EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: mrflibble on December 15, 2014, 02:37:21 pm
-
Just read this one:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/12/15/1243213/eric-schmidt-to-avoid-nsa-spying-keep-your-data-in-googles-services (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/12/15/1243213/eric-schmidt-to-avoid-nsa-spying-keep-your-data-in-googles-services)
Oh man, this was worth a good hearty laugh. :-DD :-DD As for the slashdot replies, I agree 100% with this one...
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh wait! You're serious. Then let me laugh even harder!
HAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Guess it's time for building my own search engine, with blackjack and hookers.
PS: I realize that Schmidt just has to do the usual commercially induced marketing waffle, but this was just too funny. Yes, I will put my data in t3h cloudz. It will be safe there. Yes. Google is my friend. Ooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmm...
-
I expect that Google and Facebook have always been a good place to hide secrets, especially if coded into photographs, In the UK we have the expression of not being able to see the wood for the trees. So place your secrets out in the crowds. It is when you are obviously trying to hide something that the intelligence services will take notice.
-
s/stenography/steganography/ :)
and it does help when it's appropriately used :)
-
Security through obscurity. Or not.
When I lost the key to the lawnmower shed door, I left the lock in place and removed the bolts from the handle so I could remove it and open the doors. In a year, nobody has bothered to steal it. They see a handle with a lock and move on.
-
hide secrets
I wonder what sort of secrets people care about, against some faceless government watchers.
We each are a protagonist of our story.
But when you look at the whole - each one is nothing, a drop lost in a sea of information.
Consider how huge is the internet traffic of a single 10 million inhabitant city.
To just parse and categorise it is a monumental task.
To analyse and make sense of it would be utter madness.
You'll need a Jupiter Brain to track every little dirty secret of everyone on the internet and make something happen to annoy each one of them.
So, why bother?
If you communicate with someone who communicates with someone who communicates with someone who is on a watch list somewhere because they once typed the wrong word your metadata is of interest to them.
Um, isn't everyone within, like, 6 handshakes from everyone else?
-
of secrets people care about, against some faceless government watchers.
We each are a protagonist of our story.
But when you look at the whole - each one is nothing, a drop lost in a sea of information.
If you have nothing to hide feel free to post here your personal information, bank account etc.
Consider how huge is the internet traffic of a single 10 million inhabitant city.
To just parse and categorise it is a monumental task.
To analyse and make sense of it would be utter madness.
You'll need a Jupiter Brain to track every little dirty secret of everyone on the internet and make something happen to annoy each one of them.
So, why bother?
By logging every aspect of our lives the government creates in practice a virtual dossier on each of us that be assembled at a click of the button. Handling such a large amount of data is not as difficult as you think and most often we don't even know when data about us is used or a politician is blackmailed. That's why the awareness that Snowden created is so important.
(these views are my own, not representing anybody else).
-
What do you think the massive new data centres that the NSA is building are for? Thanks to Snowden, we know that they do this
MC, I am glad that you prefer personal liberty over 'common good'. My work hear starts to bear fruits. ;-)
-
this reminds me of the wow screenshot thingy
http://www.ownedcore.com/forums/world-of-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-general/375573-looking-inside-your-screenshots.html (http://www.ownedcore.com/forums/world-of-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-general/375573-looking-inside-your-screenshots.html)
-
If you communicate with someone who communicates with someone who communicates with someone who is on a watch list somewhere because they once typed the wrong word your metadata is of interest to them.
Um, isn't everyone within, like, 6 handshakes from everyone else?
Exactly, you are guilty till proven not guilty in this case.
-
Relevant story:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2014/12/15/amazon-hp-ebay-join-microsoft-bandwagon-in-warrant-case/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2014/12/15/amazon-hp-ebay-join-microsoft-bandwagon-in-warrant-case/)
Amazon, HP, eBay join Microsoft bandwagon in warrant case
As extensively telegraphed by Microsoft, the company’s cast of supporters in its legal fight over a warrant seeking a customer’s emails just got a whole lot bigger.
Microsoft was joined by Amazon.com as well as Silicon Valley stalwarts Hewlett-Packard and eBay. Apple, AT&T, Cisco and Verizion, which all supported Microsoft in its lower court case, also weighed in again.
Google, a leader in the cloud-computing realm along with Microsoft and Amazon.com, was among the notable technology companies that haven’t weighed in.
-------------
The NSA's goal is clearly to permanently save all electronic communications from everyone. It's now known they already do that for at least two countries (and I would not be surprised if Australia is one of those.) It's also not about finding 'wrong do-ers', or we would not still have Internet malware of any kind. It's more about pre-crime and thought-crime modeling and prediction. Listening to statements of US government pond-slime like Cass Sunstein is truly terrifying, when you realize these people are seriously attempting to implement that kind of far-beyond-1984 nightmare society.
Personally I bear in mind that an extreme dictatorship only has to eliminate about 10% of the population to suppress any chance of rebellion. The chief difficulty is getting the right 10%. Having a vast archive of all the meta-data PLUS everything everyone said over several years would be *exactly* the right tool for that purpose. Especially if covering years before most people realized how dangerous things were getting.
