• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Privacy and security - striking a balance? (1 Viewer)

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Phone-tapping bill on the way

New phone-tap powers passed

New phone-tap powers passed
March 30, 2006 - 4:02PM


New laws giving law enforcement agencies the power to access phone calls, e-mails and text messages from innocent people were passed by the Senate today.

The government argued the contentious laws struck the right balance between protecting privacy and the needs of security and law enforcement agencies.

[continued - see link]
Democrats: What you don't know could harm you
ALP: Arrogant A-g Gives Phone Taps The Wave Through Without Labor's Safeguards


So, has a reasonable balance been achieved, or are the new powers too broad and potentially invasive?

Any thoughts?


As an aside, here's a link to a similar thread from 2004.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
lol!

I'd like to say I miss tattoodguy, but I really don't. Incidentally, for anyone wondering, I actually immensely dislike such actions which compromise my privacy for apparent gains to my safety, just that in that thread I happened to like him less. ;)

The way the smh article is worded does sound like the new measures will be used sparingly, though to be honest it all still makes me more than a little hesitant. How does the specific mention of tapping a suspect's lawyer's phone not undermine client/lawyer confidentiality? My legal knowledge I'll admit is quite limited, but I always thought that was important.

I also think that a number of the safechecks proposed are more than reasonable, such as a requirement that people are informed after the event. Yet another one slipped through to protect our interests eh? Once again, it's looking like time to start looking for a new country, or preferably, a new direction in leadership that doesn't trade off the rights and carefree ways of life for imagined benefits in safety and security.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Well, well, well. They just like to have their hands in everything these days, don't they.

Perhaps I'll save them the trouble of passing another bill, and I'll just send them the key to my underwear drawer. You would all be smart to follow suit.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Anti-Mathmite said:
I don't give a fuck if there IS someone listening to my phone, because theres nothing that i say that is that exciting. :) Is there things that you say that would amount to terrorism?
That's not the point at all.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
And I did. Gah.

Mathmite, please, with your infinate wisdom tell us why you support this bill?
Without the crap.

The point is, people do not want the government listening to their personal conversations. If you're not engaging in terrorist activities, your phone calls should not be monitored. It is a gross invasion of privacy.
If you are, then the police should user prior evidence to gain access to your records.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
My life consists of being a dick on the Internet, I don't have any private life and this is not likely to change within my lifetime. As such, I see no possible merit in privacy for anyone, and will do my best to ridicule the suggestion that perhaps people have good reasons for wanting privacy.
First of all, fuck you little man.

Now, on to the matter at hand. My point was simply that given the powers which exist already, I see no need for additional measures. Bearing in mind that we're not just referring to phone calls, but also emails and whatever else (Of course you knew that, because your understanding shows through quite clearly in your response). My comment was also not really related directly to government either, I believe that fundamentally this is a well-intentioned endeavour. What bothers me is the potential for abuse by individuals, as I far less confidence in those.

If you've got nothing to hide, how about you give me the login and password to your email account(s), leave them unchanged, and let me monitor what you get up to for the next few years. You're not a terrorist so it's not a big deal, right? I'm just as good as a random government employee doing his job, I promise I'll do everything within my power to ensure that your information isn't used for anything inappropriate (But of course, there'll be little to no recourse if there is a compromise, and I won't even be required to tell you about it if there is, but who cares, right?). I was about to add that I promise I won't beat off over correspondence between you and your girlfriend, but I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, we'll revise that one after you hit puberty.

Of course, you'll respond to me that you haven't done anything to make you a suspect, but I disagree. After all, recent paranoia means that so much as reading the wrong book in public can get you reported to the terrorist hotline, and I'm all about being vigilant. It's for the safety of our nation, right? And after all, this measure is specifically for instances where I can't find evidence on the shit you've done elsewhere, and clearly you'll make the cut on that one! Surely you wouldn't mind sacrificing your privacy for the good of society, right little man?

Thirdly, fuck you again. The fact that you feel no need for privacy in your life does little to negate the fact that others clearly do. I'm also inclined to disregard your opinion entirely, because you're that whiny little fuck who got offended when I pointed out that you spelt screenshot wrong.

If you'd managed a constructive reply, mine would have been similarly sensible. We could have had an interesting discussion about how noteable individuals regard privacy as a fundamental in the process of developing relationships with other people, as with no privacy we are not allowed the choice between what to share and what not to share. So it follows that the erosion of privacy is a fairly serious issue, but again, you're obviously well aware of all this.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
haha ogmz is funny

i remember tattoodguy, infact i remember that thread and his paranoid ways, kidna funny when it turns out he was right and now we r taking his point of view. If u find my post there i probably said something like " iam against my phone being tapped"

People can say some pretty compromising shit on the phone, what about if i were to ring the bank and check my account? suddenly they have my acount access password, my financial details, access to my account... a corrupt junior policeofficer could be a very bad man with this

What if u rang your girl and started talking dirty? would you want some dickhead sniggering on the other end?

