail about your medical condition. Your ISP snooping on your internet traffic. There is "perceived" privacy on the internet which is not really correct. Sure some types of security can be put in place, like encryption, to better secure your messages/emails etc .. But even that is only to a point. That privacy ends where your encryption ends.

Bottom Line: If its 100% privacy you are after then don't do it online.



Someone could break into your house and watch what you do, but that doesn't mean your house is a public space.

Privacy is largely created by law, not physical or virtual barriers. It's illegal to break into your house, it's illegal to open your mail, and it's illegal to enter electronic system that aren't yours even if you can figure out the password. It's illegal for certain people (doctors, lawyers, your bank, your employer, etc) to pass on personal information they hold about you. And for the moment, it's also illegal to intercept electronic communications as they travel from A to B. Because these things are illegal an expectation of privacy is created, and can currently only legally be breached with a warrant signed by a judge.

You seem to be arguing that if it's possible to do something then that's fine. By that logic, no laws would exist: laws are there to discourage people doing things they shouldn't that are otherwise possible for them to do, punish those who do, and possibly (hopefully) also to right some of the wrongs done to the victims. If we were to start allowing anyone to do anything that they can physically do then prepare to have your possessions stolen and your person violated.

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 874690 9-Aug-2013 17:07
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?


Well, apparently it's stealing if the bits are Lady Gaga's latest abortion, but not if the bits are my emails. So the question is, is it stealing if I email myself Lady Gaga's latest abortion?


I don't think "watching the traffic" can be classified as stealing.



Buy that logic copyright infringement would be completely legal.

2536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1198


  Reply # 874734 9-Aug-2013 19:15
2 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 
Bottom Line: If its 100% privacy you are after then don't do it online.



You are confusing the expectation of privacy with some sort of impossible perfect privacy.

You expect privacy in your home, but if someone puts their ear up to your window they can still hear what's going on inside. The internet is the same. I expect that my communications will not be casually hoovered up by the government, whilst being aware that Bad People do exist who could try (and possibly succeed) to do it.

Just because a Bad Person could do a Bad Thing and listen in on my private communications over the internet does not mean that I am OK with governments listening in to everything I do all the time.


Your home is not a public place.

You can't expect privacy in a park, the street, while driving down the road or any other public place.

Not sure why people assume privacy on the internet? Your privacy on it is just a very bad assumption.


I think you are confusing a few things.

A park and a road are public placed, legally and definitionally (although there are private roads and parks which aren't!). The private equipment that just happens to be connected to the internet isn't.

And yes, for the record, I do expect a certain level of privacy both while in a park and while using the road. Sure, they can see me on the road or in the park. But PC Plod doesn't have rights to randomly pull me over and search my the contents of my car from top to bottom, accost me in the park and rifle through my briefcase and any envelopes I may have in my pocket, or steam my snail mail open etc, just because they feel like it. Their actions in these circumstances have to meet legal tests, otherwise anything they find is inadmissable and they can be disciplined. My email should be treated the same. Doubly so if it's encrypted - a good analogy is the difference between posting a postcard and a sealed letter.

3123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 946

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 874786 9-Aug-2013 20:40
Send private message

ajobbins: The bill is unclear on the topic of metadata, possibly on purpose. The proposed wording says that you can't intercept the 'Private communications' of NZers without a warrant (see note on warrant below), but does metadata fall under the definition of 'Private communications'?.


No. We don't communicate in metadata. Private communication is defined thusly:

private communication—
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so

ajobbins: a cup of tea with the PM will probably get them what they want. There are warrants and there are warrants. Typically we think of warrants as having to be put in front of a judge. The role and power of the judiciary is purposely demarcated from that of government. However, in this case, the "warrant" is simply an approval by the Prime Minister (the same person representing the organisation seeking the warrant). This would be akin to giving the head of Police the power to sign off on Police warrants.


