Thanks AC- I'm definitely a firm believer in Wikileaks. More government transparency - in the vast majority of cases- benefits us all. Unfortunately governments tend to argue that the disclosure of numbers of paperclips bought last financial year would undermine national security. I think the Assange witch hunt is shameful. When the current Australian Prime Minister was elected she said it was time to "let the sunshine in" meaning that she wanted to improve government transparency. What we have had during her term is the opposite. What we would get from the opposition is no different. As to the other part of your post, yes- all of that information would be useful to a criminal trying to steal my identity, but probably not very useful to anyone trying to see if I'd done anything illegal. So in this case wouldn't the government plan to record communications potentially help me because the evidence of that criminal activity may be recorded? Kinda invalidates your argument. I don't agree with the legislation the government has forced on us simply because the more places our data is kept the greater chance it will be accessible to unauthorised access. That doesn't really make me want start encrypting and proxying everything, it makes me want to get the stupid legislation repealed.
Haha, damn 25 posts a day limit- I've been waiting to respond to you all day! I agree that power is almost always abused by someone eventually. In this case, however, we didn't mindlessly give them this power. They gave it to themselves without asking.
I disagree with you. A valid answer to the "What illegal activities" question is: None. Posters including you have overlooked that. I then went on to make the point that IF you go on to use those kinds of services to try and protect your privacy you should expect that your activities will be the subject of additional scrutiny. That was my point.
I also disagree with your statement that either people are entitled to privacy or they aren't. You simply can't be so black and white about it. People are sometimes entitled to privacy, meaning that nobody really gets to eat that cake.
And at this point in time, speaking out MIGHT be illegal. In Australia we actually have no right to free speech enshrined in our constitution. So yet again, nothing as black and white as the statement you made.
"Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. The Howard Government re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of expression." -wiki
Threads like conversations have a habit of wandering. Say something constructive instead of being a whining little bitch. Either that or turn your thread filters up a bit.
Making a stocking a fashion statement is one of the things Pussy Riot kinda did. Didn't work out so well for them. But on the other hand it has made them very popular. I wonder what would happen if we had a band like pussy riot in Australia. I'd imagine probably not the big hoo-haa going on in Russia about it at the moment.
Until avoiding surveillance is also deemed illegal. Didn't they pass (or try to pass) legislation in the US which declared technology that obscures the source and destination of any electronic communication- ie: Tor, VPN, and wouldn't NAT even fall afoul of this political stupidity?
I'm sorry you had to live in that environment and I'm sorry that those kinds of environments still exist today. Unfortunately, I believe that "secret police" is EXACTLY the path we are on. I hope it never becomes like what you had to endure. There is already a western routine domestic surveillance culture. Look at London- biggest CCTV network in the world. Police cars which do automatic number plate recognition looking for vehicles that have been used in crimes or by known criminals. Police are even getting surveillance drones now because they're cheaper and quieter than helicopters. Police with in-car cameras to film us, and yet we are assaulted or arrested when we film THEM. I guess you could call the war on drugs a kind of black market, but at least it isn't the necessities of existence as you had to negotiate for. While we haven't reached the criminal low of widespread state corruption and torture (though some may legitimately argue that one as well), there is no denying that police corruption exists and is discovered routinely.
I think you're building a straw man argument there. I'm still sticking with the argument that both assumptions describe things that are not certainties. Perhaps if you can give me a different example I'll understand what you mean better. Believe me I agree with you 100% re: unchecked government power- particularly our bloody government. But from what I see they pretty much have it anyway. Otherwise how else would a minority government ram through some of the most unpopular legislation with the lease amount of scrutiny or documentation in history. Simply because our constitution and Australian federalism in particular is fundamentally broken. I'm also enjoying being the devil's advocate on this thread.
No you did. Sharing your netflix logon details (a felony in some US states) and violating the TOS by accessing netflix from outside the US are two different things.
Assuming that information collected will be misused is just as bad as assuming that all information someone attempts to obfuscate is illegal. Isn't it?
How secure is your information now? You can bet your ass it will be less secure the more times it is copied and stored! Funny you mention Asio- who recently noted that there is no practical way they can protect their networks from penetration.
These Terms of Use, which include our Privacy Policy and End User License Agreement ("EULA") govern your use of the Netflix service, including all features and functionalities, instant streaming, our website and user interfaces, and all content and software associated therewith (the "Netflix service" or "service"). By using, visiting, or browsing the Netflix service, you accept and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, you should not use the Netflix service, including our website and user interfaces.
So no, in theory you don't have to click anything to agree with their TOS. Bet that hasn't been tested in court though. Furthermore, the legality of using this service in Australia where broadcasting the content using that medium is VERY grey. While everyone is being paid there seems to be no big fuss, but as soon as some enterprising media house realises they're missing out on the Australia tax IMHO the prosecutions will commence. As an aside, it's definitely a felony in some US states to share your netflix login with anyone else- and that's a TOS violation.
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Based on your smug arrogance anonymous coward, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the original statement I made which doesn't say anywhere that people have no right to privacy. It says that people who do illegal things should get what they deserve.
Yes it does. By using VPN to access that service from an unauthorised jurisdiction aren't you then illegally accessing a computer system to which you have no right?
Isn't there a pretty stiff penalty for doing that?
Hell I live in Australia and I don't like what our inept government is doing and that they will keep their own files on systems maintained by very low paid IT workers and protected by security built by the cheapest bidder. But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack. Ask yourself if the Pentagon, NASA, ASIO, banks and credit card companies can't protect their data what chance do you REALLY think you have? Do you think that in North Korea there is any expectation of privacy. How about the other despotic regimes around the world where the local princeling can just come into your house and take what he wants without fear?
Innocent until proven guilty is how everything should work. People have jumped on the bandwagon of saying "just because he wants to do stuff anonymously you have automatically assumed he is a criminal". No I didn't. I asked: WHAT is it you want to hide. IF it is a criminal activity THEN you deserve what you get. IF you want to hide (as wild_quinine posted) information about your messy break-up, power bills, medical data and who you're cheating on your wife with- fair enough, that should be your private business and not, available for a price because it was easily lifted from some poorly secured government or ISP stash. But I'll flip that around for you again and say that if data is on any networked computer it is at risk. Just because there is some new government legislation you're worried about doesn't mean that you shouldn't already have taken some precautions over what information you have lying around. Furthermore, what precautions have anyone you've transmitted that information to taken (ie: your mistress, your dentist, etc. etc. etc.)
I don't begrudge an innocent person their right to privacy. But I say that your guarantee of privacy is vanishingly small. Once you come to accept that fact it might change how you interact with technology.
Method 1: Anything involving physical delivery or cash trails can be stung...
"The site can only be accessed via TOR, which masks IP address details that could otherwise be stored by an ISP and associated with a user account. Silk Road trade relies on the virtual currency BitCoin for transactions.
Alana Sullivan, acting national of Custom’s cargo and maritime targeting branch, said it monitors Silk Road along with other illicit-drug sites and was aware of the Australian presence on Silk Road as both sellers and buyers.
“Persons who buy or sell through online market places, on so-called ‘anonymous’ networks should understand that they are not guaranteed anonymity,” said Sullivan.
The statement follows a recent comment by Chris McDonald, an associate professor in computer science at the University of Western Australia and Dartmouth College in the US, that the federal government has “no chance of beating” TOR encryption, The Age reported in in April.
Law enforcement may not be able to beat TOR’s encryption. However, this did not prevent US authorities in April arresting eight men accused of operating The Farmer’s Market -- another service that used the TOR anonymiser to facilitate trade. Undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents had infiltrated the organisation after becoming trusted buyers over several years of investigation. "
Method 2: Information seized from Tor nodes is anonymised but may not be encrypted.
"Without going to deeply into what Tor is, Egerstad was operating some Tor nodes. Anyone, including you or me can do it and pretty soon, all sorts of traffic will start flowing through the systems under your command. Tor dusts up the trail you leave behind. When you browse a Web site through Tor (and many people do), no one has any idea where you or your computer are because of how Tor anonymizes your IP address. But that doesn't mean the payload is safe. For example, the user IDs and passwords being used to access inboxes on mail servers. Most such access is not done over secure protocols -- especially when it's browser-based access -- and Tor does nothing to secure those payloads. You're IP address might as well be coming from Mars. But if you're transmitting user IDs and passwords over unencrypted links, does your IP address really matter? "
Method 3: (partly uses method 2)
Big data mining can identify you by your use of language. With access to unencrypted TOR data from the exit nodes you can create a profile of suspects then search general web traffic for matches, kind of like matching fingerprints. The more info you have access to the higher chance of a successful match. This is used in antiterrorist operations.
