LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-27-2013, 08:21 AM   #46
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Not correct and the link I provided along with teh quote I provided shows that your assumption is not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
From the Australian Privacy Commisioner

Quote:
In Australia, the federal Privacy Act and telecommunications laws recognise this and include a number of exemptions and exceptions for intelligence and law enforcement agencies and their activities. For example, the Privacy Act includes limited exceptions that allow government agencies and private sector organisations covered by the Act to use and disclose personal information for the enforcement of criminal laws, or where the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under Australian law.
Here they do not need a warrant all they need to do is show that the information is required to help in investigations. I personally have no problem with that but I know others do and the question I asked before is for those people. I dare say other Common law jurisdictions are the same as we are here in Australia.
Full version-

Quote:
US surveillance program — Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim

12 June 2013
Reports on the surveillance of the communications and online activity of citizens by US intelligence agencies have raised a number of questions, including what this means for the privacy of individuals.

Privacy is a fundamental human right, recognised in international law and protected under Australian laws such as the federal Privacy Act and telecommunications laws. However, the right to privacy is not absolute – it must be balanced against other important rights and ideals, such as freedom of expression and national security.

In Australia, the federal Privacy Act and telecommunications laws recognise this and include a number of exemptions and exceptions for intelligence and law enforcement agencies and their activities. For example, the Privacy Act includes limited exceptions that allow government agencies and private sector organisations covered by the Act to use and disclose personal information for the enforcement of criminal laws, or where the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under Australian law.

The Privacy Act can extend to an act or practice that occurs outside Australia in certain circumstances. However, the Act also provides that an act or practice of an organisation done outside Australia does not breach the Privacy Act if it is required by an overseas law. Further, the Privacy Act will generally not cover the acts and practices of overseas government agencies.
http://www.oaic.gov.au/news-and-even...llance-program

Where does it state that Australian police and intelignece services 'do not need a warrant'? It doesnt.

http://www.minterellison.com/publica...update-201305/

Clearly states a warreant is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
You now say Australian Authorites do need a warrant when you previously state they don't which is what I was saying anyway so you have eitehr changed your mind or become confused with your own discussion.
What I actually said-

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
A warrant is not needed for Australian inteligence agencies or police to preserve internet commuinications-

However, for accessing stored internet commuinications, a warrant is needed-
My position has not changed. Misrepresenting what I have clearly posted does you no service.

*edit-

From the Attorney-General for Australia Minister for Emergency Management the hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP

Quote:
Australia signs on to international cybercrime treaty

4 March 2013

Australia has now formally joined 38 other nations as a party to the world’s first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet.

“Australia becoming a party to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime will help combat criminal offences relating to forgery, fraud, child pornography, and infringement of copyright and intellectual property,” said Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus.

“The internet makes it easy for criminals to operate from abroad, especially from those countries where regulations and enforcement arrangements are weaker.

“These powers will allow Australian law enforcement agencies to rapidly obtain data about communications relevant to cybercrimes from partner agencies around the world.

“The Convention will also ensure vital evidence is not lost before a mutual assistance request can be completed.

“Becoming party to the Convention ensures Australian legislation is consistent with international best practice. It enables domestic agencies to access and share information to facilitate international investigations and help countries in the region build capacity to address cybercrime.

“Australia will be able to benefit from reciprocal powers offered by the 38 other nations. This is good news for fighting crime and will help make it easier for police to track down cyber criminals around the world.”

With the Convention now in effect, Australia’s investigative agencies are able to use new powers contained in the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Act 2012 to work with cybercrime investigators around the globe.

The Act amended certain Commonwealth cybercrime offences and enabled domestic agencies to access and share information relating to international investigations.

Mr Dreyfus says the Act also created new privacy protections, safeguards and reporting requirements for the exercise of new and existing powers.

“The privacy protections in the Act maintain robust protections for Australians,” he said.

“A warrant is always required to access the content of a communication whether the information is in Australia, or accessed from overseas under the Cybercrime Convention.


“The Cybercrime Act and the Cybercrime Convention do not impact in any way on the need to have a warrant to access content from a telephone call, SMS or e-mail.”

The Convention focuses on supporting international co-operation between nations, which is separate from the PJCIS inquiry which is about ensuring our agencies are equipped to deal with the changing dynamics of communication and its infrastructure.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Me...imetreaty.aspx

Last edited by cascade9; 06-27-2013 at 08:54 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old 06-27-2013, 08:47 AM   #47
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Where does it state that Australian police and intelignce serives 'do not need a warrant'? It doesnt.
Warrants authorise use of, but the statement also says is required and for this no warrant is needed. Why? because
Quote:
the right to privacy is not absolute it must be balanced against other important rights and ideals, such as freedom of expression and national security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
http://www.minterellison.com/publica...update-201305/

Clearly states a warreant is required.
For preserved communications held by carriers, it mentions nothing about in transit (real-time) communications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
What I actually said-
You are not reading what I have posted. I have not argued stored communications I have commented on survielence (accessed in real-time while the communication is happening).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
My position has not changed. Misrepresenting what I have clearly posted does you no service.
Your position changes with nearly every post. If any misrepresentation has occured it is you trying to say that you are the OP because you don't see any emotionally charged language in the first sentence in this thread then quoting your own first post to prove the point, or are you trying to ignore that faux pas now?
 