It's not what they now say they want to do with it, it's what they *will* do with it once they have their Communications Death Star fully operational.
Oh, and for those who think I have an unduly negative view of governments... the Australian government (NSW State and local govt, apparently under instructions from the Federal gov) have recently announced (effectively) that personal property rights no longer matter, and they will be relocating masses of existing homeowners whenever it suits government plans (and personal property investment profits.)
This is personal - if their plan goes ahead (and it will) I'm definitely going to lose my home and workshop.
See http://everist.org/no-rezone/ (http://everist.org/no-rezone/) (my site.)
You can't call it 'conspiracy rubbish' when the stinking plans are online on .gov sites, and there's a timeline of government actions and mainstream news stories going back to 2005.
When the law is used to spy on you, and divest you of your material assets, then there is no longer Rule of Law.
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience..."
-- John Locke 1690 2nd Treatise on Government Chapter 19 paragraph 222
-
The intelligence services actually prefer metadata over the message content in many cases. They like to know who you talk to, where you go to talk, how often you post, that sort of thing. Trying to decode message specifics in bulk could be hard and would, as you point out, be easily thwarted. Metadata is far more valuable to them, and stenography or trying to blend in to the crowd doesn't help at all.
Yes and no. Metadata is a good at collecting a huge amount of data about a large group. But specific targets, actual content is always preferred.
Even Australian state law enforcement agencies utilise/own chip lifters and complex decryption systems for this purpose (if it's not captured over the air or subpoenaed from various companies -- and yes, they do hand it over when it's lawful for them to do so). My question is, encryption is great, but how much of the key do the NSA et al already know and how long does it take to break the rest of it?
Mind you, I actually support law enforcement agencies having access to said data because I've seen first hand the positive results it can yield. That's my personal view. Whilst I take care to protect my privacy and data online (and offline), I have nothing to hide and would make for a very boring target.
-
The worst part is that it doesn't even work very well. The real threats tend to get missed, even if they are known to the security services. They seem to be swamped with data and unable to make good decisions with what they have.
I don't agree with that at all. I know it's hard to quantify based on publically available information. But many "terror threats" have been detected, investigated and thwarted by Police and other agencies including several in more recent years (I could probably count on one hand incidents in the last 6-12 months). But most of it isn't big news and isn't reported or it's kept under wraps. I'm of the opinion that Australia is in a great position security-wise and we generally have the upper-hand (even more so than other western countries). Consider the recent incident in Sydney, it had a very real potential of being far worse than it was hadn't it have been for years of hard work and the rapid response by the NSW Police.
-
The worst part is that it doesn't even work very well. The real threats tend to get missed, even if they are known to the security services.
Seems like you are right.
I must admit I don't know much about how our security services work but if they work anything like other large organisations especially defence then they are run stupidly and inefficiently.
Re: Sydney Seige.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has revealed the gunman responsible for the Sydney siege was not on a security watchlist, despite his long criminal history and known "infatuation with extremism".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/sydney-siege-gunman-was-not-on-security-watchlist-abbott-says/5971340 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/sydney-siege-gunman-was-not-on-security-watchlist-abbott-says/5971340)
From an outside perspective it seems he should have been at the top of the watchlist. The guy was investigated for murder, among other things.
But i'm not saying I know how to fix this.
-
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has revealed the gunman responsible for the Sydney siege was not on a security watchlist, despite his long criminal history and known "infatuation with extremism".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/sydney-siege-gunman-was-not-on-security-watchlist-abbott-says/5971340 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/sydney-siege-gunman-was-not-on-security-watchlist-abbott-says/5971340)
From an outside perspective it seems he should have been at the top of the watchlist. The guy was investigated for murder, among other things.
But i'm not saying I know how to fix this.
How do I put this without getting into trouble? Mr. Abbott is correct in that he wasn't on a watch list (definition?) however based on publically available information he was known to Police and other agencies. Read between the lines... or not.
And just to clarify, he was charged with being an accessory to murder.
-
And here he was made chief of police...............
-
I am in support of unlimited law enforcement access to such data and strict oversight of such access to avoid abuse.
Liberty requires safe guarding. Sounds like a paradox but there are lots of bad guys out there that can hurt lots of innocent people.
As an accommodation, we can split up the country where people who don't share that view can live where no law enforcement access to such data is possible.
The same goes with (community) policing: people should have the right to decide what system, political, judiciary, or economic, under which they live their lives.
-
I am opposed to unlimited law enforcement access to such data:
Reasons: It allows too much control by specific individuals. Allows for extortion. For example, let's say a senator was running for office, but the NSA had some evidence that he had once committed a harmless offence (such as smoking weed.) This could be used to manipulate the political system.
Another example, "Does your wife know about your affair?" could be used to manipulate someone for evidence.
Who watches the watchmen?
And, my private life is mine to enjoy without government intrusion. The government should fear its citizens... not the other way around...
-
Relevant story:
The NSA's goal is clearly to permanently save all electronic communications from everyone. It's now known they already do that for at least two countries (and I would not be surprised if Australia is one of those.) It's also not about finding 'wrong do-ers', or we would not still have Internet malware of any kind. It's more about pre-crime and thought-crime modeling and prediction. Listening to statements of US government pond-slime like Cass Sunstein is truly terrifying, when you realize these people are seriously attempting to implement that kind of far-beyond-1984 nightmare society.
i like that ... pre-crime .... whats that tom cruise movie? .... precogs and stuff
-
Minority Report!
-
i like that ... pre-crime .... whats that tom cruise movie? .... precogs and stuff
Pre crimes are already prosecuted. It goes like this, first you criminalize the pre crime and then you can prosecute it like any other crime.
E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29)
-
I see a big difference between a government spying on its own citizenry within its territory (or 'US persons' as it's called here) and a government spying on other countries and their citizens. The former is an act of oppression, the later is they are doing their job. For example, if the GCHQ collects information about US citizens I don't see a problem with it.
-
stenography or trying to blend in to the crowd
My work hear starts to bear fruits. ;-)
Communicating secretly through misspellings, are you? That explains a lot.
-
Relevant story:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2014/12/15/amazon-hp-ebay-join-microsoft-bandwagon-in-warrant-case/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2014/12/15/amazon-hp-ebay-join-microsoft-bandwagon-in-warrant-case/)
Amazon, HP, eBay join Microsoft bandwagon in warrant case
As extensively telegraphed by Microsoft, the company’s cast of supporters in its legal fight over a warrant seeking a customer’s emails just got a whole lot bigger.
Microsoft was joined by Amazon.com as well as Silicon Valley stalwarts Hewlett-Packard and eBay. Apple, AT&T, Cisco and Verizion, which all supported Microsoft in its lower court case, also weighed in again.
Google, a leader in the cloud-computing realm along with Microsoft and Amazon.com, was among the notable technology companies that haven’t weighed in.
-------------
The NSA's goal is clearly to permanently save all electronic communications from everyone. It's now known they already do that for at least two countries (and I would not be surprised if Australia is one of those.) It's also not about finding 'wrong do-ers', or we would not still have Internet malware of any kind. It's more about pre-crime and thought-crime modeling and prediction. Listening to statements of US government pond-slime like Cass Sunstein is truly terrifying, when you realize these people are seriously attempting to implement that kind of far-beyond-1984 nightmare society.
Personally I bear in mind that an extreme dictatorship only has to eliminate about 10% of the population to suppress any chance of rebellion. The chief difficulty is getting the right 10%. Having a vast archive of all the meta-data PLUS everything everyone said over several years would be *exactly* the right tool for that purpose. Especially if covering years before most people realized how dangerous things were getting.
It's not what they now say they want to do with it, it's what they *will* do with it once they have their Communications Death Star fully operational.
Oh, and for those who think I have an unduly negative view of governments... the Australian government (NSW State and local govt, apparently under instructions from the Federal gov) have recently announced (effectively) that personal property rights no longer matter, and they will be relocating masses of existing homeowners whenever it suits government plans (and personal property investment profits.)
This is personal - if their plan goes ahead (and it will) I'm definitely going to lose my home and workshop.
See http://everist.org/no-rezone/ (http://everist.org/no-rezone/) (my site.)
You can't call it 'conspiracy rubbish' when the stinking plans are online on .gov sites, and there's a timeline of government actions and mainstream news stories going back to 2005.
When the law is used to spy on you, and divest you of your material assets, then there is no longer Rule of Law.
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience..."
-- John Locke 1690 2nd Treatise on Government Chapter 19 paragraph 222
This is one of those cases where America has it right, where if you ever object to the government ejecting you from your land you can always sit out on the porch with a rifle and dare them to move you by force. It may not end well, but I suppose it's nice to have the option.
-
This is one of those cases where America has it right, where if you ever object to the government ejecting you from your land you can always sit out on the porch with a rifle and dare them to move you by force. It may not end well, but I suppose it's nice to have the option.
"When the people are afraid of the government it's oppression, when the government is afraid of the people it's freedom"
They should at least be afraid of the voters.
-
Turn the question over.
What would the majority think if there was another 11th of the 9th or 7th of the 7th etc?
Probably an outcry - why didn't the government prevent it?
I don't know what the answer is.
For me it isn't the gathering of information - it's the security of the data and what use is made of it!
Whichever way you look at it - it's catch 22.
-
All we have are the security service's word that hey have thwarted all these huge plots, and vast amounts of hard evidence that their mass surveillance programmes don't work thanks to Snowden. The later is far more convincing, especially after the security services have been shown to lie over and over again.
Yes and given the nature of the job, that's all many of us will ever get. You have to remember though Snowden's leaks was largely related to American agencies (which operate very differently to Australia's). If you also have a look at Snowden's security clearance and what he did/did not have access to, there was vast amounts he didn't know and wasn't privy to.
Anyway my point is Australia is doing a great job and that will only be enhanced with further access, powers and technical abilities. We also need to remember that law enforcement can't possibly be everywhere and the fact we've already prevented so much makes what happened in Sydney a small (however unfortunate) incident. As tragic as it was, we ended up with two innocent parties killed and some minor injuries. It was no where near the large scale disaster it could have been. In this instance the offender appeared to have little or poor planning, his demands weren't thought out and it appears he even changed locations at the last moment. He barely had control.
