GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 48

119 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#875152 10-Aug-2013 17:49

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

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#875158 10-Aug-2013 18:10

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.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#875173 10-Aug-2013 18:40

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]

Wifi addresses were recorded by google to help make assumptions about location, for a better example there are millions if not billions stored at wigle.net (wardrive database) for example android devices without gps coverage can assume a position close to a small output router if the location of such is known. Goodness knows what happens if everyone swaps out their routers with each other. I understand that with 4G pinpointing locations is much more accurate than 3g, Perhaps someone in the know can add to this.

Now, privacy. If you want privacy don't store your underwear in your top draw. Reasonable ?, no, so how about staying out of other peoples houses, unless you are police AND have a warrant signed by a judge after going through an oversight panel, then you can go through my undies draw.
The internet is by design a series of pipes, and frankly Over the last 25 years I've been able to send communications through it with a certain degree of privacy and anonymity, now I should jump on a plane and fly to Sydney. Is that really what we want, is that sustainable ?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#875190 10-Aug-2013 19:41

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?

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#875191 10-Aug-2013 19:46

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?

Thats assumes a percentage of the population is likely to attempt to rape you, which sadly albiet very small, is true.
The government belongs in this category ? :)

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#875207 10-Aug-2013 20:41

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?

Not really, it's still illegal to rape.

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#875243 10-Aug-2013 22:25

Everything you do online can be watched.

Should this be by consent?

Murder, Rape, Theft, Physical or mental harm to others are criminal matters and are unlawful these are the things you learn as a child. eg "don't hit your brother".

Legal, Illegal are on the contractual side.

When or if you voted (contract) did you sign up for being spied on?

Please research ADHESION CONTRACTS.

The idea of Government is man (Man/Wo(Man)) made. If I asked you where is government? You could point at a building, but it's just a building.

Does the government have Ears, a Mind, Eyes, Big Toe. Can you poke it with a stick?

Corporations are also man made ideas.

Government is the new age religion.

My apologies if I've burst anyone's bubbles.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#875285 11-Aug-2013 10:30

Haha first time I have heard of Godwin's Law. So true on discussions like this.

Anyway, I haven't had time to read the whole thread, I only have a couple of points anyway... Firstly I don't know the ins and outs of the new bill. I just haven't had time to go through it all. I disagree with the whole "I've got nothing to hide" view but I also have a problem with people who say "but if the government does this or passes that oppressive law in the future" view too. If we end up with a government that ends up making laws like that then the proposed GCSB laws etc wont make any difference. In fact it's a moot point because a government that oppressive will be trouble for us anyway and it is purely scare tactics.

The whole balance of privacy vs. security is what we are looking at. The problem is some people are happy to give up more privacy for more (perceived or otherwise) security. Some people want more privacy and less security. We will never strike a point where everyone is happy. Hell, I don't even know where I sit on that scale!

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#875296 11-Aug-2013 11:11

What seems clear to me is that the bill still protects NZ Citizens from being the target of arbitrary interception of private communication. There does appear to be a new provision that if information is incidentally intercepted and the GCSB suspect; there may be a risk to NZ/foreign security or for the prevention/detection of a serious crime and preventing or responding to threats to human life in NZ or any other country - they can pass that information on to the police, defence force etc...

How they intend to monitor the amount of "incidental" interceptions will be interesting although I found this:

The GCSB will also be required to report annually on the number of warrants and authorisations issued.

The GCSB will be required to report annually on the total number of instances where it has provided assistance to the Police, NZSIS or NZ Defence Force.

Since the NZ Police are the ones that will mostly be dealing with criminal acts that should be fine indicator.

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.

This bill does not worry me.

[Edit: trying to sort out the annoying paragraph spacing...]

SaltyNZ

8164 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#875397 11-Aug-2013 16:18

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'?

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

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

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#875408 11-Aug-2013 17:10

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'?

I don't understand your question. I said private communication and that is already defined by the current GCSB act.

You will also find "Section 15B (inserted by clause 14) provides for a joint authorisation system for the application of, and issuing of, an interception warrant or access authorisation where warrants are sought about New Zealanders. Applications would be required to be made jointly to the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants who would jointly issue the warrant or authorisation." and the amendment strengthens the role of the Commissioner of Security Warrants within the current GCSB act.

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.

SaltyNZ

8164 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#875411 11-Aug-2013 17:24

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.

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, a mere engineer -- don't want the GCSB or TICS bills either.

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

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

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#875417 11-Aug-2013 18:08

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.

Salty I've taken the liberty of correcting your post for you ;)

I think legal, political and policy people have to take very careful time and effort to work with engineers to understand the technology before they write policy and law.

Time and time and time again we're seen pointless law written which is just side stepped.

Engineers have just as much value in this discussion as everyone else and in some instances more.

Engineers are often the ones who have to impliment these laws and policy choices, and I think some folk forget that some times.

The WINZ and education payroll disasters are just two examples this year of where policy got well ahead of the engineers and ended in tears.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#875418 11-Aug-2013 18:19

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

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#875460 11-Aug-2013 19:47

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

I'm going off topic, but this is how I feel about ACC. Substitute GCSB for ACC, and alarm company for doctor/dentist/podiatrist. Illness, tooth decay, and being born with flat feet are the only things I've ever needed medical care for, however my meagre budget is stretched even further paying for accident insurance I don't want. Give me back that money so I can look after myself now, and maybe I won't be as likely to get into an accident in future. I know acc levies aren't that high, just ~%2, but I did the maths and over my working life so far I could have replaced my orthotics at least once more than I have, used that money instead of my annual leave for the dentists visits I've needed, and gone to the doctors a few times when I've actually been quite sick. Instead my health deteriorates and I become slowly less able to work, which will cost the taxpayer infinately more when I end up on the sickness benefit with permanently broken ankles.

Oh well, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.

1 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 48