Old 06-27-2013, 09:01 AM   #48
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Warrants authorise use of, but the statement also says is required and for this no warrant is needed. Why? because
That quoted statement in no way says that a warrant is not required.

I have posted a statement from Minister for Emergency Management the hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP reinforcing my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Your position changes with nearly every post.
Show evidence for this.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 10:40 AM   #49
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,672
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123
Look in any mirror to see extreme views. Until, maybe, K1-25ish for all! Over who knows how long...
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:57 PM   #50
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17 , ChromeOS
Posts: 5,288
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495
Quote:
Warrants authorise
Reminds me of a time at my ranch "off the grid". I was riding my motorcycle minding my own business in the boonies. I see the sheriff car pass me by and do a 180 spin and come after me hell bent for leather though at that time, I thought he had just received a call on the freeway about a wreck maybe.

He took the police cruiser and ran me off into the mesquite bushes and cactus. I was a bit pissed but I kept my temper and dusted myself down.
He exited the car like Sheriff Arpalo and un-holstered his gun and pointed it at me. He proceeded to question me if I had moved out in the middle of nowhere
to run drugs, was I associated with the Bandidos, was I starting a Meth Lab.

Basically because my hair came down the middle of my back and I had tattoos and I rode a chopper. He informed me after the grilling that if he ever found
me to be a problem in his neck of the woods. A bullet and his word would leave me dead with no questions asked.

For years I have not been dumb enough to believe the hype and bull that is fed to me by the world via media or the INTERNET.
Power is in the hands of those that wield it.
Whether a Cholo in a barrio with his gat and gang or a Sheriff and his Posse. Rules and paper and discussions don't amount to hill
of beans when power is exerted.

You can keep your "But I want to be safe so it OK to break my balls". This philosophy has kept me alive in environments which have
crushed other men. Just my view from the Mexican border.

Last edited by rokytnji; 06-27-2013 at 01:00 PM.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 01:30 PM   #51
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,672
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123Reputation: 1123
Easiest way to be a *, get power...
 
Old 06-27-2013, 02:33 PM   #52
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
I interpret the words you put online. You said one thing and then said something different. That is a contradiction. You either knew about it and were not shocke or you didn't know about it and were shocked. If you knew about it as you say you did and did nothing about it you are complicit in it. The issue for you now is you wont consider this as an option you can't even think about it so you change your stance and say you didn;t know about it and you are now shocked. Saying you know about it but not expecting it to be as big as it is means you don't know about it but you will continue to claim you did.

Once you wrap your mind around that then you can conduct your "thought experiment".
Sorry, but if you are not able to wrap your mind around my posts, which, IMHO, are written clearly, then I can't help you with that. You see contradictions where no contradictions are, simple as that.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 06:08 PM   #53
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
That quoted statement in no way says that a warrant is not required.

I have posted a statement from Minister for Emergency Management the hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP reinforcing my statement.
The article differentiates them. If it did not need to differentiate them it would not have made the differentiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Show evidence for this.
I already did. I'm not jumping to your command either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Sorry, but if you are not able to wrap your mind around my posts, which, IMHO, are written clearly, then I can't help you with that. You see contradictions where no contradictions are, simple as that.
I can wrap my mind around your posts quite easily. Jamison is a little confusing but your posts are understandable and you have contradicted yourself in them.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 06:19 PM   #54
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17 , ChromeOS
Posts: 5,288
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495
The government and law enforcement agencies have our best interests in mind.


You see how funny that sounds today?
 
Old 06-27-2013, 07:02 PM   #55
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
The government and law enforcement agencies have our best interests in mind.


You see how funny that sounds today?
The irony of the statement is not lost especially considering recent events here. In my opinion our leaders are in the job for their own benefit but that does not take away from the fact there is a population to "look after". As said before I have no worries with what is currently happening and I think there is an element, called civil libertarians in previous posts, that believe individual (i.e their own) situation is more important than the country as a whole. I personally think it is a selfish attitude but that is just my opinion.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 07:22 PM   #56
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17 , ChromeOS
Posts: 5,288
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495Reputation: 2495
Quote:
but that does not take away from the fact there is a population to "look after".
I find that the media and govt make certain class distinctions even with this kind of thing. Ya gotta excuse me k3tl01. I am just a uneducated tradesman.
So my argument style is not full or prose or use even the right terminology to express my views.

You hear, what about the children and women etc........
I find that if 20 white kids get killed in a Mass Shooting. Everybody runs around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "babies!

20 kids of color die on the streets everyday in the USA. No outcry is given what so ever.

I sometimes get wound up over issues like these and then threads like this pop up and my heart starts racing.
I need to back out of here and go for a ride.

Last edited by rokytnji; 06-27-2013 at 07:24 PM.
 
