[ordercigsnick]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I don't find a warranted search a "gross violation of privacy." I'm not even sure I mind if the search is done without the knowledge of the suspect. To raid someone's computer in the hope of finding something incriminating somewhere out there? That's pretty damn invasive considering the personal nature of the files and correspondence that are kept on them...

[primaveraloler]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
To raid someone's computer in the hope of finding something incriminating somewhere out there? That's pretty damn invasive considering the personal nature of the files and correspondence that are kept on them... With a warrant you can already do that. But you have to raid their house and take the computer.

[clapsoewmred]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I know too many people who have suffered at the hands of REAL police states of different ideological varieties to take you seriously. But gaining control of information is the first step. A propper police state works without heavy-handed techniques.

You know, the state finds out you're engaging in an undesirable activity. Maybe they don't find you a threat, so instead of just arresting you they decide that undesirables like you shouldn't be in positions of power. At work you find that over time your less competent coworkers get promoted, you get passed over.

There's lots of things the government do to make your life miserable that don't involve a one-way ticket to Siberia. I would be highly surprised if 21st century police states operate with as little subtelty as Stalinist Russia.

[Zdmlscid]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nor is there evidence that its happening in the US. Do you mean the program in general or using it to repress opposition? The program is already in operation. If you mean the usage, well, that depends on who you listen to.

[BamSaitinypap]

I think that on citizens of a country, this has the potencial to be abused in a political manner.

As such my recommendations would be:

a) to limit it to confined samplings, each requiring a judicial "warrant" (just like a wire-tap or a secret search).

b) to decentralize the authorities which perform it, have authority to petition/sanction for it, and the authorities that examine the results.

example: the inquiring body (police) has to address the civil procurature which can decide if it should ask a judge to allow it.

in case a judge allows it, a third body (not with in the police or procurature) would perform the scan, give it to the procurature which would clear it of non case relevant information, and then give it to the police.

[SappyAppy]

Sheeps and traitors make everything possible. Accept everything, that doesn't need you're doing me a favour if you're my neighbour. Traitors will give up their rights just because they can't be bothered with it, and make it worse for all the rest who actually do care about their rights. That's why the term traitor is proper and not an insult.

[PlayboyAtWork]

Siro, if you're talking to me, I have no doubts certain kind of agencies are doing what they can, and some of it is definitely illegal.

But that doesn't mean I'd approve of it. And that certainly doesn't mean I'd appreciate the way people just trivialize the issue and give their privacy because someone says to them, "well, this way we can protect you". I realize the situation is a bit different in Israel, but if that was said to me in here, I'd tell them to get ****ed. Even if things heated a bit, I'd give the same advice. Who needs protection from who again?

With background from security as well as surveillance and what comes with the picture (data mining, profiles etc.), all I'm going to say it's a bad idea to give free hands to anyone, including your own government, especially in the name of all mighty security. The government is the best troll, godwinizing all debates with 'this is for your own good'.

Bullshit.

[Indian Butt Magic]

"But I'm frankly much more willing to trust the police or the government, that I would trust a private company collecting information using browser cookies."

Why would it be either or? I don't trust anyone who would need my personal information if I didn't initiate it. I don't care if it's private or public sector. It's none of their business.

The worst is of course known abuse, however, the abuse still exist in hands of incompetent policy makers and the ones who collect the data and make wild interpretations. The data is _always_ fragmented, static, and definitely making black lists of people who are innocent. And most people who get caught in that web are innocent. And it can truly **** up lives, a lot of them, and it does all the time.

I still recommend the authorities find a reason to suspect someone and after that, ONLY after that, would they actually invade the privacy of that person, and no, it's not the same as automated mining, pre-determined flags that measure the paranoia of some incompetent idiot anyway. You'll get a list, that's for sure. A list of innocents and very small timers. It just defeats the purpose. But it will abuse a lot of people who have nothing to do with anything.

Just have some info on people first. And if someone needs to ask 'well how do we know if we can't look', well, I say to them please, go and get a new job if you're gathering intel because you're not up for the job.

If this is the setting, that 'they're just helping us' sure.. I have no doubts they try, but I also have no doubts mostly **** ups will happen and not much real results. And if this is the basic idea, why don't we just get a King to make all the decisions, because he has good intentions? Since when did we become followers of good intentions? Everyone has good intentions.

[otheloComRole]

Siro, sure, sure, until the rules change again. Or until a **** up is made in that regard, which I have no doubts will happen.

It shouldnt' be used, but it will be used. Are you going to take a leap of faith and just 'trust' people do what they're supposed to, because in general people have good will?

What if the power changes, someone who is not such a big fan of .. let's put it like this. If I was a ruler with iron fist, I'd LOOOOVE that database, there would be not much police work to do to know who my enemies are and just get rid of them.

This isn't about blind trust, this is about both parties respecting the trust as in we don't reason the word in the game to begin with. It's not personal, it's just business.

Or, other security threats. Would you feel comfortable when someone infiltrates and steals that information to another government, possibly your enemy? That information will never be 100% safe. That's just the nature of the business. It has bad idea written all over it and I will not support it and I will consider people who do support it as traitors OR uninformed.

[JessicaLin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


With a warrant you can already do that. But you have to raid their house and take the computer. Yes, that is right...and that is the correct process for gathering evidence. Not using some flimsy justification for spying on the private lives of the populace. You may be quite willing to open every aspect of your life to the scrutiny of the security services. Some of us would rather retain our right to privacy. One day that right to privacy could be valuable in the face of an oppressive government - if you allow their grip so tight, dissent becomes terribly dangerous. This comes down to some of the basic principles of your constitution...this is very similar to a modern day equivalent to 'the right to bear arms'.