They have to consider "other lawful means" first if they don't want to dig more dotcom sized holes :-)

In respect of the last sentence quoted, Police C/O's (ie inspector and above) used to have the power to sign warrants in emergencies (ie Arms Act) but this has been superseded by provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

JimmyH: And yes, for the record, I do expect a certain level of privacy both while in a park and while using the road. Sure, they can see me on the road or in the park. But PC Plod doesn't have rights to randomly pull me over and search my the contents of my car from top to bottom, accost me in the park and rifle through my briefcase and any envelopes I may have in my pocket, or steam my snail mail open etc, just because they feel like it. Their actions in these circumstances have to meet legal tests, otherwise anything they find is inadmissable and they can be disciplined. My email should be treated the same. Doubly so if it's encrypted - a good analogy is the difference between posting a postcard and a sealed letter.


But they can pull you over and read the "metadata" of your vehicle (licence plate, registration label, WOF sticker etc) and take action as necessary dependent on the "analysis" of that data, which is more akin to what is proposed in the GCSB amendment bill.

EDIT: Walked away to enjoy a glass a nice glass of South African red (Nederburg 2010 Shiraz Viognier) and realised I should have also included the following definition in the first part of this post:

communication includes signs, signals, impulses, writing, images, sounds, or data that a person or machine produces, sends, receives, processes, or holds in any medium (GCSB Act 2003).

The "private communication" definition is also from this Act.

It's very tempting to argue this definition does include metadata. I'll look around and see if I can dig up some case law, but not tonight as there are more important callings...

BDFL - Memuneh
61192 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11974

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 874962 10-Aug-2013 09:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

from BBC Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency:


Mr Obama said on Friday that the US "can and must be more transparent" about its snooping on phone and internet data.

"Given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives," he told reporters.

"It's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programmes," Mr Obama added. "The American people need to have confidence as well."


And that's the point I am trying to make the whole way. Transparency and oversight is needed.


Mr Obama also urged allowing a lawyer to challenge decisions by the nation's secretive surveillance court.


If you folks don't know he's talking about the FISC.




2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 875012 10-Aug-2013 11:03
Send private message

PaulBags:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:

Someone might steal your car off the street. Do you therefore want to give the government the power to go and steal *everyone's* cars, *every day*? That's madness. But it's exactly what you are saying should happen to your email.


LOL. Well the question is. The data flowing on the internet, who owns it? Is it really stealing?


Well, apparently it's stealing if the bits are Lady Gaga's latest abortion, but not if the bits are my emails. So the question is, is it stealing if I email myself Lady Gaga's latest abortion?


I don't think "watching the traffic" can be classified as stealing.



Buy that logic copyright infringement would be completely legal.


Is copyright infringement stealing?  Theft is to loose something to somebody else and to no longer have access to it, ie personal property. When you copy something the original is still available to the copyright owner, and the copyright owner still has is. He has not lost it. Somebody else just has a copy. Therefore there is no theft involved. Hollywood studios would disagree but IMO unless you get hold of the originals, and the original owner no longer has access to them, well then it can possibly be defined as theft. 

BTW there is also a difference between format shifting (downloading). Which is illegal in NZ (no stealing), and just watching/monitoring  packets running by on a network.

JimmyH: My email should be treated the same. Doubly so if it's encrypted - a good analogy is the difference between posting a postcard and a sealed letter.


Should YES. But currently thats really untrue. By using encryption are you really sealing the letter? You are trusting goolge or some other ISP with the task of securing your letter. (you not even validating that its been done properly) You cant guarantee its privacy unless you seal it, encode it, and deliver it yourself. Just because XYZ ISP is using encryption for email delivery it means nothing. Too many vulnerabilities. What kind of encryption? Some encryption can be cracked in minutes, other types are better. Do you know what encryption your ISP is using? Are u sure they using it and have configured correctly?

That "secure" email you send is no longer secure once it arrives at its destination anyway. It can be forwarded to whoever has access to that computer. I stand by my original statement. If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline. 


1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 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.