Old 06-27-2013, 08:08 PM   #57
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
I find that the media and govt make certain class distinctions even with this kind of thing.
I agree. Our previous Prime Minister (PM) was very good at making class, and gender distinctions where they did not and need not exist. The media to a certain extent played along with this until the majority of Australian voters, if not people, expressed concern over this tactic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
Ya gotta excuse me k3tl01. I am just a uneducated tradesman.
So my argument style is not full or prose or use even the right terminology to express my views.
rokytnji you don't need to ask me to excuse you for your points of view or your ability to express them. You have made no claims as to your "educatedness", you have not jumped up and down claiming conspiracy everytime you turn around, you have not told everyone else to do anything, you are expressing a point of view that you have a right to express.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
You hear, what about the children and women etc........
I find that if 20 white kids get killed in a Mass Shooting. Everybody runs around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "babies!

20 kids of color die on the streets everyday in the USA. No outcry is given what so ever.
This is a shame and, if I may express my opinion, a terrible indictment on the social system in the USA. For a country that has the Statue of Liberty with the New Collosus at its base including the phrase "give us your poor etc", this situation shows how much things have changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
I sometimes get wound up over issues like these and then threads like this pop up and my heart starts racing.
I need to back out of here and go for a ride.
I get wound up over extremism, I get wound up when people can't see a middle ground and think everything has to be their way or no way, I get wound up when people start things with emotions boiling and then expect everyone else to remain calm when it is obvious they cannot.

Enjoy your ride.
 
Old 06-28-2013, 03:27 AM   #58
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
The article differentiates them. If it did not need to differentiate them it would not have made the differentiation.
The article? I assume you mean 'US surveillance program Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim'.

Quote:
Quote:
In Australia, the federal Privacy Act and telecommunications laws recognise this and include a number of exemptions and exceptions for intelligence and law enforcement agencies and their activities. For example, the Privacy Act includes limited exceptions that allow government agencies and private sector organisations covered by the Act to use and disclose personal information for the enforcement of criminal laws, or where the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under Australian law.
This does not say a warrant is not needed. 'Required' refers to Australian obligations under Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and other international treaties and agreements. 'Authorised by or under Australian law' is clear

Quote:
A warrant is always required to access the content of a communication whether the information is in Australia, or accessed from overseas under the Cybercrime Convention.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Me...imetreaty.aspx

There is a clear and concise statement on the website of the office of the Attorney-General for Australia stating a warrant is needed. Instead you perfer a convuluted reading of a staement made by the Australian privacy commisioner on the US surveillance program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
I already did. I'm not jumping to your command either.
You accused me of changing my position, but you can provide no evidence for this. I believe that this could be construed as a personal attack. I also believe that your harassment of H_TeXMeX_H is an attempt to create a flame war, often with posts that are offtopic and irrelevant to the thread.
 
Old 06-28-2013, 05:31 AM   #59
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
There is a clear and concise statement on the website of the office of the Attorney-General for Australia stating a warrant is needed. Instead you perfer a convuluted reading of a staement made by the Australian privacy commisioner on the US surveillance program.
No instead I use and post a statement made by the Australain Privacy Commisioner giving an example of a situation in Australia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
You accused me of changing my position,
Because you said one thing and then contradicted yourself saying another thing in another post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
but you can provide no evidence for this.
I provided evidence by giving direct quotes I am not obloiged to provide that evidence again just because you demand it. I will not jump to any order you decide to give.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
I believe that this could be construed as a personal attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
I also believe that your harassment of H_TeXMeX_H is an attempt to create a flame war,
The flame war starts when the emotional post is made in the first instance. Starting off by saying "I'm sick of" and then demanding people do something invites a response. If you don't like my response then that is your choice I cannot stop you nor will I even ask you to stop but I will post to refute you and anyone else I believe is extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
often with posts that are offtopic and irrelevant to the thread.
Interesting take you have on off-topic there Cascade. You have taken this from a discussion about the gathering of intelligence and then said I am harrasing people. If you truly believe this then I suggest you report each and every post you believe this to be the case with. I will no longer respond to any post you make that has any off-topic comment such as accusations of harrassment when those accusations have nothing to do with the topic of the initial post.
 
Old 06-28-2013, 05:53 AM   #60
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Because you said one thing and then contradicted yourself saying another thing in another post.
No, I did not. I made a polite request for evidence and you refuse to provide any.

Repeaeating an accusation without evidence after a request has been made for calrification and evidence, but then quoting the post extensively IMO shows that you have no evidence at all and are trying to create drama and trouble.

Last edited by cascade9; 06-28-2013 at 06:00 AM. Reason: typo
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: CentOS details efforts to maintain speedy release schedule LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-08-2012 01:00 PM
[SOLVED] Is It possible to Hide my Server Details? anishkumarv Linux - Security 2 07-29-2011 09:12 AM
Congress to archive every tweet ever posted publicly Jeebizz Linux - News 0 04-15-2010 01:17 PM
LXer: OLPC XO laptops publicly available today LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-12-2007 06:12 PM
LXer: More FileMaker 9 details emerge ahead of release LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-15-2007 10:01 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration