I Want My METADATA!!!

[cimmo]

Cimmo, now your replies are getting increasingly misguided, ridiculous and not to mention deviating off-topic. I will not comment on anything that is operationally sensitive or quite frankly, none of your business.

Now how could you say those specific words and also claim you are NOT an 'insider'.

At least be consistent. Or admit you said something and forgot you said it. We all make mistakes (except the government, apparently.)
Anyway, you've shown your hand. I think anyone NOT 'in the industry' now knows how to value your opinion.

My other questions to you were EXACTLY on point - because you tried to preach to me the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra. I was specifically asking you if you had any personal experience of a prosecution failing. And why you thought it failed - due to a mere technicality and the bad guy having a better lawyer than you are, or was a genuinely innocent person put through the ringer because of a mere mistake? Some bad data perhaps?

Go on, you're using a pseudonym, would an honest (but non-specific) response really be spilling state secrets? (or perhaps you know that 'they' know who you really are? Wink wink?)

Or maybe it is as I asked, that neither you nor any of your professional colleagues have ever made a mistake?
I seriously doubt that and this is exactly why I do not trust systems that cannot be independently verified - especially anything that is merely 'automated'. It takes a computer to f*ck up royally and then all it takes is some officious twat to reject the idea that the data could be wrong.

I've already told you how I know this - it is not mere opinion but personal experience.

[zapta]

In theory I should be able to get all data about me. Billing data, tech support interaction records etc. for a start, but I should also be able to get a record of every phone call I made, every web site I visited while not using a VPN, every email I sent using my ISPs servers (none) and any other data they are required to keep for two years by law.

I might try my mobile phone service provider too. They should be able to get me details of all the calls, text messages, web activity and my phone's location for the last two years.

Logged metadata can have a huge amount of low level technical details, towers information, signal levels, frequencies, etc, in addition to the more user level data (web sites, installed apps, location history, phone calls, etc). I wonder how the law is defined, does it require them to provide all the information or some a distilled versions of it?  Also, I doubt that you will have any progress with either large public support/visibility or tenacious legal team.

[n45048]

I would think that the vast majority of users here would consider comments or opinion from someone "in the industry" as being generally reliable and accurate. It doesn't mean you can't have a differing view or take it as absolute fact. You might see it as "bias", but I have to disagree with you. Others reading this thread can make up their own minds.

As for revealing methodology, I'm aware of what I can and can't say whether it be in relation to my current profession or past duties, particularly on a public forum. I'm also not willing to elaborate further on my qualifications or past experience. That's just something you will have to respect whether you agree with it or not.

As for preaching the "innocent until proven guilty" thing -- This is in the eyes of the law, I'm not making this stuff up, despite you feeling that you were treated differently in your case. Again, I won't/can't comment on cases I have been involved in.

Anyway, I think we'll leave it there. I believe we've both made our opinions clear.

[miguelvp]

If that was the case, then why did you even participate in an open forum? 

The thing is the way agencies operate is all about justifying their budget so that they don't get cut. So if there is not enough workload, well you have to create workload.

I have friends (two brothers) that where prosecuted without cause. They were totally blind sided by the whole thing and this was before 9/11.
Their father had a farm and he gave it to them, none were interested so they sold it and the equipment. But their neighbor was under suspicion so by association a couple of agencies look into the activities. They sold farm equipment and the people interested in getting it were from Mexico, so there goes some cargo from the US to Mexico and of course it had to be drugs in their minds or some other illicit activity. One of them actually had a private pilots license (no airplane of his own just the license) and he had to maintain it so he flew to visit and I picked him up at the airport field, I dropped him at my brother's house because I had to go to work after picking him up. They also had direct family in another city and they used to go visit often. What they sold was sold for cash I think.

