![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Woolly: I agree with klipspringer on this "If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline."
Woolly: I agree with klipspringer on this "If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline."
It's worth researching a company called "In-Q-Tel" and their links to Google and Facebook.
Today the system has improved. Electronic tagging linked to mobile phones (triangulation), smartphones with gps, plus all the other digital devices. Why did google streetview record wifi signals?
The problem with this system is the amount of data. This is where firms with good data mining skills are needed.
There is the voluntary giving of information, such as facebook and google. And the flipside is involuntary gathering of information eg. GCSB, NSA.
[Moderator edit (MF): Godwin's Law, user warned]
PaulBags:Woolly: I agree with klipspringer on this "If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline."
It's the same kind of logic as "if you don't want to be raped, wear a burka", and I toally disagree with it. Yeah, sure, you could communicate solely offline/wear a burka and that might afford you more security, but that doesn't mean that it's ok for someone to violate you if you don't.
Klipspringer:PaulBags:Woolly: I agree with klipspringer on this "If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline."
It's the same kind of logic as "if you don't want to be raped, wear a burka", and I toally disagree with it. Yeah, sure, you could communicate solely offline/wear a burka and that might afford you more security, but that doesn't mean that it's ok for someone to violate you if you don't.
No your example is flawed.
Its the same logic as, "if you don't want to be raped, don't go into public parks at night, walk around naked, and assume you safe"
See the difference?
Klipspringer:PaulBags:Woolly: I agree with klipspringer on this "If you want absolute privacy and security, do it offline."
It's the same kind of logic as "if you don't want to be raped, wear a burka", and I toally disagree with it. Yeah, sure, you could communicate solely offline/wear a burka and that might afford you more security, but that doesn't mean that it's ok for someone to violate you if you don't.
No your example is flawed.
Its the same logic as, "if you don't want to be raped, don't go into public parks at night, walk around naked, and assume you safe"
See the difference?
sdav:
Having a quick skim read the bill still protects NZ Citizens in their private communication. It appears to target foreigners living here and pretty much allows for the spying of anyone here who is not a citizen. Up to you whether you agree with that. Personally not much has changed if you are a NZ Citizen with the exception of the "incidental" intercepts.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ:sdav:
Having a quick skim read the bill still protects NZ Citizens in their private communication. It appears to target foreigners living here and pretty much allows for the spying of anyone here who is not a citizen. Up to you whether you agree with that. Personally not much has changed if you are a NZ Citizen with the exception of the "incidental" intercepts.
What protection are you referring to specifically? The protection whereby the Prime Minister can issue an interception warrant on anyone for the purposes of national security without anyone else being able to deny it? Or the protection of the director of the GCSB having to use someone else as a 'sounding board'?
sdav:
So I disagree that " the Prime Minister can issue an interception warrant on anyone for the purposes of national security without anyone else being able to deny it"
The concerns people often bring up in conversations like this normally extend to a government - that if it got in - would rail road over all our rights anyway. This bill could be considered a slippery slope but if the [future] government people often describe get in. Honestly, we are screwed anyway.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ: That's true, but it's silent on denying the PM the right to issue his or her own warrants without a request from someone else. The consultation he is required to make is with a minister he or she appointed, who is therefore beholden to the PM for his or her job, and the law does not say the warrant would be invalid if the other minister disagreed. If the law isn't intended to be used that way, why not make it say so explicitly?
The PM can also add additional communications providers to the list of those required to be interception capable in the TICS bill by an order in council. All the powers granted by these two acts together - even after the changes - are sweeping in nature. The wording of the protections offered is weak and vague, and you won't even know if it's been invoked because nobody is obliged to tell you. As I and others have pointed out previously in this thread, it doesn't matter if you trust this government or not: the powers granted now are granted forever, including to governments you might not trust in future.
That's why people like the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission -- who are much better at intepreting laws than me, an engineer -- don't want the GCSB or TICS bills either.
DonGould: Draft of my next email to Woolly's list...
Dear Minister,
Re: Tax money spending on GCSB bill.
I would sooner see my tax dollars spent on IT services that directly impact on me.
For example, this GCSB bill will see the GCSB given the ability to see that Alarm NZ, my alarm monitoring company, has sent me a text message. The metadata won't actually tell anyone in the GCSB what the message is.
It would be more useful if Alarm NZ could send the police a text message to tell them my home and business alarm has gone off.
It would be even more helpful again if my alarm could simply be monitored by the GCSB.
It seems that I'm paying twice.
I'm paying for Alarm NZ to monitor my alarm and I'm also paying tax for the GCSB to have the technology to intercept the communications between my alarm, Alarm NZ, my telco and my mobile phone.
My point is that it seems the government is spending my tax money on things I don't want them to do while I have to also spend money getting someone else to do the security work that I do want done that does actually impact my every day life.
I have had my car stolen, I have had my house broken into, I've never had my home bombed with a wepon of mass destruction.
While the point is not lost that this suggests that perhaps the GCSB is doing their job and catching these people who would blow up my home, I think the point has to be herd that as a tax payer I still feel I'm paying twice and the government seems to be heading in a direction that is not the will of the people of New Zealand but a select few who have a vested interest in seeing these laws empowered.
D
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |