Speaker: Database Nation
122 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Forget about that - Dunedin's in the process of ramming though a bunch of CCTVs for the Octagon - largely to avoid being responsible for policing the bars they've let expand into the street (one cop walking the beat would so much more good)
-
We've rapidly become a surveillance nation in Sydney too though not to the same extent as the UK. The link you've provided is far from inaccurate, the legislative invasions into ordinary life are many, but they still seem well short of the catalogue you've provided.
That said, in Sydney earlier this year there was a push to have all the privately owned and operated CCTV cams registered and protocols agreed for their use by Police. The argument was naturally about increasing safety and there was surprisingly little push-back. But you can still buy a phone with next to no ID (pre-paid) and although Medicare cards are near universal, they don't come close to being a national ID. Incidentally, a while back I was involved in some initial work on developing a national unique student ID to track students progress between schools and various post-compulsory pathways as well as across state borders. One of the strongest objections was that it would result in effectively a Youth ID.
-
"The only people with anything to fear from this level of surveillence are the criminals"
Yeah, right!
-
The UK is entering a recession and surveillance costs a bit to operate. Only question is do they make cuts to health spending, welfare or raise taxes.
-
I handed her my bank card, watched as she used the eft-pos machine to confirm that the details I'd given her matched those that HSBC had for me, then left as she uttered, "Good-bye Mr Chapman" – a familiarity that only served to highlight the real transaction that had actually taken place.
I can understand that the use of cell phones by people to organise crimes causes concerns.
And if that leads to a debate that you can only buy a cell phone with ID, that might be a debate worth having.
But, charging 10 pounds more to deter criminals from having non-registered phones? How is that going to help?
Cause crims have real trouble coming up with an extra tenner?
-
My only concern with people bringing up Orwell all the time is that they're reading the wrong book entirely. You want to arm yourself with this one.
-
The US have just announced a new "not really a visa" requirement for travel there, for nationals of countries witha visa waiver agreement already in place. This includes NZ & AU nationals
-
The conversation on privacy and RFID chips is lacking exposure here in NZ too.
Here in Wellington, the equivalent of Oyster has emerged in the form of Snapper. Not only are regular commuters excluded from regular trip concessions unless they carry this RFID chip, they have to fork out $10 for the pleasure. While registering the Snapper is not compulsory, the only way to check one's transaction history, in case of overcharging for example, is to submit personal details to the database. Of course, one's transaction data becomes the property of Snapper, to do with as it sees fit.
-
And if that leads to a debate that you can only buy a cell phone with ID, that might be a debate worth having.
That would also require laws saying you can't sell or give your phone away. Then you'd just get criminals offering kids enough money to buy the latest phone in exchange for the old one.
So with things like Sim cards and Oyster cards, why aren't people having swap parties? Everyone purchases new cards, register with details, then shuffle and redistribute. They still get your details, but the details aren't bound to a meaningful tracking device.
-
The US have just announced a new "not really a visa" requirement for travel there, for nationals of countries with a visa waiver agreement already in place. This includes NZ & AU nationals
Americablog's Chris in Paris was spewing about it last week.
Could they try any any harder to make visiting the US a pain in the ass?
Also, when you visit the page where you apply for your authorisation number, which you need before you can apply for authorisation, and without which you'll be locked up at the entry gate, you're required to click "okay" on a pop-up with these words:
__This Department of Homeland Security (DHS) computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. As part of this monitoring, DHS may acquire, access, retain, intercept, capture, retrieve, record, read, inspect, analyze, audit, copy and disclose any information processed, transmitted, received, communicated, and stored within the computer system. If monitoring reveals possible misuse or criminal activity, notice of such may be provided to appropriate supervisory personnel and law enforcement officials. DHS may conduct these activities in any manner without further notice. By clicking OK below or by using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice.__
Sigh ...
-
Could they try any any harder to make visiting the US a pain in the ass?
A couple of years ago I had to travel to Auckland just so they could look me in the eye (literally, the meeting took five seconds) because even though Italy is a visa waiver country you still needed a passport with biometric info, otherwise off to Auckland they made you scamper. And I'm from Wellington, where the American embassy is located. That's a couple of hundred bucks I'm never going to see again.
-
While registering the Snapper is not compulsory, the only way to check one's transaction history, in case of overcharging for example, is to submit personal details to the database.
That's not exactly true. You can successfully register with nothing more than a throwaway email account and a false name. It breaks their T&C, but screw them, I saw.