Anyways, I got a visit from two agents from two different agencies to inquire about them. I did let them into my place and listened, they told me they were investigating them for possible drug trafficking and how one of them when he was pulled over had marijuana in their car, I asked how much of it and they said it wasn't much so they couldn't prosecute for that incident because they wanted a bigger bust since it was a right between Mexico, them and their direct families city, of course I told them that my friends were not involved in any drug traffic and that they had family in the other city and that I've heard that they just sold the farm equipment to someone in Mexico and that I knew that they did smoke pot every now and then but nothing mayor.

Well, they keep on telling me that I didn't really know what my friends were up to and that I was naive about it. The funny thing is that before that happened I used to hear people over my roof at night, I thought it was the landlord but it was late at night and many days, but didn't think too much about it. Well later on another common friend told me he was visited and they show him a picture of me picking the other guy up at the airfield, with a telephoto lens from what he was it was very far away and they inquire him about me as well. I don't get high and I had a regular job with direct deposit so I guess they didn't extend it to me.

Later own I got a summon to testify in the grand jury to get the case on the road. Of course I went prepared to defend my friends, but they didn't even call me in and they went ahead with the case. They also confiscated any cash my friends had (from the farm equipment sale) under the war on drugs act, they took their passports, went into their house in full swat manner. Still with not a single piece of evidence, many years of back and forth and I think after over 6 years they dropped the case.

Funny thing is that one of my friends always defended that law enforcement, government agencies etc was there to protect his brother had the opposite view. He changed his view after what happened needless to say. Do you think the agents cared about making them suffer. They are both self employed but imagine they had regular jobs, it would have been a disaster for their futures.

It doesn't take a tin hat to know that agencies have to spend the whole budget regardless on how many crimes there are because they want to be prepared in case they do need it, or just they want to keep growing or whatever, it's just not a good system when you need x amount of cases per year because they will find cases.

I mean, look at Dave and not being able to purchase some electronics because he was in some list, because the name being so common, what is in his metadata that prevented him to purchase from element14 I believe it was. Tin hat, nope just reality blows and most people are not affected so the few that are don't have the rest to back them up because it's always dismissed as unintentional mistake.

[cimmo]

They also confiscated any cash my friends had (from the farm equipment sale) under the war on drugs act,

AKA Civil Forfeiture.

In the US this has become a significant source of funding for many smaller Police departments. If anyone reading this is not aware of this travesty, then look it up and wonder what the heck is going on with the USA.

In a nutshell - YOU are often never even charged with a crime, but your property (cash/assets) ARE and since they aren't 'people', your assets have fewer rights. You (the owner) become merely a third party claimant.

This is a wonderful example of 'innocent until proven guilty' - NOT.

[miguelvp]

But it was stupid for my friends to do transactions under the table for cash, you need a paper trail to protect what you have.
That should be the lesson they should have learned. Still it's a travesty of the system that just for suspicion they can take any assets that are not properly documented, I can see a tax evasion fine or some penalty but that is a bit extreme.

[cimmo]

But it was stupid for my friends to do transactions under the table for cash, you need a paper trail to protect what you have.

Even with legitimate and fully documented accounting, if they decide to take an asset, you're screwed - you often have to pay more in attorney fees than the value of the asset to prove that it's legitimate.

The onus of proof is on the asset owner. AKA - your money is deemed guilty until YOU prove your money is innocent. For many completely innocent citizens it becomes a cost-benefit trade off - and the cops/thieves know this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/cash-seizures-fuel-police-spending/
"Of the nearly $2.5 billion in spending reported in the forms, 81 percent came from cash and property seizures in which no indictment was filed, according to an analysis by The Post. Owners must prove that their money or property was acquired legally in order to get it back."

"There have been 61,998 cash seizures on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments and processed through the Equitable Sharing Program, according to an analysis of Justice data obtained by The Post."



And something else not unrelated at all:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

[mamalala]

Because am a law abiding member of society with absolutely nothing to hide.

Please provide us, in this thread, with your full name, address, date of birth, telephone number, you bank account number(s), all the information to be found on your credit cards, how much funds you actually have in your bank account, etc. Also please tell us to who you partner, spouse or wife is, how often you have sexual encounters with him/her, what you do exactly during those encouters. For now that should be enough. I can come up with a longer list of requests as well, if you like. I also invite everyone to ask their own questions of you.

I mean, you have absolutely nothing to hide. You said so yourself. So don't even think about a cheap cop-out using privacy as an excuse. Oh, and don't bother to ask me anything similar. Because, you know, i _do_ have something to hide: my private information and everything else that i don't willingly want to share.

Greetings,

Chris

[mamalala]

I would think that the vast majority of users here would consider comments or opinion from someone "in the industry" as being generally reliable and accurate.

You misspelled "some anonymous bloke on an internet forum, claiming to be in some related industry".

Greetings,

Chris

[n45048]

Because am a law abiding member of society with absolutely nothing to hide.

Please provide us, in this thread, with your full name, address, date of birth, telephone number, you bank account number(s), all the information to be found on your credit cards, how much funds you actually have in your bank account, etc. Also please tell us to who you partner, spouse or wife is, how often you have sexual encounters with him/her, what you do exactly during those encouters. For now that should be enough. I can come up with a longer list of requests as well, if you like. I also invite everyone to ask their own questions of you.

I mean, you have absolutely nothing to hide. You said so yourself. So don't even think about a cheap cop-out using privacy as an excuse. Oh, and don't bother to ask me anything similar. Because, you know, i _do_ have something to hide: my private information and everything else that i don't willingly want to share.

Greetings,

Chris

Oh Chris, where to begin with this. Have you actually been reading?

You clearly don't understand the difference between "I don't do naughty things" to "I don't hand out information willy-nilly".

I guess one cheap cop-out deserves another, right?

I would think that the vast majority of users here would consider comments or opinion from someone "in the industry" as being generally reliable and accurate.

You misspelled "some anonymous bloke on an internet forum, claiming to be in some related industry".

Greetings,

Chris

No, you misread it. At no point did I make any claims to work in any specific industry. The comment I made (and you quoted) was a general comment that could apply to anyone, not necessarily just myself, in a wide range of contexts. As I mentioned very early on, I'm not willing to expand on my qualifications in this environment. You're welcome to make assumptions based on what I've said but I won't be confirming anything about what I do for a living (just like you made the assumption that I'm a "bloke").

Forums like this are designed for open and constructive discussion. My comments relating to this thread are my own opinions on the given topic. Those opinions might come from professional experience or just own thoughts on the way I perceive the world. We're all entitled to them and no one opinion is worth any more or any less than another. Where you start to discredit yourself is when you begin to attack a person or their opinion, rather than adding to the discussion.

With that said, I think I've replied to enough stupid comments. There are several other people in this thread who raise some compelling arguments and do so intelligently.

[n45048]

But it was stupid for my friends to do transactions under the table for cash, you need a paper trail to protect what you have.
That should be the lesson they should have learned. Still it's a travesty of the system that just for suspicion they can take any assets that are not properly documented, I can see a tax evasion fine or some penalty but that is a bit extreme.

Quite right miquelvp. A paper trail is important to either prove or disprove something. Our legal system is a complicated one and it's a fine balance between too lenient (allowing criminals to go unpunished) and too harsh (allowing innocent parties getting caught up in such matters).

In relation to the collection of Metadata in Australia, I don't disagree with it. It can be a powerful investigative tool. My concern is how many people have potential access to it. If it's just Police and Government security agencies through secure channels, that's great. But if it's the case where public can access it via some kind of request process, then vulnerabilities are introduced into the system.

It reminds me of the incident not that long ago where customer data was compromised from an internet-facing system belonging to Telstra.

[cimmo]

I will not comment on anything that is operationally sensitive

I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why you have used those exact words and yet only an hour ago you  said this:
"At no point did I make any claims to work in any specific industry."

How can you be privy to what is "operationally sensitive" unless you are on the inside?
I'm starting to wonder if you're merely some kind of troll?

or quite frankly, none of your business (this thread relates to privacy after all!)