What if i was a politician and had a furry fetish and called a fury hotline at 7.95$ a minute, what if that info was leaked? i would be ruined

How about if you and your girlfriend made some porn homevideos and you sent them to her account and police intercepted it?

what if i called my doctor and complained about a burning sensation when i took a piss? would i want others to know about that?

what if i accidently set off the house alarm, rang the security company and told thm the password so they didnt send the cops, suddenly the police know my password to my housealarm, and from previous phone conversations to the arts dealer, they know i have an expensive collection. Sounds like an invitation to an off duty visit to me
the point is there is alot of unsavoury shit you can do, that isnt illegal and youshould have the right to keep private,and there are some details that for security purposes have to be kept quiet
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
First of all, NO, you're not my type at all.
lawl!
Anti-Mathmite said:
Clearly they weren't powerful enough, or they wouldn't have introduced new laws..
When they were introduced we were assured that they were temporary measures intended only to see us through that particular period of hostility. In that period, I don't recall any huge instances where said powers failed to keep us safe, or was there a major terrorist incident in Australia that I missed?
Anti-Mathmite said:
Who cares. Ahmed doesn't deserved to get away because some hippy is worried about his precious "privacy" being breached. the authorities wont listen to your conversations no matter how laxed the law is.. do you know why? Because you aren't even on their fucking radar. You have the "oh no! the big bad government is out to get me!!" mentality. Paranoid really.
I don't think a retarded little cunt like yourself is in any position to tell me what my mindset is, but thanks anyway. I'm of the opinion that my business is mine and mine alone, unless I decide to make it otherwise. I don't care if it's the government, the police, or elvis who wants to listen to me on the phone, they can go fuck themselves.
Anti-Mathmite said:
you'd do more than just monitor my emails ;)
It's all good man, remember, you've got nothing to hide seeing as you're not a terrorist.
Anti-Mathmite said:
Are you still punching that line "after you hit puberty". Its so old really.
It still seems pretty applicable, seeing as you still come across as a retarded child waiting for their nuts to drop.
Anti-Mathmite said:
Not to you, because you aren't some supreme body who can enforce a law. If the police needed to see inside my inbox or listen to my phone, i'd have no problem, because i realise that they have a good will in doing so.
I assure you, I too intend to invade your privacy for the good of the nation!
Anti-Mathmite said:
Thirdly, no, you're not my type.
lawl I get it again!
Anti-Mathmite said:
Oh, i'm sure there are people who need privacy in their life.. Especially ahmed when he's planning to make a 2 tonne plastic explosive bomb with this friend from Auburn.
See that's the thing, there are all these amazing measures being undertaken to provide increased security, but as far as I can see there continue to be no actual incidents to warrant them. Personally, rather than sitting back and watching my rights gradually decline just in case someone decides to attack, I'd prefer to see the government react in accordance with threats as they come up. I mean, once someone blows up a train or something, I'll consent happily (oh baby) to mandatory cavity searches on all public transport, but until then they can fuck off, because I can't actually see a reason for them to do this. Your terrorist scaremongering is admirable however, all your Ahmed lines will surely land you a job in Australian politics one day soon.
Anti-Mathmite said:
Oh gosh dude, not on BOS.. Don't reveal such facts.
Yeah lawl again, you tell me the puberty lines are old and bust out shit about my mum? You've probably picked the wrong person to try that on anyone, normally I laugh about that too, but in this case it's not even funny. Better luck next time though kiddo. PS: I still think it's pretty funny that you spelt screenshot as screan shot and then got offended about it.
Anti-Mathmite said:
*cockatoo voice*
I know. I know.. ohh i knowwwww.
Uhh, k.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
I'm sure Ahmed feels the same way. I don't care what rights Ahmed thinks he has. He's a terrorist. Community good, before individual good.
Ahhh, makes sense! I'm sure the board elite have a name for arguments like that. You eat bread (I assume), Ahmed eats bread too, therefore what's true of ahmed is also true of you. I like it a lot!

Anti-Mathmite said:
If there was a way for you to be able to view my inbox with out being able to alter anything inside it, than i'd be quite happy to let you view it.
Indefinitely? What measures will be in place to ensure that official parties monitoring your shit can't make modifications? Or is it that you trust them more than me? :( Come on, I'm just a faceless individual with no risk of repercussion, going through your shit for the good of our nation.

Anti-Mathmite said:
I'm off the opinion that........ you don't know whether my balls have dropped or not.
Let's call it an educated guess.

Anti-Mathmite said:
No you wouldn't, because you have no enforcement powers.
Enforcement powers are such a triviality, we're talking about the good of society here, who needs procedure when we could bust terrorists by violating some rights, right?!

Anti-Mathmite said:
Yeh, because it was meant to be funny.
Well, it wasn't offensive either, so unless you were aiming at making me roll my eyes, you failed.

Anti-Mathmite said:
No i didn't. I don't know what you're talking about.
#1
#2

That's a shame, you seem to have deleted your posts, I guess we still have record of the outburst though, so that's the main thing ;) I wish I'd kept the "screan shot" wallpaper itself, but I guess your response was the main fun to be had there.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
what? bread?

They have no interest in making modifications. if they did make modifications, the person would be alerted to them listening in....

How are you going through my shit for the good of the nation?


well its an uneducated guess, because i actually have pubic hair and stuff. SO THERE.

yes....

As if you didn't cry.

oh no, you picked up that i made a spelling mistake! shittttttt!
Hmn, I 've sort of lost interest in this. It's been fun and all, but it's going nowhere. I disagree, you disagree, and it's not really going to go anywhere from there. I think I'll leave it now, you can call me paranoid and I'll call you naive. Good day to you sir, I'm off to play monkey island :)
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
And suddenly, NCA&P has become like NS.

Although I agree with Mathmite to an extent, I think that the transition from a government arresting people who we would call 'terrorists' to people only it would call 'terrorists' is an easy one.

Once a hardened spy-system is set up, why would a government that hears the words 'this is how we'll beat the PM in the elections' be any less excited than 'this is how we'll blow up the PM in the elections'?

The moment the state starts intecepting 'crime' at the most fetal level (ie, when we're considering doing it) is the moment the state can be far more selective about what 'crime' is.

Even things like telling the court that the evidence is not persuasive (people say weird stuff on the phone) wouldn't work. As is this business about only tapping selected individuals' phones.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
PwarYuex said:
And suddenly, NCA&P has become like NS.
What, after one exchange?

Still, it would be good if everyone could take the time to not be so childish... Mathmite, I'm looking at you (well, your username).
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
I'm swordmaster of melee island, woo!

Anti-Mathmite said:
When the police start intercepting your personal phone calls between yourself and sandy about how you want to play strip poker with her, then come and see me.
Fine, man, you're 100% correct, afterall, it's not like police have ever abused their powers previously, ever. Why the trend would change with this new power, I have no idea. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this is guaranteed to take place (the exploitation of said power), just that I don't really see anything around me happening which justifies the risk. Anyway, I guess I must have just been imagining it all, I expect the paranoia got to be too much for me. And after all, the way it works is that the more you extend someone's power, the more sparing they are in its application, right? right!

Anti-Mathmite said:
Untill then, the legislation is justified.
I still think mandatory cavity checks are a good idea, just in case.

Anti-Mathmite said:
do you have any idea how BIG Australia is? How freaking MASSIVE this place is? The odds of them having any interest in anything that we are talking about, is one in a bizillionmillionthousandfifteen and one.
You're looking at it on quite a large scale, individuals within the system may be inclined to take a much more narrow focus, after all, nobody is interested in what EVERYONE in the country is doing, though I'm sure there is someone who is interested in what ONE PERSON (not me specifically, of course) is doing.

Anti-Mathmite said:
Paranoid posts about the loss of rights always assume that we are one small, close-knit, tight community.. like a village.. and that there is some village keeper who is going to listen and watch everything that we do.

When such paranoid posts are made, the shear volume of this nation is forgotten.
Blase posts such as yours always assume that the system is flawless, there is no potential for wrongdoing does not exist, and that all individuals involved will use their power responsibly. But like you said, you're right, why would anyone abuse such an extensive amount of power?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
if wrongdoings exist, than taking a blanketed approach to protecting peoples rights is pointless, because if you make it illegal for police to intercept phone calls when they need to, well then its just going to happen anyway..... :)
I believe that in the context of the sentence it was fairly obvious that I was referring to your total faith in the people who would be acting upon these new powers.

To move this in a direction that won't lead us around in circles though, like I said before, it seems to me that police do a pretty good job of busting people as it stands, and that terrorists seem to have difficulty in not leaving enough evidence to be charged already. If these rights are utilised, as mentioned in the article, only when no other evidence can be secured, how exactly are they going to be able to tell who to use them on? Just everyone reported to the national hotline perhaps, people who live in lakemba, people who attract their attention through unrelated charges, people who just look shady?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Anti-Mathmite said:
And your partial lack of faith in the police means that you believe that these laws should be extended.. Because whether they are extended or not, the police are just doing to abuse their powers like the big bad men that they are.
Incorrect, I said there will be potential for it, with no apparent reason. I do believe I've attempted to make that point several times now, with varying levels of patience, but you've been busy being condescending. Read it this time chief, then understand.

Anti-Mathmite said:
The current legislation is about to expire.
Have you noticed any significant changes in the level of terrorists being apprehended while the temporary measures were in place to the level of terrorists apprehended prior to this? I can't really, it seems to have been fairly constant, and at the same time we have seen a continued lack of any actual terrorist attacks. Where then, exactly, is the motivation behind making the temporary measures permanent?

Anti-Mathmite said:
How does ASIO know who to conduct surveilance operations on now? They have their ways of knowing who to use the powers on.
Similarly, ASIO seem to be doing quite a good job of busting people, and have been for years (not just utilising the temporary measures). Given the activities which the people who tend to be being caught undertake, such as going overseas, meeting known terrorists, etc, and with ASIO tending to be aware of this, why exactly do they need more powers? Do they really need to know that our oft-cited friend Ahmed had a conversation with someone in Pakistan, when he's buying the air ticket there anyway and coming back with a suitcase that smells supiciously like ammonium nitrate? It seems to me that in the majority of cases, at least those that I'm aware of, ASIO have caught people in instances where evidence was available (Often ridiculously blatantly), so the new powers seem to be of limited utility.

Anti-Mathmite said:
Let me use this analogy. The average person wants a firewall installed on their computer because they think a big bad hacker is going to break into their computer.

Hackers don't care about whats on small time users computers.. They only are interested in the big guns (banks etc). Users like you wouldn't even be in the farest reaches of their conscience.
Yeah, because the only sort of "hacker" that exclusively targets NASA and the pentagon, right? Your analogy fails miserably, in that you don't take into account the malicious individuals who simply scan ip ranges looking for vulnerable ports and unsecured machines to take advantage of.

To a lot of people (The real ones who do this, not the ones you saw on war games), it's just interesting to see what other people are up to, and while it may be more exciting when it's a big company, individual users definitely don't fall outside their target bracket. Most people who run firewalls will be able to show you logs of these scans. Having personally experienced such random attacks (Resulting in the loss of a dialup account, with access to the account originating from Brisbane and WA, this being prior to running a firewall and learning the wonders of security), I don't see this analogy as holding any water.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Anti-Mathmite said:
do you have any idea how BIG Australia is? How freaking MASSIVE this place is? The odds of them having any interest in anything that we are talking about, is one in a bizillionmillionthousandfifteen and one.

Paranoid posts about the loss of rights always assume that we are one small, close-knit, tight community.. like a village.. and that there is some village keeper who is going to listen and watch everything that we do.

When such paranoid posts are made, the shear volume of this nation is forgotten.
Don't you mean 'populated', not 'BIG'?

If they can do it in China, they can do it here.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
do you have any idea how BIG Australia is? How freaking MASSIVE this place is? The odds of them having any interest in anything that we are talking about, is one in a bizillionmillionthousandfifteen and one.

Paranoid posts about the loss of rights always assume that we are one small, close-knit, tight community.. like a village.. and that there is some village keeper who is going to listen and watch everything that we do.

When such paranoid posts are made, the shear volume of this nation is forgotten.
What. the. fuck.

Firstly, we're 51st in the world for our 'population size'. Secondly, the majority of this population live in concentrated areas along the Eastern coast. Despite the fact we have a large land mass, the population is not distributed evenly throughout.

Thirdly, you're missing the point. Again. As always.
This is not the first attempt by the government to have the right to access all facets of out lives. First there was the national identity card, more recently the 'pornography opt in list', and now the right to phone tap anybody. This allows the government to listen in to the conversations of anybody if there is even the slightest hint of terrorist activity. This is basically assuming that everybody is a potential terrorist, until proven otherwise.

Nobody gives a fuck whether you think this isn't an invasion of privacy.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
the whole idea of the right of privacy isn't that you're allowed to hide things you're doing that are wrong, but that you are able to conduct parts of your life in private without having to worry you're being watched or monitored
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
It's also rooted in our assumption of innocent until proven guilty which protects us from being harrassed, etc by the police or the state as a larger entity. There is an important reason that this assumption underpins our entire legal system.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top