Also, I have had some discussions with people from the Office of the Privacy Commission, and in principle Snapper are very constrained as far as sharing their data goes. The issue is really whether they need to collect as much data as they do.
-
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin.
Definately applies here.
-
Who was it that said the following, probably not long after 9/11?
"If you can scare people enough, they'll believe anything."?
-
A couple of years ago I had to travel to Auckland just so they could look me in the eye (literally, the meeting took five seconds) because even though Italy is a visa waiver country you still needed a passport with biometric info, otherwise off to Auckland they made you scamper. And I'm from Wellington, where the American embassy is located.
Giovanni, I had the same experience when organising my flights for a year studying in Canada last year. I was transitting through San Francisco, and ended up needing to fly up to auckland to get a tourist visa for the pleasure of spending 4 hours in San Fran airport. 200 dollar visa, 200 dollar flight up to Auckland, 1 day's leave off work. For a 4 hour transit period.
This is because the visa waiver requires you to leave North America within 3 months. Not the USA - North America. This includes Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean. So those of you planning study or extended vacations in any of those places be warned - if you are transitting through the States, you will need a visa.
Of course, the nice people at Air NZ now fly direct to Vancouver for only slightly more than the price of flying to California, but that wasn't available when I went...
-
And people ask me why I never go back.
-
Moz,
The worst of the US setup is that if your plane is diverted into the US for any reason and you don't have the visa you can be somewhat inconvenienced. It's also quite tedious to get in and out of Canada without transiting the US (but it is possible), although often the diversion airports are in the US so you have to hope for good weather and no problems.
With surveillance cameras, there are mapping projects in some places but they are not popular with the PTB. Neither are the p*lice databases (just collect photos of cops, note any details you can about the cop, wait for facial recognition tech to improve et voila). On that note, many of these systems currently archive footage that has no use today in the hope that future tech will make it much more useful.
I wonder just how much of the data will leak... the UK might as well have an "all records public" law going on their record.
-
My experience with 'Homeland Secuirty' during a recent visit to North Carolina wasn't too difficult, but I felt very uneasy and quite stressed. Unlike the other four times I had been there. It seems the 'people' on the immigration desks are there to make you feel as intimidated as possible (even though a sign says that they are 'friendly and here to make the process helpful'. When I told my colleagues that the US is a paranoid nation, they just smiled nicely and told me that NZ had never suffered an attack with 3000 deaths. No I said, but why make me suffer...
-
Meanwhile, our new Government plans to introduce DNA testing of all suspects in all crimes involving imprisonable offences.
-
our new Government plans to introduce DNA testing of all suspects in all crimes involving imprisonable offences.
Not quite all suspects, but rather those arrested.
I would note, however, that with very very few exceptions (e.g. breach of a liquor ban) that you can pretty much only be arrested for imprisonable offences.
-
Meanwhile, our new Government plans to introduce DNA testing of all suspects in all crimes involving imprisonable offences.
Indeed, I'm hoping the judiciary will frustrate them however with silly notions of natural justice.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how many arrests result in charges let alone are qualified in terms of imprisonable offences?
-
The Herald's lead story on Friday began: "Criminals will soon find it harder to get bail as the National Government moves immediately to get tough on law and order." So there goes the presumption of innocence, so far as the Herald is concerned: these are Criminals, not those accused of crimes. And there goes the holding truth to power thing; this government is going to get a free ride from the Herald.
-
So if you're contemplating relocating to London - considered by many a city of opportunity and financial rewards - it may be worth totalling the true costs of such a move.
I smell a Tui billboard.
A friend of mine is firmly of the opinion that so long as he can travel to wherever he wants, it doesn't matter what a country wants from him in terms of details. Long-term consequences? What're those. I once put it to him that my objection to travelling to the US through all those ludicrous border controls was a principled objection in the face of things that will potentially be much, much worse by the time I have kids who want to travel. His response was pretty much "I care about me, and don't give a damn about others in the future." Which, I suspect, is a fairly prevalent attitude. And that means that many people won't look any further than the immediate benefit to themselves before making travel decisions. -
The Herald's lead story on Friday began: "Criminals will soon find it harder to get bail as the National Government moves immediately to get tough on law and order." So there goes the presumption of innocence, so far as the Herald is concerned: these are Criminals, not those accused of crimes.
I've always taken that to mean people with an existing criminal record, being charged with new offenses.
-
I've always taken that to mean people with an existing criminal record, being charged with new offenses.
Presumption of innocence even extends to them, Kyle. Unless a person has a history of offending while on bail, they're entitled to exactly the same access to bail as someone who's got a history as pure as driven snow.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.