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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
BDFL - Memuneh
63601 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14079

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  # 955440 20-Dec-2013 12:09
One person supports this post
Send private message

I rest my case. The extreme right is strong in some parts of this country.




2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  # 955442 20-Dec-2013 12:26
Send private message

freitasm: I rest my case. The extreme right is strong in some parts of this country.


LOL I voted for National.
Probably better described as centre-right.


 
 
 
 


Awesome
4843 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1099

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955445 20-Dec-2013 12:38
2 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: Evidence from surveillance etc can be used to prove somebody guilty.


It can also be used to make someone who hasn't broken the law but who is say, politically inconvenient, look like a bad guy - especially when the evidence can be selectively chosen and engineered into the desired context.

I don't think anyone is arguing for no surveillance - but mass survailance should never be the first line of detection or defence. If an individual or group is exhibiting particular behaviour that warrants further investigation, the collection of such should only be done after a judge is satisfied that it's justified, appropriate oversights is in place, scope is not wider than necessary, and that surveillance only continues for as long as can be reasonably justified.

The reality of the matter is that there has been, and will continue to be people in positions of power who are less than honest, will abuse their power and will stop at nothing to retain it. A tool such as widespread, wide ranging, mass surveillance is a goldmine for such people, and IMO, is more of a threat to us than genuine terrorism. You may be comfortable today, but what about the next government, or the government after them who would be gifted such powers?

This is a slow but ongoing erosion of rights. Changes can seem small and trivial, but they slowly chip away and if not stopped will get to the point where the balance of government power and citizens rights are weighed too far in one direction.




Twitter: ajobbins


4920 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2431

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955451 20-Dec-2013 12:52
Send private message

Klipspringer: 
By the same token, government needs the ability to be able to scrutinise the public lifestyles of possible terrorists. We need to know where they live, what they eating, who they talking to, where they going, who is funding them etc etc ...

Who deserves more privacy? IMO possible terrorists deserve no more privacy than MP's



See, the thing is that it's very clear who is a public servant and who is not. There's an objective definition: if you get paid by the taxpayer, you're a public servant. 'Potential terrorist' is easily distorted to include whoever the authorities want it to include. Only a week ago leaders from all over the world went to honour the life of a man who was branded as a criminal and a terrorist and imprisoned for 30 years... Then went on to be the first black president of South Africa. It's really that simple. The government has the ability to use force of all kinds - physical, financial, etc. - against you, and your only redress is to ensure that the power they are granted is as little as possible.




iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 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


  # 955462 20-Dec-2013 13:15
Send private message

ajobbins:
Klipspringer: Evidence from surveillance etc can be used to prove somebody guilty.


It can also be used to make someone who hasn't broken the law but who is say, politically inconvenient, look like a bad guy - especially when the evidence can be selectively chosen and engineered into the desired context.


Are you saying its possible to have on video, somebody breaking the law, who is not actually breaking the law? Otherwise I’m missing your point. Maybe provide us with an example? To me having the surveillance is far better than not having it. (even if its missing in parts) Either the video shows somebody breaking the law or it does not. Sure there may be other circumstances that led up to the event, things that happened before/after which may have caused the event. Are you meaning that the video be engineered as in modified? If that’s what you mean then it’s the same for anything really. My point is that you cannot really make somebody “look like a bad guy” if he/she is breaking the law on video. The courts get to decide on the video and its context. Surely the more information available to the court the better?

BDFL - Memuneh
63601 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14079

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  # 955468 20-Dec-2013 13:27
Send private message

He is saying that someone that is not held accountable could at some point get an innocuous evidence and distort it to get rid of competitors, break alliances, usurp the power and do things that wouldn't be possible without being able to create a story out of unrelated evidence.

It is not unheard of fabricated stories used to discredit others or get rid of opponents to a regime.

You seem to be too naive and put too much faith in others. You will learn.




Awesome
4843 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1099

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955480 20-Dec-2013 13:56
Send private message

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
Klipspringer: Evidence from surveillance etc can be used to prove somebody guilty.


It can also be used to make someone who hasn't broken the law but who is say, politically inconvenient, look like a bad guy - especially when the evidence can be selectively chosen and engineered into the desired context.


Are you saying its possible to have on video, somebody breaking the law, who is not actually breaking the law? Otherwise I’m missing your point. Maybe provide us with an example? To me having the surveillance is far better than not having it. (even if its missing in parts) Either the video shows somebody breaking the law or it does not. Sure there may be other circumstances that led up to the event, things that happened before/after which may have caused the event. Are you meaning that the video be engineered as in modified? If that’s what you mean then it’s the same for anything really. My point is that you cannot really make somebody “look like a bad guy” if he/she is breaking the law on video. The courts get to decide on the video and its context. Surely the more information available to the court the better?


Video is a very specific medium. Part of the issue is that if governments are allowed to collect mass surveillance, this is known, and particularly there is little or no ability to scrutinise that evidence, then how can we be sure of it's accuracy?

Example:

(Assuming that mass surveillance is legal and well known to take place).

A national government is in power, and have control over the GCSB and responsible for the collection of mass surveillance. They aren't doing well in the polls and it's looking very likely they will be defeated in an upcoming election.
A few senior leaders decide to fabricate a series of emails and text messages made to look like they were sent from the leaders of the opposition, suggesting deep corruption and other illegal acts. They release these publicly, saying their surveillance algorithms collected them. The government has them thrown in jail, and they have no recourse because, unlike other kinds of evidence, there is no oversight to the collection and verification of the evidence. That is all hidden under the guise of 'National Security' and you're simply expected to accept that the evidence is genuine.




Twitter: ajobbins


 
 
 
 


13947 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6700

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955484 20-Dec-2013 14:02
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: 
By the same token, government needs the ability to be able to scrutinise the public lifestyles of possible terrorists. We need to know where they live, what they eating, who they talking to, where they going, who is funding them etc etc ...

Who deserves more privacy? IMO possible terrorists deserve no more privacy than MP's



See, the thing is that it's very clear who is a public servant and who is not. There's an objective definition: if you get paid by the taxpayer, you're a public servant. 'Potential terrorist' is easily distorted to include whoever the authorities want it to include. Only a week ago leaders from all over the world went to honour the life of a man who was branded as a criminal and a terrorist and imprisoned for 30 years... Then went on to be the first black president of South Africa. It's really that simple. The government has the ability to use force of all kinds - physical, financial, etc. - against you, and your only redress is to ensure that the power they are granted is as little as possible.


To bring it closer to home, Those who protested against the Springboks Tour, those who protested the Nuclear Testing by the French, Those who protested for woman's suffrage would have been deemed terrorists.




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

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  # 955485 20-Dec-2013 14:02
Send private message

freitasm: He is saying that someone that is not held accountable could at some point get an innocuous evidence and distort it to get rid of competitors, break alliances, usurp the power and do things that wouldn't be possible without being able to create a story out of unrelated evidence.

It is not unheard of fabricated stories used to discredit others or get rid of opponents to a regime.

You seem to be too naive and put too much faith in others. You will learn.


This is really getting extremely tinfoilish now...

I can think of multiple examples where this sort of thing has happened already.

Its no different to me recording a conversation/video of somebody without their knowledge and then using that conversation/video against that person in the way you describe. I could even do it with their personal emails.  Heck Ive lost count on the amount of times Ive heard stories like this on the news.

The only difference? Somebody in power will have the surveillance/email. Is that really a threat? No.


13947 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6700

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955486 20-Dec-2013 14:10
Send private message

Klipspringer:
freitasm: He is saying that someone that is not held accountable could at some point get an innocuous evidence and distort it to get rid of competitors, break alliances, usurp the power and do things that wouldn't be possible without being able to create a story out of unrelated evidence.

It is not unheard of fabricated stories used to discredit others or get rid of opponents to a regime.

You seem to be too naive and put too much faith in others. You will learn.


This is really getting extremely tinfoilish now...

I can think of multiple examples where this sort of thing has happened already.

Its no different to me recording a conversation/video of somebody without their knowledge and then using that conversation/video against that person in the way you describe. I could even do it with their personal emails.  Heck Ive lost count on the amount of times Ive heard stories like this on the news.

The only difference? Somebody in power will have the surveillance/email. Is that really a threat? No.



The Government had "video evidence" that there was a terrorist cell in the Urawera National Park, was that conclusive of terrorism? if taken elsewhere they may well have ended up in Guantanamo Bay with out trial. I use this example to illustrate the Video is not evidence it maybe indicative, however if the rules of evidence are not followed, the obtaining not authorised and audited by a court etc it is useless and cannot be used.  




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

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  # 955488 20-Dec-2013 14:13
Send private message

ajobbins:
A national government is in power, and have control over the GCSB and responsible for the collection of mass surveillance. They aren't doing well in the polls and it's looking very likely they will be defeated in an upcoming election.
A few senior leaders decide to fabricate a series of emails and text messages made to look like they were sent from the leaders of the opposition, suggesting deep corruption and other illegal acts. They release these publicly, saying their surveillance algorithms collected them. The government has them thrown in jail, and they have no recourse because, unlike other kinds of evidence, there is no oversight to the collection and verification of the evidence. That is all hidden under the guise of 'National Security' and you're simply expected to accept that the evidence is genuine.


If we were a bunch of stupid sheep then yes we can all agree with that.

Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people.

How often do we have bad reporting, but we still get to the truth.

If the government in NZ ever did this I'm sure we would have the whole country behind these people in jail.

Your example has one flaw. You asuming that the goverment controls the courts and gets to make the call to just throw these people in prison. Its a little over the top mate. Nobody is just going to be thrown into jail without a free and fair trial.