Where the system has failed us is with the bail determination by magistrates in the past. This is an issue we see time and time again, people being let out on bail for very serious offences, and that isn't in line with community expectations. The problem is, magistrates aren't being held to account for their decisions, there's just an appeals process. I can guarantee that if magistrates and judges were scrutinised as much as the law enforcement agencies who put them before the court, we'll see a much tougher stance on crime.
-
Turn the question over.
What would the majority think if there was another 11th of the 9th or 7th of the 7th etc?
Probably an outcry - why didn't the government prevent it?
I don't know what the answer is.
For me it isn't the gathering of information - it's the security of the data and what use is made of it!
Whichever way you look at it - it's catch 22.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklyn.
Abuses of the data will happen, if they haven't already. It's not realistic to assume otherwise.
-
... When a white guy goes nuts and kills people it’s a crazy criminal if some guy who calls himself an Oman or whatever does the same, it’s a terrorist attack.
Wrong. It's called a terrorist attack when there is a clear link to extremist religious set of beliefs which was the case with the recent incident in Sydney.
-
Do you actually believe that drivel. The guy was a nut, nothing more. He wasn’t a terrorist he was a common criminal using religion as a cover. What was it 28 sexual assaults’ plus attempted murder. No matter what you do you will never be able to stop crazy people. You make it sound like it was some highly coordinated attack by ISIS against Australia.
All ISIS are nothing but a bunch of criminals using religion for financial gains. They are a bunch of ex Iraqi grunts looking for a pay cheque. They recruit gullible half wits for the odd sensational suicide attack; most of those usually backfire without police intervention.
When a white guy goes nuts and kills people it’s a crazy criminal if some guy who calls himself an Oman or whatever does the same, it’s a terrorist attack. The only way to prevent things like this happening in the future is increase the amount of shrinks not cops.
Fortunately here under section 8 of the charter we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure also under the same section we have a right to reasonable privacy. I’m waiting for the first case in the courts using these criminal methods for fishing expeditions to get tossed out. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that officers need probable cause or a warrant to intercept mail and communications how are they going to back track on that? Better yet what idiot would want it any other way?
Did you actually bother READING any of my responses before you hit reply? It seems you didn't.
Where did I at any stage mention ISIS or Islamic State? (The flag that was displayed during the siege wasn't even an ISIS flag). I also made the point that his plan seemed poorly executed -- I don't know how you got "highly coordinated attack" from that.
Yes, the guy was nuts and had crazy ideologies, but he was also committing an act of terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily mean an offender needs to fly aircraft into buildings or blow up train stations. It also wasn't merely a matter of "using religion as a cover" as you point out, his motivations were based largely if not solely on his own (skewed) religious views. He has been very vocal about that in the media previously.
If you honestly think that what our law enforcement and security agencies are doing is 'drivel' then I'm glad we have one less pelican like you living in Australia. If you want to sit behind your keyboard, block your ears and sing "la la la I'm not listening" everytime the T-word is mentioned, be my guest, but think about what you type next time.
-
Did you not notice the section of your post that I quoted? law enforcement is doing a great job in what? Counterterriosm? They have prevented what? terriost attacks? Or where you refering to some other crimes. You will have to forgive me, but considering we were talking about terriost attacks I assumed you were praising your law enforcement for their numerous thwarted terriost attacks
So what you're saying is you didn't read my posts? Let me repeat what I said yesterday:
But many "terror threats" have been detected, investigated and thwarted by Police and other agencies including several in more recent years (I could probably count on one hand incidents in the last 6-12 months). But most of it isn't big news and isn't reported or it's kept under wraps. I'm of the opinion that Australia is in a great position security-wise and we generally have the upper-hand (even more so than other western countries). Consider the recent incident in Sydney, it had a very real potential of being far worse than it was hadn't it have been for years of hard work and the rapid response by the NSW Police.
And just to clarify, I'm basing this on real knowledge and involvement, not just what I read, see or hear about in the media.
-
The guy was a criminal and a nut looking for attention. Do you have any evidence ISIS or any real terror organisation was financing him or he was executing some plan on their behalf.
Of course not, it was a self radicalize lone wolf, there is more than enough material on the internet to guide those people. The jihad movement is much wider than ISIS and one doesn't need to be an organization member to subscribe to it. Australians should be more careful who they let in. For Europe is already too late.
-
Australians should be more careful who they let in. For Europe is already too late.
Those are my thoughts exactly. However I'm not going to chime into that argument, I'll leave that for the talk-back station 2GB. Some people might take my personal opinions as being racist, critical of religion, or for being too "militarised".
-
You realise you just made my point for me?
I'm not making any points "for" you at all. First you disagree with what I was saying and now you're agreeing? Do you realise you're just contradicting yourself in your posts.
-
He was a nut who grabbed on to the nearest line it just happened to be radical Islam. People with weak or sick minds are easily manipulated, religous groups know this, the security industry also knows this. If it wasn't Islam it would have been something else.
There are recently too many 'nuts' with this extreme religious ideology.
Good luck trying to fight that, you would need to be able to see the future. You can throw all the money you want at it and still be far from batting a thousand.