But (as has been pointed out by others) did you not say you are "a law abiding member of society with absolutely nothing to hide"? If privacy means nothing to you, then why be coy?

You're not really a hypocrite, are you?

Now, assuming you really do have some 'skin in this game' and you're not merely a troll, I think I know why you and people in similar positions as you (pretend to be) are desperate to ensure the public do not have access to the same information as "The Authorities". As I personally have discovered that this data set CAN be in error, I think that if other individuals (and the media) also discover the data/metadata contains errors (and I think they will) then this will have ramifications.

1: it will bring into question the reliability of this data/metadata in general.
2: if a precedent is set that this data/metadata MAY be in error, then it makes it far more difficult to present it as absolutely true evidence and far more likely that the defence may succeed in having potentially incriminating data either impeached or maybe even declared inadmissible.

And where would we be then? Back to the 1980's and 90's when cops did their job the old fashioned way.
But "The Authorities" back then were able to successfully keep Australians safe from the 'T' word, did cops get stupider or just lazier that they now have to rely on this probably flawed metadata to do their job?


Why the change in username? Yesterday your comments were apparently from "n45048". What's the story (nothing to hide, remember)? Or did some nefarious individual tamper with the data?

[mamalala]

You clearly don't understand the difference between "I don't do naughty things" to "I don't hand out information willy-nilly".

Funny how those who defend all that data collection nonsense with "nothing to hide", and especially how those who claim they have "absolutely nothing to hide" then refuse to hand out information. Either you have something to hide, or you don't. Saying you don't, and then hiding it, reeks of hypocrisy.

I'm wondering if those "but security!" zealots have actually really thought it through. Any large collection of data makes others to want to have access to that data as well. Today the excuse to collect it is "but terrorism!". Next day it is because of those sick child rapists. Then it's about drug dealers. The bar to access it gets gradually lowered, until you end up with such collections being accessed because of jaywalking. If you think that wouldn't happen, then you are at odds with reality. I see that trend here in Germany, and i can see that  the same trend is going on elsewhere.

Plus, the more data you collect, the bigger the risk of a leak. Either because the systems got compromised (and we all know how "secure and safe" computer networks are...not), or because of disgruntled employees taking it with them, or because someone makes money off of it.

Not to mention that it seems that those huge data collections don't really help in preventing serious crimes anyways. Plus, collecting all that data about everyone because "just in case" basically means that everyone is suspected to be a criminal, that is, the defualt position becomes "guilty until proven innocent".

It's too sad that some crazy idiots called "politicians" and "security experts" have read 1984 and took it as a how-to guide instead of just a fantasy novel.

Greetings,

Chris

[mamalala]

Oh, and another thing that should be mentioned with regards to huge collections of data. The authorities are simply not able to safeguard them,. After all, they are not even able to safeguard their own, most secret stuff. And that is an aspect that is often overlooked nowdays in the case of the Snowden leaks from the NSA. The world biggest spy organization, collecting insane amount of data, grabbing whatever they can without any regards for the laws, even they could not stop a _single_ person from just copying their secret documents and then walking away with them.

One person. In the largest spy organization. And still there are people who defend the massive collection of data from the members of the general public. Trusting the authorities to be able to handle that amount of data, let alone safeguard it. Because we all know that those people are infallible. That cops never abuse their powers, and would never peek into that data for their own purposes. Right ...

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: That is to say: the only way to protect the data of innocent citizens from any kind of abuse, errors, or the likes is simple: just don't collect it in the first place. Especially since the real usefullnes of such data is at best questionable. The risks simply far outweigh the remotely possible benefits.

[n45048]

I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why you have used those exact words....

How can you be privy to what is "operationally sensitive" unless you are on the inside?
I'm starting to wonder if you're merely some kind of troll?