13947 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6700

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955489 20-Dec-2013 14:16
Send private message

Klipspringer:
ajobbins:
A national government is in power, and have control over the GCSB and responsible for the collection of mass surveillance. They aren't doing well in the polls and it's looking very likely they will be defeated in an upcoming election.
A few senior leaders decide to fabricate a series of emails and text messages made to look like they were sent from the leaders of the opposition, suggesting deep corruption and other illegal acts. They release these publicly, saying their surveillance algorithms collected them. The government has them thrown in jail, and they have no recourse because, unlike other kinds of evidence, there is no oversight to the collection and verification of the evidence. That is all hidden under the guise of 'National Security' and you're simply expected to accept that the evidence is genuine.


If we were a bunch of stupid sheep then yes we can all agree with that.

Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people.

How often do we have bad reporting, but we still get to the truth.

If the government in NZ ever did this I'm sure we would have the whole country behind these people in jail.

Your example has one flaw. You asuming that the goverment controls the courts and gets to make the call to just throw these people in prison. Its a little over the top mate. Nobody is just going to be thrown into jail without a free and fair trial.


In an earlier post you said this "Unfortunately people here don't really understand what they doing when they voting." now you say this "Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people."

Some what self contradicting 




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

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


915 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

Trusted

  # 955494 20-Dec-2013 14:26
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:  I have nothing to hide and in a way I can probably sleep a bit better..



Sure you do:

* Your religion
* Who you voted for in the last election
* How much you get paid
* What you like to do with your significant other in the bedroom
* That you sing in the shower

All those things are perfectly normal, everybody does them. But I'm sure you don't feel the need to share them with us. And like MF said, governments change. Tomorrow you might wake up and find that any of those things are now a crime. It HAS happened in the past. Trusting governments with anything they don't need is a bad idea.


More importantly/more likely, governments have a proven record for making mistakes - accidentally releasing private information and getting different people mixed up. No innocent person wants to be on the wrong end of a government mess-up that sees them locked away under some terrorism law for something they know nothing about.

Klipspringer, it's all very well providing the answers to Salty's list of question, but would you publish your name and address with them as well?




 

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  # 955495 20-Dec-2013 14:27
Send private message

KiwiNZ:

In an earlier post you said this "Unfortunately people here don't really understand what they doing when they voting." now you say this "Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people."

Some what self contradicting 


Two totally different things. One is my opinion on how New Zealanders vote. The other is that I like to think New Zealanders (well most) don't just believe whatever the goverment tells them. We like to base our conclusions from multiple sources of information.



Awesome
4843 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1099

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 955513 20-Dec-2013 14:57
Send private message

Klipspringer: If we were a bunch of stupid sheep then yes we can all agree with that.

Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people.

How often do we have bad reporting, but we still get to the truth.

If the government in NZ ever did this I'm sure we would have the whole country behind these people in jail.


You have more faith than I do. The majority of people will believe what they are told until they have a good reason not to believe it.

And ultimately, your mechanism to 'stand behind these people in jail', is to vote for someone else at the next election - which if you have a Government gone rogue, may well just find other ways to cling to power. The point is, if you relinquish your freedoms now because you currently feel safe doing so, they are a million times harder to get back in the future, especially when you decide you need them again.

Your example has one flaw. You assuming that the government controls the courts and gets to make the call to just throw these people in prison. Its a little over the top mate. Nobody is just going to be thrown into jail without a free and fair trial.


No it doesn't. You don't have to have 'control' over the courts, you simply have to be able to present evidence that is considered reliabe. Ie. those people are arrested, and put in front of a court. E.g The crown produces the emails and text messages they have fabricated and there is no mechanism to verify or refute them. The fact is that, by the very nature of the secret surveillance, the public and courts have to trust that what is being put forward is genuine. The only way that falls down is if the public and the courts have reason not to trust the surveillance evidence. They can hide behind secrecy right up until the evidential output, without having to prove how the evidence was collected, under what circumstances and under what oversight. There is no chain of evidence that would otherwise exist.




Twitter: ajobbins


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



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:





News »

New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35


Air New Zealand uses drones to inspect aircraft
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:39


TCL Electronics launches its first-ever 8K TV
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:18


E-scooter share scheme launches in Wellington
Posted 17-Jun-2019 12:34


Anyone can broadcast with Kordia Pop Up TV
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:51


Volvo and Uber present production vehicle ready for self-driving
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:47


100,000 customers connected to fibre broadband network through Enable
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:35


5G uptake even faster than expected
Posted 12-Jun-2019 10:01


Xbox showcases 60 anticipated games
Posted 10-Jun-2019 20:24


Trend Micro Turns Public Hotspots into Secure Networks with WiFi Protection for Mobile Devices
Posted 5-Jun-2019 13:24


Bold UK spinoff for beauty software company Flossie
Posted 2-Jun-2019 14:10


Amazon Introduces Echo Show 5
Posted 1-Jun-2019 15:32


Epson launches new 4K Pro-UHD projector technology
Posted 1-Jun-2019 15:26


Lenovo and Qualcomm unveil first 5G PC called Project Limitless
Posted 28-May-2019 20:23


Intel introduces new 10th Gen Intel Core Processors and Project Athena
Posted 28-May-2019 19:28



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.