Fighting jihad and terrorism is a must. It's like leaving with cancer, the chemotherapy is not pleasant but the alternative is even worst.
-
Really how so? You made a comment praising your law enforcement on their counter terriosm and how much worse it would have been in Sydney if it weren’t for them. I merely retorted that it wasn’t terriosm it was a nut. Where’s the contradiction?
It was an act of terrorism. Even special counter-terrorism powers were evoked and used by Police on the day. It's a call that was made by higher-ups and was publicised in the media. There would have been a number of agencies involved in this operation not just Police, Fire and Ambulance. For you to say it was anything other than terrorism-related is just plain wrong.
Then you accuse me of not reading your post because apparently you weren’t talking about terrorism, then you paste quotes from yesterday all about terriosm. So what is it? Did your security agency thwart a major terrorist attack in Sydney or not?
*sigh* You still haven't read them have you? I'm not even going to bother answering this one for you.
I will agree on one point with you someone is contradicting themselves.
We got there in the end it seems.
I know I speak 'Australian English' but I didn't think my posts were that cryptic and difficult to understand, someone else correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Anyway my point is Australia is doing a great job and that will only be enhanced with further access, powers and technical abilities. We also need to remember that law enforcement can't possibly be everywhere and the fact we've already prevented so much makes what happened in Sydney a small (however unfortunate) incident. As tragic as it was, we ended up with two innocent parties killed and some minor injuries. It was no where near the large scale disaster it could have been. In this instance the offender appeared to have little or poor planning, his demands weren't thought out and it appears he even changed locations at the last moment. He barely had control.
The point Achmed99 is making is that this statement appears to contradict itself, it that Australia is doing a great job but the offender killed two people even with poor planning and barely having control.
I'm with Achmed99 on this one, why should police have further access, powers and technical abilities, when they can't even get the basic stuff right? Not talking about the tactical response squad who seemed to do a good job, but the people who are supposedly monitoring terrorism.
-
The point Achmed99 is making is that this statement appears to contradict itself, it that Australia is doing a great job but the offender killed two people even with poor planning and barely having control.
I'm with Achmed99 on this one, why should police have further access, powers and technical abilities, when they can't even get the basic stuff right? Not talking about the tactical response squad who seemed to do a good job, but the people who are supposedly monitoring terrorism.
Name one organisation (government or otherwise) who couldn't improve on something or has never made a mistake? This isn't a perfect world.
We can't turn around and look at this particular incident as a failure (when it in fact was handled very well). Experts in the field have labelled it "textbook" and I don't disagree with that statement.
To say Police shouldn't have extra powers or access "because something bad happened" is counter-intuitive. What you're basically saying is that on one hand he should have been monitored more closely but on the other, Police need to demonstrate the need for enhancement of law and capabilities before it's given to them.
We will never see a world without crime and there will always be casualties. But think to yourself, where do we go from here? Would you rather Police have more or less power and capability? I'd say more. In Australia, we enjoy a high level of freedom and safety because of the fine work that goes on behind the scenes and I can tell you from personal experience, it can be tough sometimes because legislation doesn't allow for something or requests for information are declined. We all do the best we can with what we have.
-
To say Police shouldn't have extra powers or access "because something bad happened" is counter-intuitive.
I never said nor tried to make a point like that.
I think that they (whoever runs our Intelligence services) should really demonstrate their ability to handle, interpret data they already have access to, if they want more access, more data.
Even Tony Abbot rates it as a fail, as we can see by him launching an inquiry into it. It might help him dodge responsibility for ASIOs efforts on this case.
Would you rather Police have more or less power and capability? I'd say more. In Australia, we enjoy a high level of freedom and safety because of the fine work that goes on behind the scenes and I can tell you from personal experience, it can be tough sometimes because legislation doesn't allow for something or requests for information are declined. We all do the best we can with what we have.
I guess it all comes down to how much you trust them, trust their competence, trust their integrity. For me I would say I would prefer not to have to trust them any further.
-
I don't know what the answer is.
Part of the answer is simple: stop puppeteering one regime/leader/organization to go against another one, causing wars and deaths, only to then drop them like a hot potato and start it all over with another one, just this time to go after those you previously puppeteered. And stop meddling in affairs in foreign countries that are none of your business. As said, only part of the answer, but not a small one i'm sure.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Abuses of the data will happen, if they haven't already. It's not realistic to assume otherwise.
It has already been proven that they can't watch over and protect the data and information they collect. That is something that far too many people either willingly ignore or are simply unaware of, in the wake of the Snowden leaks. I mean, really: the allegedly most sophisticated spy organization in the world, the NSA, was unable to protect their precious data and info, and instead had some third party contractor comming in, grabbing it, and leave with it. Through the front door.
And those are the folks that we are supposed to trust? Come on...
Greetings,
Chris
-
Turn the question over.
What would the majority think if there was another 11th of the 9th or 7th of the 7th etc?
Probably an outcry - why didn't the government prevent it?
I don't know what the answer is.
For me it isn't the gathering of information - it's the security of the data and what use is made of it!
Whichever way you look at it - it's catch 22.
No disagreement here, terrorism is horrible, and should be prevented where reasonably practicable. But I think we worry about it too much.
Wouldn't it be better to deal with, say obesity, car accidents, cancer, etc. first, rather than the relatively unlikely terrorist event?
Imagine if we took the 10% ($5.3bn) of the NSA budget and put that towards cancer research? That's five times the annual budget for the American Cancer Society right there. How much additional benefit would that have?
What about improving road safety: how much driver education, road improvements, traffic police etc. could that pay for? Or helping people eat better, avoiding obesity related death/disease...
-
We can't have perfect safety, there will always be a balance.
In fact, i'd say that having freedom and liberty means that taking higher risks is required, contrary to what those who claim that preserving liberty requires "safe guarding" or the restrictions of freedom in some cases. Me having the freedom to buy a kitchen knife to cut my bread also means that everyone else has the freedom to buy one. Just that this also means that from time to time some sociopath will buy one to kill someone. Me having the freedom to walk out of the door, onto the street, hop into a car, also means that other have the freedom to do the same, drive vehicles on those streets, and me taking the risk that one of them drives me over.
We accept those risks all the time. Many of those things cause far more deaths every year than terrorist attacks. And yet, here we are, constantly being kept in fear about terrorism, pumping insane amounts of money into surveillance etc., while we hear very little about all these other things.
Imagine what could happen if the news would treat car accidents, which kill far mor people every year, the same way as it treats terrorism? Wee would have 20 minute news segments exclusively for car accidents, followed by a 1 minute segment about some alleged terrorist somewhere.
Greetings,
Chris
-
In fact, i'd say that having freedom and liberty means that taking higher risks is required,
Absolutely correct. Freedom and liberty carry significant risks as well as costs to any society and all members in that society.
contrary to what those who claim that preserving liberty requires "safe guarding" or the restrictions of freedom in some cases.
It is precisely such costs / risks that require safe guarding to make sure that freedom and liberty are sustainable, to borrow a term from the tree huggers.
The right to freedom and liberty is absolute - every one should have it and have it equally; The exercise of such rights is not absolute; As a matter of fact, the exercise of such rights is constrained and differing. We take away such right in its entirety from those we execute for capital crimes; We restrict such rights to people we jail; ...
It can be argued that the more freedom everyone has, the higher such risks and the more is needed to minimize such risks. Thus, the need to "safe guard".
-
The sydney case is interesting on a few fronts:
1) the guy was sentenced to some community service just for writing nasty letters? That, to those euro-centric nuts, is a constitutionally protected right in the US, regardless of how morally wrong such letters are;
2) with a long list of crimes he has committed, allegedly or otherwise, how did he get bail?
3) why was he still allowed to stay in the country after having committed such crimes?
4) how did the government grant him resident status with his home country was trying to get him back for crimes committed there? what influenced the aussie's decision there?
5) how did he get a gun?
6) how did he drop off the watch list?
7) how did he get welfare payments?
All civilized society should look at this case and learn lots of lessons. The biggest for me is that political correctness kills.
-
Your flair for the dramatic is also typical of your average law enforcement individual. I’m not prepared to give up my basic rights and freedoms on the off chance that some nut may kill me. I’m also not about to stop driving because a drunk driver may plow into me.
It's common for extremists and jihadist is to abuse our democracy against itself. As Morsi said once, democracy is like a bus that takes you from point A to point B and then you get off. When somebody complains about lack of democracy it's useful to figure out what's really behind it. Sometimes it's sincere, sometimes not.
-
It can be argued that the more freedom everyone has, the higher such risks and the more is needed to minimize such risks. Thus, the need to "safe guard".
Bollocks. Thinking that through would result in the need to lock everyone up, because anyone at any time could do something bad.
Mass surveillance of people is not a solution to anything. In fact, i would argue that in reality it hinders the process of gaining useful intel about suspects. The more data you collect, the worse your signal/noise ratio gets. The more crap you collect, the more people you need to finally sift through it. The more people are on it, the more false positives will come out of it, slowing the whole thing down even more. Not to mention that the risk of abuse of the whole system raises dramatically. LOVEINT anyone?
And again, all things considered the threat from terrorists is rather low, compared to many other things we are exposed to in our daily lives. It's just that "oh, look, a possible terrorist" ist just a nice way to induce panic and fear in people, and a rather stupid excuse to expand mass surveillance. It's pretty much the same as with the idiots here in Germany crying for extended data rentention on a regular basis. It's always the excuses why they want, nay, _need_ it. And for the time actually had it (until it was shut down by the EU), the stats show that it did virtually nothing to fight the crimes they wanted to have that data against.
Not to mention that huge collections of data will awake the appetite to use for other things. I can see that here in Germany. First they said that data retention was needed to fight terrorism. Then they added heavy crimes to the list. And of course, they then added child pornography. Now we have demands for that silly data retention because of crimes done on the internet, regular crimes, etc.
There is a simple solution to stop all that madness: don't allow it in the first place. And if it is already in place, get rid of it. Instead watch over suspect people, but do that thoroughly. Put all the manpower behind evaluating that limited data. Whenever something more suspicious arises out of that, request further data retention and surveillance. If that leads to nothing during a limited time period, then chances are you are on the wrong way, just stop it and look elsewhere. Putting out mass surveillance programs may sound like an easy way, claiming to have the data "just in case" something pops up. But in reality it is the hunt for a needle in a haystack, with far too much potential for abuse, and with far too heavy intrusion into everyone elses privacy.
