This is why you don't give the government powers to spy

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › This is why you don't give the government powers to spy

1 | 2 | 3

4773 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2254

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 908706 6-Oct-2013 10:13

3 people support this post

jeffnz: so what other way is there then

What other way is there to do what? You proceed from the false assumption that there is some urgent problem that needs solving, and that ubiquitous surveillance is the only way to deal with it. More people die in road accidents every week than die from crime, including terrorism, in a year, or close enough to it. Surely you'd be better off spending your time panicking about that?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

Batman

Mad Scientist
19616 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2600

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 908724 6-Oct-2013 11:25

I think it is more complex than robbery and spy or no spy.

Robbery is illegal but if are ripped off legally by some dodgy deal you'd probably feel worse.

If some baddies are really building something bad to hurt your loved ones and no one was watching because they were residents you'd be feeling the worst.

Of course if it is done for no good reason then it's bad.

Bad < worse < worst

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

HotDogBreath

88 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

Subscriber

Reply # 908734 6-Oct-2013 12:00

SaltyNZ:
HotDogBreath: The article seems to imply that the individuals mentioned overstepped their authorities. They were identified, punished (or resigned) within the mandates of the organisation(s) overseeing them.
Nowhere does it state that the government sanctioned/condoned or turned a blind eye to the events listed.
Unsure why you are saying that the government should not have these powers based on this article.
Just my 2 cents...

Because although some of the offenders were punished (and arguably not very harshly at that) it does not undo the emotional trauma that such a violation inflicts on its victims. And if the power wasn't there in the first place, there would never have been any offending at all.

And finally, if this is the sort of person that the vaunted NSA hires, what hope have you got here in NZ with our minuscule resources?

Throwing 2 more cents into the thread (4 cents and counting)...

If, by your reasoning, the government(s) was sanctioned and could no longer ‘Spy’ on anyone anymore, what then becomes of their national security?

Again focusing on the article mentioned, the 2 of the 3 instances addressed were over 8 years ago. Systems and processes evolve (slowly at times) and get better. Concerns get addressed and remedied.

Basically

Q1) Is the cost of protecting against ‘hurt feelings’ and other ‘individual needs’ with a blanket ban on the technology worth exposing an entire nation to serious harm?

Q2) What alternatives will the government have to enforce & protect its citizens against domestic & foreign attacks/insurgencies by losing access to this tool?

Personally, right here and now these systems are needed. The persons and organisations they are defending us against don’t follow rules. They answer to no governing body and love to exploit venerable systems and people to meet their own selfish needs. One day (far down the road) we won’t need them but today, here and now, we do.

Looking forward to a type 1 civilization..... well maybe the great, great, great, grand kids anyway.

jeffnz

2864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 684

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 908736 6-Oct-2013 12:21

One person supports this post

SaltyNZ:
jeffnz: so what other way is there then

What other way is there to do what? You proceed from the false assumption that there is some urgent problem that needs solving, and that ubiquitous surveillance is the only way to deal with it. More people die in road accidents every week than die from crime, including terrorism, in a year, or close enough to it. Surely you'd be better off spending your time panicking about that?

ok I replied to this

"

Therefore, you don't give any powers to the government when there's any other way."

you have proceeded to go on a tangent that I had some hidden agenda with my question when I was only querying your post. Frankly I find your posts and logic hard to follow seems you are just having a rant based on very little.

I'm happy to help out and lend you my tin foil hat

Galaxy S8

Garmin Vivoactive 3

HotDogBreath

88 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

Subscriber

Reply # 908744 6-Oct-2013 12:30

jeffnz:
SaltyNZ:
jeffnz: so what other way is there then

What other way is there to do what? You proceed from the false assumption that there is some urgent problem that needs solving, and that ubiquitous surveillance is the only way to deal with it. More people die in road accidents every week than die from crime, including terrorism, in a year, or close enough to it. Surely you'd be better off spending your time panicking about that?

ok I replied to this

" Therefore, you don't give any powers to the government when there's any other way."

you have proceeded to go on a tangent that I had some hidden agenda with my question when I was only querying your post. Frankly I find your posts and logic hard to follow seems you are just having a rant based on very little.