It's a common term that's used in many industries.
Why did you use the term "troll"? Do you mean to tell me that you're a spikey-haired critter that sits on the end of a pencil? ;-)

But (as has been pointed out by others) did you not say you are "a law abiding member of society with absolutely nothing to hide"? If privacy means nothing to you, then why be coy?

You seem to be picking and choosing my responses to suit yourself. If you've read my posts, all along I'm an advocate for privacy and security when it comes to the general public. To sum it up: You don't have any rights to information about me. Certain parts of the government does.

I think I know why you and people in similar positions as you (pretend to be) are desperate to ensure the public do not have access to the same information as "The Authorities". As I personally have discovered that this data set CAN be in error, I think that if other individuals (and the media) also discover the data/metadata contains errors (and I think they will) then this will have ramifications.

1: it will bring into question the reliability of this data/metadata in general.
2: if a precedent is set that this data/metadata MAY be in error, then it makes it far more difficult to present it as absolutely true evidence and far more likely that the defence may succeed in having potentially incriminating data either impeached or maybe even declared inadmissible.

And where would we be then? Back to the 1980's and 90's when cops did their job the old fashioned way.
But "The Authorities" back then were able to successfully keep Australians safe from the 'T' word, did cops get stupider or just lazier that they now have to rely on this probably flawed metadata to do their job?

The job of the courts is to find people guilty or not guilty. It's not the job of the media. You should know very well the media report what they want to report. Depending on who owns them depends on what " political flavour" the story gets.

As I mentioned earlier, a civilian charged with an offence only has to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Whereas the prosecution must prove their case against the "balance of probability" which is a much higher test. If doubt into the evidence is introduced, then it can be inadmissible or even find the defendant not guilty of a particular offence. But again, that's up to the court to decide.

Why the change in username?

Because I chose to change it. The first one was only ever a temporary and arbitrary one when I registered early in the year. I had no intention of posting regularly at that time.

[cimmo]

Our legal system is a complicated one and it's a fine balance between too lenient (allowing criminals to go unpunished) and too harsh (allowing innocent parties getting caught up in such matters).

Any legal system that even allows ONE innocent individual to be 'caught up in such matters' is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be bad guys. And innocents will suffer because of them. But an innocent citizen fearing one's own government making even one simple error that may result in them being 'caught up in such matters' is just wrong.

I'd rather see a thousand criminals go unpunished than even one innocent party being put through the system. Because like I said earlier (and you ignored) - it is impossible for someone wrongly accused to have that situation properly rectified.

That's my opinion, and I have no interests to declare other that I am an honest Australian citizen who is more concerned about unchecked government power than any probably fictional terrorist threat.

[n45048]

Any legal system that even allows ONE innocent individual to be 'caught up in such matters' is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be bad guys. And innocents will suffer because of them. But an innocent citizen fearing one's own government making even one simple error that may result in them being 'caught up in such matters' is just wrong.

Sure. But what's the answer? Let everyone do what they want? Don't let anyone do anything? I think Australians generally aren't fearful of being wrongfully accused of crimes. You might be, but I can't say I've come across many people who are. I think (as an everyday citizen who drives their car to work and goes shopping at Woolies) that we have the balance fairly well right. Sure there are always going to be aspects of law that could be tweaked, but when you tweak it one way, someone will complain about it.

[cimmo]

I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why you have used those exact words....

How can you be privy to what is "operationally sensitive" unless you are on the inside?
I'm starting to wonder if you're merely some kind of troll?

It's a common term that's used in many industries.

Evasion.
Maybe mendacity?
Disappointing.

I'm an advocate for privacy and security when it comes to the general public.

No you're not.
You're advocating that "The Authorities" can collect as much data about any member of the 'general public' as they choose (on the assumption that everyone might be a criminal) and the public will have no say in the matter except to decide to live in a cave.

To sum it up: You don't have any rights to information about me. Certain parts of the government does.

But I DO have rights to information held about ME.
And that's the bit you don't like. Why?
Because of that strawman that the information might be leaked?

Do you have anything even slightly more compelling than that?

[cimmo]

Any legal system that even allows ONE innocent individual to be 'caught up in such matters' is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be bad guys. And innocents will suffer because of them. But an innocent citizen fearing one's own government making even one simple error that may result in them being 'caught up in such matters' is just wrong.

Sure. But what's the answer? Let everyone do what they want? Don't let anyone do anything? I think Australians generally aren't fearful of being wrongfully accused of crimes. You might be, but I can't say I've come across many people who are. I think (as an everyday citizen who drives their car to work and goes shopping at Woolies) that we have the balance fairly well right. Sure there are always going to be aspects of law that could be tweaked, but when you tweak it one way, someone will complain about it.

Look around at the world. The trends set by other countries (I'm looking at you USA). THAT is what I fear. And unless people like me complain bitterly about the potential of that happening here, people like you will get their way.

You still have not adequately explained why you think I should be prevented from knowing what "The Authorities" know about me.
That is the core of this debate. Would you care to present any evidence to support your mere personal opinion?

Or are you just going to hide behind this (fictional?) 'operationally sensitive' smoke screen?

[Richard Crowley]

Look around at the world. The trends set by other countries (I'm looking at you USA). THAT is what I fear. And unless people like me complain bitterly about the potential of this happening here, people like you will get their way.

It can and almost certainly IS already happening anywhere and everywhere.  Australia is notorious for the false conviction of Lindy Chamberlain.  A media-circus frenzy of sleazy journalism, law-enforcement and jurisprudence.  Something much worst than that could happen at a moment's notice virtually anywhere in the world.  Just witness the current Ebola situation, for example. Civilization is hanging by a thread.

[n45048]

You trust those guys!?! Even after the Snowden leaks?

I do. In Australia anyway.

I don't know about Australian police but the UK police are basically scum...

That is really sad to hear. In the state/territory I reside and work, I can proudly say our Police are fairly well respected by the majority of the community. I'm not saying they have always been perfect but in recent times, they've certainly come a long way and are generally looked up to. I know one particular Police Officer who has never been spat at but gets thanked by members of the public simply walking down the street to get coffee.

The same goes for our domestic and international security agencies. They have a pretty good reputation in Australia. Again, not without some controversies in the past (namely in the 1970s and 80s). Although as you can appreciate, most of their work goes unnoticed day-to-day but their 'failures' (which are few and far between) are widely reported.

[cimmo]

Well, you should probably check out the Snowden leaks. Turns out your trusted security agency probably broke the law, and at the very least hands your data over to scum like GCHQ and the NSA whenever asked without any question or oversight.

Indeed they do. Australia is unfortunately a member of the 'Five Eyes' club. AKA The UKUSA Agreement.

One of the many 'features' of being in this cabal is that it is a 'clever' way of bypassing any domestic laws that nominally preclude a member country from spying on their own - just get one of the foreign members of the club to do it and then get handed the data on a plate.

Interesting historical fact - the one and only time a serving Australian Prime Minister expressed any doubts about this agreement, he was soon dismissed. Coincidence?

Not only that, but this PM was the FIRST PM to find out about this secret agreement - that had already been in force for nearly two decades. Isn't governmental 'transparency' wonderful - a secret agreement so secret that even the elected leader of the country isn't permitted to know anything about it?

(I've probably said way too much on this thread - 'operational sensitivities' and all that- but just to make sure, a little personal message - Hi there NSA, can you please email me a recipe for Bomb Alaska (sic)? Maybe get ASIO to deliver it in person?)

[n45048]

I've probably said way too much on this thread

Thankfully a lot of it is speculation and your own views. Security clearances and vetting procedures exist for a reason.

[miguelvp]

stress is not good for your health, we will always have a police state, hasn't changed for the last century if no more and it won't either anytime soon.

Go in to politics if you want to change things, sure its boring but isn't it worth while?

[n45048]

Indeed, try to relax. Green tea is supposed to be good for that.