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

[Provost Harrison]

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'.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok...but...where are they talking about doing it without a warrant?

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Pekka]

"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.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by 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.

You can challenge it using a lawyer before a court of law.

Usually, if you can't challenge it, a judge will kick that evidence out.

The data can obviously be wrong. Wrong data can be picked up or misinterpreted by police investigators without ever using hacking or wiretaps. Happens all the time. The solution is not limiting the data available, but developing better investigation methods and better regulations and standards which evidence must meet.

You don't act out on evidence unless you have enough of them that it is statistically probable they are reliable. And then you require a warrant to act.

i think its fair.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Which is also the case with a normal wiretap, so, I don't see what the difference is...

QFT.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[Pekka]

"You can challenge it using a lawyer before a court of law.

Usually, if you can't challenge it, a judge will kick that evidence out."

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

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Which is also the case with a normal wiretap, so, I don't see what the difference is...

Again Kuci, this is also just as dangerous if misapplied. If no one knows they are doing it and they don't disclose, how do you know that you are not being monitored, or that you may be monitored in the future. Again, it comes down to that old notion of 'you've got nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong'. I'm not quite so comfortable. What will become justifiable grounds for monitoring someone? Has recently history not yet demonstrate how these powers can be misabused as is definitely the case in my country - look at the number of raids performed against people of Islamic background that have been unjustified. Look at the complete screw-up that was the Jean Charles de Menezes business in London, over which no one has been brought to account for their actions.

Excuse me for being so suspicious, but I am, I don't like being spied on, when it is on the grounds of a vague suspicion.

[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.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Excuse me for being so suspicious, but I am, I don't like being spied on, when it is on the grounds of a vague suspicion.

If judicial oversight fails, then of course we're screwed. But this doesn't make us any more screwed than we are already when that happens.

[Provost Harrison]

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.