If you're not a criminal/terrorist you have nothing to hide in your computer

[Victor Galis]

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


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.

Then lets use a more appropriate term for those "21st century police states" and not use language designed to elide the difference between them and police states.

BTW, theres no particular evidence that the info in this case will be used that way. Nor is there evidence that its happening in the US.

It was the case that in Chicago under Mayor Dailey (the elder) you couldnt get a govt job if you were known to oppose the mayor, but even there you could get a job in private industry (as long as it wasnt a firm too dependent on the city govt) There was abundant debate and a vigorous reform movement in Chicago that finally won, so evidently some people have a greater tolerance for "misery" than others.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

[BeBMan]

Kinda unclear from the article how they want to legalize that when the BGH has already ruled against it.

[Harovan]

The BGH has ruled against it only for the lack of an according law, which is just what Schäuble wants to create.

Schäuble is a typical conservative politician. He is thoroughly corrupt (there were several affairs around 2000), he is a proven liar to the parliament, his party had to remove him from leadership because of these affairs. He approves torture, or at least votes for the usage of knowledge gained through torture in courts, which is basically the same. He approves of the usage of the Bundeswehr in interior affairs, which is forbidden by constitution. He wants to change the constitution to make it possible. In 1990 he was severely injured in an assassination attempt and is wheelchair bound since then. Apparently his brain has suffered too, he has become paranoid and is seeing terrorists everywhere. He is a deep admirer of G. W. Bush and obviously of the same mindset. As one of the few politicians he approved the Iraq war. I don't know any German politician whom I despise deeper than him.

Give that man peace. Give him a free lifelong place in a sanatorium, to cure his paranoia. And lock the door behind him, so that the terrorists can't get to him. Twice, please.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[Harovan]

That's pretty much how the law will look like.

It's still outrageous. And pretty dumb too, but hey, it's a child of Schäubles brain. As long as no hardware bug is implemented or the OS is not getting a backdoor (who trusts Microsoft?), it is pretty easy to avoid being spied out. Just hold the "juicy stuff" (whatever that is) on a computer which is not connected to the net and communicate encrypted. Or (less secure) keep your internet connections sandboxed, e.g. in a VMWare image, if necessary give the host system access to the file system of the sandbox, but not vice versa. There are several other possible ways. And some of the major virus protection vendors already stated that they will treat the federal trojan just like every other piece of malware.

[Pekka]

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.

[Sirotnikov]

btw, unlike what you think - it is most likely the federal govt. will have no interest what so ever in looking into your MP3 / porn / unreported income folder.

They are mainly trying to stop people from blowing up you know.

The Shin Bet in Israel is almost 'all powerful' and it has not been used to curb freedoms.

[Pekka]

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'.

Bull****.

[Sirotnikov]

I wasn't specifically addressing you.


But I don't think the situation in Israel is very different from the rest of the countries, anymore.

I think that it is quite remarkable that Israel has stayed a democracy with all the potential for power abuse by the security instruments, and only 50 years of existance history.

Infact, in the early 50s, the security instruments were used for political purposes but that ended shortly.



And as someone with a background in everything you mentioned - it is indeed a bad idea to give your info away.

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.

The private company has a clear potential for a conflict of interest - it wants to make me give money to them.

The government has no interest from me. It doesn't even care if I vote.

The most horrid potential is if isntead of the govt. the surveillance tools will be abused by political figures, to change my vote. And that is not likely to be done by judicial warranted action, any time soon.

[Pekka]

"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.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

that's why the data should rarely be used outside of context and without a substantial backup in other means.

But it can be a very good supportive evidence, or a good "filter" for an ongoing inquiry.

Most of such evidence, btw, might be inadmissible in court, and should only used to get new leads.

[Pekka]

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.

[Pekka]

Besides, that data is not 100% bullet proof. It is often incorrect, that's why I said it's fragmented, static etc and interpreted by someone. It's unreliable. Sure it's an indication sometimes, and that's how you **** up innocent people with the black list. Ok let's call it a profile instead.

How do you challenge that information? Say they make a mistake, even a typing error, anything, and you can even prove it's wrong and you are not a risk? Well, you can't challenge it, because you won't know what they have on you. That would again defeat the purpose. It's a BAD idea.