I'm happy to help out and lend you my tin foil hat

Agreed. The title of this thread

This is why you don't give the government powers to spy

Seems to have been lost with other questions underlining human nature.
Maybe the OP should redefine the the topic to reflect what his true question is.

SaltyNZ

4773 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2254

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 908899 6-Oct-2013 20:13

HotDogBreath:
Maybe the OP should redefine the the topic to reflect what his true question is.

OK, I'll try again.

When you give the government some power - any power - it gets abused. Always, without fail, someone abuses it. The article I linked to is just another example in the long list of people abusing their power. Yes, corporations can do it too, but I have a choice not to deal with them. I can't opt out of the government.

Furthermore, 1 minute of objective consideration will show you quite clearly that there is no existential threat from terrorism. More people have died in Space Shuttle accidents than have died because of terrorists in this country. On the other hand, a couple of people die every week in road accidents.

Even if you think it's OK that the odd person might have their privacy needlessly invaded by someone who's breaking the rules, surely you can see that we shouldn't be wasting our money on it when there are killers like cars everywhere that we could be spending that money on to far greater effect instead. A woman was killed this morning who was likely to have been drinking. One extra police vehicle on the streets could have kept her alive.

Finally, I am not advocating a complete ban on interception and surveillance by law enforcement. I am against wholesale, indiscriminate drag net surveillance: tapping the cable out of the country and logging everything just on the off-chance something might be interesting to somebody, somewhere.

Why do we let the government carry on with this? It's invasive, and it's a complete waste of money, both because (a) it doesn't work and (b) there are other things we could be spending the money on where it would.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139

Reply # 908916 6-Oct-2013 20:45

Surely the issues in the link could have been negated, or clearly reduced, if there had been a more accountable, or robust, process.....

And yes I agree we shouldn't have to look at every data packet that goes down a cable either..... but just like airline passengers, we screen them all.

Having more screening points or processes for air travellers will also be about as effective as adding that extra Policeman to stop the drunk driver........

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

Reply # 908944 6-Oct-2013 21:40

oxnsox: Surely the issues in the link could have been negated, or clearly reduced, if there had been a more accountable, or robust, process.....

And yes I agree we shouldn't have to look at every data packet that goes down a cable either..... but just like airline passengers, we screen them all.

Having more screening points or processes for air travellers will also be about as effective as adding that extra Policeman to stop the drunk driver........

You're still missing the point. If I don't want to be searched at an airport I can choose to drive or take a ferry.

I cannot opt out of a government surveillance system.

Batman

Mad Scientist
19616 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2600

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 908959 6-Oct-2013 22:28

you want to drive to san Francisco?

anyway ... you can't opt out of being blown to bits too ...

something's got to give - i'm sure the media (and you guys! LOL) will keep the spies in check

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

SaltyNZ

4773 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2254

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 909026 7-Oct-2013 07:31

joker97:
anyway ... you can't opt out of being blown to bits too ...

When was the last time you, or anyone you know, got blown to bits? It just doesn't happen here. But we do have thousands of kids on the poverty line, leaky houses, aging infrastructure... And yet the government still feels it necessary to spend a load of money spying on its own citizens. How much money have they spent on Kim Dotcom so far? All that spying on him has gotten is a load of embarrassment. And he isn't a dangerous terrorist, intent on destroying your way of life. His crime, if there was one, was to - gasp - maybe make it easier for other people to share copies of DVDs they'd made. Just like Dropbox, Microsoft, Google and a hundred others do. How many actual thieves could have been caught with that budget?

You may disagree that spying on him was abuse of power, but it was certainly illegal. And then they sent in an assault team in helicopters armed with automatic weapons.