After 9/11 they ramped up surveillance. And continue ramping it up to this day. All that surveillance, all the agencies involved, and still they couldn't stop something like the Boston Bombers. They are lost in the woods of all that data. They can't use it that well, they are unable to protect it, but still they want more. That's just insane.
Greetings,
Chris
-
It's common for extremists and jihadist is to abuse our democracy against itself.
Indeed. Given the dictionary definition of terrorism, and considering the fallout post 9/11, it seems that they won, and the real terrorists are now us. What with keeping people in constant fear and terror about alleged terrorist threats.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Your flair for the dramatic is also typical of your average law enforcement individual. I’m not prepared to give up my basic rights and freedoms on the off chance that some nut may kill me. I’m also not about to stop driving because a drunk driver may plow into me.
Your view is typical of someone who really don't understand the industry. But you're happy to voice an opinion anyway.
You're also willing to accept risk when it suits you (i.e..: driving a car) but not when your "privacy" is concerned. This might come as a shock to you but you're not that interesting to Police. They couldn't care less on the flavour of porn you watch.
There are so many differing views here. Clearly this is going to turn into a case of not being able to change anyone's opinion from the one they've already formed. I've said my piece. I understand there is the risk of powers being abused, however so is the chance of getting caught for it. Australian law enforcement agencies has the lowest rate of corruption in the world. Why? Because there are so many checks and corruption resistance plans in place. And they actually work. Action taken against Police and others here is very rarely due to improper computer system access.
I sleep very well at night knowing our guys are doing the right thing (even though I'm an "average brainwashed law enforcement fanboy" although I prefer the term "qualified"). Everyone seems to be an armchair critic these days.
-
Your flair for the dramatic is also typical of your average law enforcement individual. I’m not prepared to give up my basic rights and freedoms on the off chance that some nut may kill me. I’m also not about to stop driving because a drunk driver may plow into me.
It's common for extremists and jihadist is to abuse our democracy against itself. As Morsi said once, democracy is like a bus that takes you from point A to point B and then you get off. When somebody complains about lack of democracy it's useful to figure out what's really behind it. Sometimes it's sincere, sometimes not.
I can say the same of what is the actual reason you want these extra powers. Is it terrorist or what’s the real motivation? If it is terrorist why keep all non-terror related data, what’s the point? Is every man, women and child a potential terrorist? That’s paranoia to the extreme or else there is another motivation.
It’s like the goal is to have a dossier on every man, woman and child. Does that sound familiar? I’ll refresh your memory we fought a multi trillion dollar cold war and a few small wars to stop the spread of that type of regime. All those lives and that money were wasted, because now we do it to ourselves.
Thankfully I live in Canada and my views seem to be of the majority. Vic Toews tried to pass similar laws being discussed here a ground swell of public disgust made him back pedal.
Canada's intelligence and terror agencies are just as overreaching and morally bankrupt as the US. They're all part of the "Five Eyes" program. While the NSA (US) and GCHQ (UK) are the biggest operators, Canada is a willing, even eager participant in the destruction of your civil rights. They just don't get as much bad press, because everyone loves hockey/maple syrup/poutine.
-
Apparently Man Haron Monis once claimed in court that ASIO and the Iranian equivalent were harassing him. (Wikipedia) But he still slipped off the radar.
Also NSW police say they have no records of Martin Place siege gunman Man Haron Monis ever holding a gun licence.
This is despite the Prime Minister Tony Abbott asserting in a press conference earlier that Monis, killed by police in a gun battle after a 16-hour siege, had been allowed to legally own weapons.
"The NSW Police Force has conducted checks with the NSW Firearms Registry and can confirm there is no record of the 50-year-old man having held a firearms licence," a statement issued this evening said.
Mr Abbott's office later issued a statement saying the Prime Minister had been told during national security briefings by "Commonwealth security officials" that Monis had been a recorded firearms licence holder in NSW.
source (http://www.watoday.com.au/nsw/sydney-siege-gunman-man-haron-monis-did-not-have-gun-licence-nsw-police-20141217-129bg7.html)
I can see the outcome of the inquiry (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-questions-gun-laws-as-he-announces-inquiry-into-martin-place-siege-20141217-1295y2.html) into the seige.
Question: Security Officials why were you so stupid?
Answer: That's classified.
-
I have little doubt that they are doing the same thing but good luck using any evidence gathered that way in a criminal prosecution.
It's easier than you think. It's called evidence laundering.
http://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/08/14/mission-creep-in-the-nsas-surveillance-and-dea-evidence-laundering (http://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/08/14/mission-creep-in-the-nsas-surveillance-and-dea-evidence-laundering)
-
Otherwise known as "reverse construction"; surprisingly common. Using illegal tactics to determine guilt, then using that information to construct an apparently legitimate evidence chain. That's gestapo-style policing there.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3304306634_0a9e51503c_b.jpg)
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/image001-183.jpg)
-
That can’t be. According to Mr.Halon people in law enforcement are all fine, honest , upstanding people who would never abuse any special powers. Mr. Halon says it, so it must be so, we should all just blindly trust that they are only protecting us.