[nuveem7070]

Or, other security threats. Would you feel comfortable when someone infiltrates and steals that information to another government, possibly your enemy? That information will never be 100% safe. That's just the nature of the business. It has bad idea written all over it and I will not support it and I will consider people who do support it as traitors OR uninformed.

of course not.

but assuming that such a database will only include people under investigation, and once investigation ends - all the data is purged - then I expect very little details to remain.

It shouldnt' be used, but it will be used. Are you going to take a leap of faith and just 'trust' people do what they're supposed to, because in general people have good will?

I don't have to have a leap of faith.

I have a good view of how sensitive info is being handled from where I stand.

To my great surprise - it is much more moral than I suspected, and I've yet to see major abuses.

On the other hand - you could claim that some of the Israeli policies towards palestinians are 'abuses'. I don't see it that way, but that's another issue.

[fudelholf]

"I have a good view of how sensitive info is being handled from where I stand."

I also know from where I stand how it is handled. It is not handled properly. Maybe you guys handle it properly, we don't, and most people don't.

"but assuming that such a database will only include people under investigation, and once investigation ends - all the data is purged - then I expect very little details to remain."

Such databases are sure to exist and I have no problems with this. If you have suspects, sure.

But as long as your method of getting those suspects is not automated data mining of your citizens like that... I mean, if you have provided actual work to have reasonable way of filtering yourself a bunch of suspects, and it's not done with such a wide scope... sure. As long as the way the information was collected was proper, I have absolutely no problem of a list of suspects and work done on that.

And that's actually an important issue you bring up, which is often forgotten, that is the rules of handling the data when it serves no original purpose anymore. More often than not the data is not completely destroyed. This is a big problem.

[Zpxbawtz]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yes, that is right...and that is the correct process for gathering evidence. Not using some flimsy justification for spying on the private lives of the populace.
Can you read? The only thing that changes is that the person, under warranted surveillance, isn't notified. Which is also the case with a normal wiretap, so, I don't see what the difference is...

[drgshmcm]

I also know from where I stand how it is handled. It is not handled properly. Maybe you guys handle it properly, we don't, and most people don't.
I don't claim it is kept very safe

I claim it isn't usually abused for improper purposes, and the relevant bodies really make an effort not to overstep their mandate, even though there is no one that will notice or would be able to resist.


But as long as your method of getting those suspects is not automated data mining of your citizens like that...
automated data mining should always be used as a pointer to an actual investigation, or some supportive evidence.

You can hardly base a case only on mined data...

And that's actually an important issue you bring up, which is often forgotten, that is the rules of handling the data when it serves no original purpose anymore. More often than not the data is not completely destroyed. This is a big problem.
true.

though I would raise the point, that some apparently insignificant information can prove to be very important to an inquiry case, years later.

[AOE6q4bu]

Yeah if you're prosecuted for something. But if your security level is not normal because of a mistake, you can't challenge it. You can't get a job because of it, well, you can't challegen it. Getting a visa to travel, problems, too bad.

We might be talking about different things here, I'm getting the sense that we both think differently what the setting is. I'm solely talking about 'tapping' the whole country for eavesdropping and spying. That's what I'm against.

If you have a case, then you can do surveillance, you can do that thing for sure, and you can compare that to your existing knowledge about stuff, of course. If this wasn't the case, we'd never get anyone convicted, unless they were really really stupid


I do think that if you have odd reasons against your lawful rights, then you should have the right to appeal.

Heck, even non Israeli citizens have the right to appeal to the Israeli High Court.

Infact, many palestinians do so, over and over again.

In Israeli military courts, palestinian suspects are usually given a defender which has access to the evidence (or parts of it).

In Israeli courts, special agents were called to testify, and were sometimes kicked out (though not very often. I would hope it means they were always solid ).


But I do understand your fear.

Many palestinians have troubles moving in the territories because they have little specs of suspicion about them. I can see how that is difficult for the palestinians, though I would rather be safe than sorry...

Obviously this is a situation that can't be tolerated for your own citizens, and wouldn't have happened, I hope.

[UKkoXJvF]

Well, the very practice is in use in here. The information the secret police has on you is very secret. It is so secret, that they don't even disclose the nature of the information they have and collect. OK?

SO you can appeal all you want, you will never get to know what is in there, and in case you don't get those jobs after they check you up and do the clearance thing, and you know you are innocent of crimes... case closed for you, good luck, move into another country

I think you're talking more about ongoing investigations and stuff like that. I have really no problems of peopel having the tools to do their work when they actually have suspects and stuff. The spying on citizens thing is what I'm strongly against, because that leads mostly to abuse via lack of competency.

[wallyfindme]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, the very practice is in use in here. The information the secret police has on you is very secret. It is so secret, that they don't even disclose the nature of the information they have and collect. OK?

SO you can appeal all you want, you will never get to know what is in there, and in case you don't get those jobs after they check you up and do the clearance thing, and you know you are innocent of crimes... case closed for you, good luck, move into another country

I think you're talking more about ongoing investigations and stuff like that. I have really no problems of peopel having the tools to do their work when they actually have suspects and stuff. The spying on citizens thing is what I'm strongly against, because that leads mostly to abuse via lack of competency. There needs to be more disclosure after the event and means of making it hard to cover up where these tools are being abused.