This is the country you want to live in: a country that spys on it's own people, and then sends hit-men in black helicopters with machine guns to arrest people who couldn't outrun a pensioner. There have been no terrorist attacks here since the 80s (and even calling that 'terrorism' is debatable), but we have seen our own government on the warpath. I hope it makes you feel safer.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

HotDogBreath

88 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

Subscriber

Reply # 909322 7-Oct-2013 13:52

One person supports this post

SaltyNZ:
When you give the government some power - any power - it gets abused. Always, without fail, someone abuses it. The article I linked to is just another example in the long list of people abusing their power. Yes, corporations can do it too, but I have a choice not to deal with them. I can't opt out of the government.

Furthermore, 1 minute of objective consideration will show you quite clearly that there is no existential threat from terrorism. More people have died in Space Shuttle accidents than have died because of terrorists in this country. On the other hand, a couple of people die every week in road accidents.

Even if you think it's OK that the odd person might have their privacy needlessly invaded by someone who's breaking the rules, surely you can see that we shouldn't be wasting our money on it when there are killers like cars everywhere that we could be spending that money on to far greater effect instead. A woman was killed this morning who was likely to have been drinking. One extra police vehicle on the streets could have kept her alive.

Finally, I am not advocating a complete ban on interception and surveillance by law enforcement. I am against wholesale, indiscriminate drag net surveillance: tapping the cable out of the country and logging everything just on the off-chance something might be interesting to somebody, somewhere.

Why do we let the government carry on with this? It's invasive, and it's a complete waste of money, both because (a) it doesn't work and (b) there are other things we could be spending the money on where it would.

1)Abuse of power is not limited to governments are organisations. It’s built into our DNA. From extremes like upper management of North Korea down to the primary school yard play ground, people will always try to exercise control over other people for purposes of self gain. What we can do as a people, is learn from our mistakes and improve ourselves in the process. To this end, our government is the best process for this. Elected by the majority consent, and ultimately answerable to the people, no other organisation will have as many controls in place and enforced.You can opt out of our government - You can move to another country where the laws and systems are more to your requirements (extreme – but you do have a choice) or, like you are doing now, push for change through public awareness and exchanging knowledge.
I do fear, that you will face an uphill battle on this one. More people turned up to the international rugby than turned up to the last round of marches opposing the spy bills.

2) Shuttle accidents Vs. Terrorists activity (murder rate) in NZ - Terrible analogy. But that aside, I assume (dangerous word at the best of times) that 1) since we do not actively take a leading roll on a global stage of anti-terrorism and 2) have no major group(s) of extremists trying to force their own believes and systems on us within the country. And 3) have no land-locked borders to any other countries. – that we are not high on their ‘to-smite’ list. But it does not mean that we are not on it. To this end, we should be very proactive, not reactive to make sure that this does not change. Veering off-topic: From a road accident point of view, NZ has a very active safety programme, one of the toughest and enforced WOF systems in the world, on the whole a very safe place to drive, and it only gets better with more collective knowledge filtered and enforced through our government.

3) No, I don’t think it’s OK for individuals to have their privacy invaded, nor did I imply this. I am however a realist to the fact that it does happen – welcome to the human race.
I must also disagree about your opinion about the police keeping the woman alive. There is only one person who could have done this (based on your statement about the incident – no other facts supplied), and that is the person herself. She decided to drink, decided to drive even though she knew better. She would have known the consequences of her actions – but decided not to care. We are not living in a nanny state. Personal responsibility must play a big part. Police are there to enforce, not hold hands.

4) It’s not wholesale and indiscriminate. It’s very logical and done with reason. Found an interesting flow chart in regards to information sharing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11135781

5)
a) Disagree. From my viewpoint it does work but could (and will) get better.
b) Agree. All about balance, as time goes on this will change depending on the situation and requirements of the people at the time.

SaltyNZ

4773 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2254

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 909363 7-Oct-2013 15:02

HotDogBreath:

1)Abuse of power is not limited to governments are organisations.