Now you're just being idiotic. Stop "quoting" things I never said.
As I said before, it seems this is another endless argument so I'm stopping right here. You have your opinion and I have mine. It just seems like you're tarnishing every other agency in the world (whether you have a working knowledge of them or not) based on a few corrupt practices from other countries and your knowledge comes largely from the media (because of course they have all the facts report everything accurately).
You sound typical of someone who will jump up and down and make a lot of noise about an issue (which in this case you've demonstrated minimal knowledge about), but then if something happens to you, you're the first to scream "why didn't Police do anything about it?".
Please, don't waste anymore time posting rubbish because I won't waste my time reading it.
-
You sound typical of someone who will jump up and down and make a lot of noise about an issue (which in this case you've demonstrated minimal knowledge about), but then if something happens to you, you're the first to scream "why didn't Police do anything about it?".
That's why I am a huge supporter of "community policying": if people in a community thinks it is OK to punch policy officers, take their guns, rob a store for cigars, gently push the store clerks against the shelf, sell loose cigarettes on the street, or to kill other citizens in their neighborhood without being harassed by the officers, they should have that right and I am all for them.
On the flip side, the rest of us has the right to implement stop-and-frisk, no broken-windows, and uphold laws as the people in my community desires.
Most of the democracies in the "western world" have degenerated into tyranny (of majority) and are full of free riders that suck the life out of the producers. Over the last few decades, it has gotten to the point where it is increasing irreconcilable. So splitting up the countries by ideology is probably the only solution -> everyone will be happy, :)
-
That's why I am a huge supporter of "community policying": if people in a community thinks it is OK to punch policy officers, take their guns, rob a store for cigars, gently push the store clerks against the shelf, sell loose cigarettes on the street, or to kill other citizens in their neighborhood without being harassed by the officers, they should have that right and I am all for them.
I don't know if you were directly referring to something like the Ferguson case, but you're essentially saying its ok that a group of people can go around destroying other's businesses and homes, because there are more of them than there are of those against? (Bear in mind, most of the rioters came from out of Ferguson as opportunists. Much fewer were from Ferguson itself.)
Because if you are, that's really stupid.
-
[I don't know if you were directly referring to something like the Ferguson case, but you're essentially saying its ok that a group of people can go around destroying other's businesses and homes, because there are more of them than there are of those against? (Bear in mind, most of the rioters came from out of Ferguson as opportunists. Much fewer were from Ferguson itself.)
Because if you are, that's really stupid.
That community cares more about people' skin color than maintaing law and order. Ferguson's chickens are coming home to roost.
-
Because if you are, that's really stupid.
Stupidity is part of human rights.
If people want to shit where they eat, let them.
Look at what just happened in NYC today.
-
Stupidity is part of human rights.
If people want to shit where they eat, let them.
Look at what just happened in NYC today.
True. Unfortunately the stupid people are also allowed to vote, protest and in America, carry firearms.
I was devastated to hear two Police lost their lives today at the hands of a coward mad man. At least he had the decency to rid the world of himself in the process.
-
There's an entertaining review of 2014 by David B. Collum: http://s3.amazonaws.com/cm-us-standard/documents/2014-Year-in-Review-Collum.pdf (http://s3.amazonaws.com/cm-us-standard/documents/2014-Year-in-Review-Collum.pdf)
( Introduced here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-20/2014-year-review-part-1-final-throes-geopolitical-game-tetris (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-20/2014-year-review-part-1-final-throes-geopolitical-game-tetris) )
The whole thing is worth reading, but relevant to discussion here is the section on Police Militarization.
Also this, from among the book reviews:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko
This was, quite possibly, the most disturbing book I've ever read. I moved it to
the top of a huge list when Ferguson broke out. Balko documents the slow,
methodical militarization of the police force and the accompanying risk to our
civil liberties and liberty itself. It could have been hyperbolic, but it was not. I
had to complete it in small doses owing to relentless agitation, but it gets my
highest recommendation. It also dovetails nicely with Matt Taibbi's The Divide
A news-aggregator site focused on police excesses & related law issues: www.informationliberation.com (http://www.informationliberation.com)
For instance, on pre-crime threat profiling:
Police Using Social Media Posts to Determine "Threat Score" of Suspects posted 12/16/2014, 11:19 AM
[Category: Tyranny/Police State]
Police departments across the United States are now using a program that mines Internet comments and social media posts to determine the “threat score” of a suspect before cops arrive on the scene.
Reuters reports that law enforcement authorities have utilized an application called Beware since 2012 that takes just seconds to crawl billions of re...
Stuff like this underlies the push by Google and other Net majors, to force people to use real names on the net. So much easier to profile people.
-
If people want to shit where they eat, let them.
Look at what just happened in NYC today.
Yes, in a way I can agree, people can destroy their own neighbourhood and that's their problem when there is no employment or the businesses leave town... but it's also not OK to destroy other's property, and that's where law enforcement is necessary (although in this case, apparently ineffective.)