Correct. But I can choose which corporations I deal with. I don't choose to be spied on and advertised at by Facebook, so I don't have a Facebook account. I can't choose not to deal with the government. So, precisely because it's in our DNA, we should just not give the government any power they don't need.

2) Shuttle accidents Vs. Terrorists activity (murder rate) in NZ - Terrible analogy.

I disagree; it vividly illustrates the relative risks involved. So far this year the score is Terrorists 0, cars 285.

Veering off-topic: From a road accident point of view, NZ has a very active safety programme, one of the toughest and enforced WOF systems in the world, on the whole a very safe place to drive, and it only gets better with more collective knowledge filtered and enforced through our government.

Well, we're not as bad as some, but we could do a lot better.

3) No, I don’t think it’s OK for individuals to have their privacy invaded, nor did I imply this. I am however a realist to the fact that it does happen – welcome to the human race.
I must also disagree about your opinion about the police keeping the woman alive. There is only one person who could have done this (based on your statement about the incident – no other facts supplied), and that is the person herself. She decided to drink, decided to drive even though she knew better. She would have known the consequences of her actions – but decided not to care. We are not living in a nanny state. Personal responsibility must play a big part. Police are there to enforce, not hold hands.

I absolutely agree with you about personal responsibility. Being arrested for drink driving is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. But as you've pointed out a number of times in your post, that's life, deal with it. If we need to be proactive to make sure the currently-non-existent terrorists don't hurt us, surely there's a much better payoff to be even more proactive in fixing the very obviously in-your-face problems we have.

4) It’s not wholesale and indiscriminate. It’s very logical and done with reason. Found an interesting flow chart in regards to information sharing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11135781

Yes, I read that article too. It also points out the dangers involved in widespread sharing of information: errors multiply and are that much more difficult to get rid of. Today, the surveillance (as far as we know - and we won't, because it's secret) isn't wholesale and indiscriminate but:

a) The Kim Dotcom case shows that the government has no problem breaking the rules whenever they feel like it as long as they think they won't get caught
b) The other 'checks' in place of the Prime Minister's ability to grant warrants and/or extend the scope of surveillance (until it does become indiscriminate and wholesale) are (from memory) the Foreign Minister and the Director General of the GCSB: a couple of people who are both unaccountable to you, but beholden to the Prime Minister for their jobs. It will be very hard to say no to the PM when you know that doing so will result in an immediate career limiting move

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

jeffnz

2864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 684

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 909372 7-Oct-2013 15:22

yes lets just do away with any information gathering by government agencies, police, IRD, WINZ etc etc, that should make it a great place to live.

I'm putting my tin foil hat back on

Galaxy S8

Garmin Vivoactive 3

SaltyNZ

4773 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2254

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 909377 7-Oct-2013 15:27

jeffnz: yes lets just do away with any information gathering by government agencies, police, IRD, WINZ etc etc, that should make it a great place to live.

I'm putting my tin foil hat back on

*Sigh* I've made it quite clear that's not what I'm talking about. The 'oversight' in the new laws is tissue-thin, giving the PM effectively free reign. Even the Law Society said so. And that is what is bad. Of course government agencies should have the information they need. But the new laws give some agencies, and some people, far more power than they need. If you don't need it, you shouldn't have it. That's all.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

jeffnz

2864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 684

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 909379 7-Oct-2013 15:44

One person supports this post

don't patronize me please.

No you haven't been clear at all in fact it looks more like a rant than an objective discussion.

So you are happy for agencies to have the power if they need it, if so then all we are arguing is what is a threat and that could go round in circles for ever, suffice I don't have an issue with it as long as it is controlled properly but you will never get it perfect.

Anyway its all academic as it has been passed.

The example you used was too dated to be of any use to your argument IMHO like it or not

Galaxy S8

Garmin Vivoactive 3

1 | 2 | 3