BTW, this I think is the legislation to which the original poster is referring...
http://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=7499
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks AC- I'm definitely a firm believer in Wikileaks. More government transparency - in the vast majority of cases- benefits us all. Unfortunately governments tend to argue that the disclosure of numbers of paperclips bought last financial year would undermine national security. I think the Assange witch hunt is shameful. When the current Australian Prime Minister was elected she said it was time to "let the sunshine in" meaning that she wanted to improve government transparency. What we have had during her term is the opposite. What we would get from the opposition is no different. As to the other part of your post, yes- all of that information would be useful to a criminal trying to steal my identity, but probably not very useful to anyone trying to see if I'd done anything illegal. So in this case wouldn't the government plan to record communications potentially help me because the evidence of that criminal activity may be recorded? Kinda invalidates your argument. I don't agree with the legislation the government has forced on us simply because the more places our data is kept the greater chance it will be accessible to unauthorised access. That doesn't really make me want start encrypting and proxying everything, it makes me want to get the stupid legislation repealed.
Haha, damn 25 posts a day limit- I've been waiting to respond to you all day! I agree that power is almost always abused by someone eventually. In this case, however, we didn't mindlessly give them this power. They gave it to themselves without asking.
I disagree with you. A valid answer to the "What illegal activities" question is: None. Posters including you have overlooked that. I then went on to make the point that IF you go on to use those kinds of services to try and protect your privacy you should expect that your activities will be the subject of additional scrutiny. That was my point. I also disagree with your statement that either people are entitled to privacy or they aren't. You simply can't be so black and white about it. People are sometimes entitled to privacy, meaning that nobody really gets to eat that cake. And at this point in time, speaking out MIGHT be illegal. In Australia we actually have no right to free speech enshrined in our constitution. So yet again, nothing as black and white as the statement you made. "Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. The Howard Government re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of expression." -wiki
Threads like conversations have a habit of wandering. Say something constructive instead of being a whining little bitch. Either that or turn your thread filters up a bit.
Proof or GTFO.
Making a stocking a fashion statement is one of the things Pussy Riot kinda did. Didn't work out so well for them. But on the other hand it has made them very popular. I wonder what would happen if we had a band like pussy riot in Australia. I'd imagine probably not the big hoo-haa going on in Russia about it at the moment.
Until avoiding surveillance is also deemed illegal. Didn't they pass (or try to pass) legislation in the US which declared technology that obscures the source and destination of any electronic communication- ie: Tor, VPN, and wouldn't NAT even fall afoul of this political stupidity?
Ok, so go negotiate your contract with Micro$oft. Good luck with that.
I'm sorry you had to live in that environment and I'm sorry that those kinds of environments still exist today. Unfortunately, I believe that "secret police" is EXACTLY the path we are on. I hope it never becomes like what you had to endure. There is already a western routine domestic surveillance culture. Look at London- biggest CCTV network in the world. Police cars which do automatic number plate recognition looking for vehicles that have been used in crimes or by known criminals. Police are even getting surveillance drones now because they're cheaper and quieter than helicopters. Police with in-car cameras to film us, and yet we are assaulted or arrested when we film THEM. I guess you could call the war on drugs a kind of black market, but at least it isn't the necessities of existence as you had to negotiate for. While we haven't reached the criminal low of widespread state corruption and torture (though some may legitimately argue that one as well), there is no denying that police corruption exists and is discovered routinely.
I think you're building a straw man argument there. I'm still sticking with the argument that both assumptions describe things that are not certainties. Perhaps if you can give me a different example I'll understand what you mean better. Believe me I agree with you 100% re: unchecked government power- particularly our bloody government. But from what I see they pretty much have it anyway. Otherwise how else would a minority government ram through some of the most unpopular legislation with the lease amount of scrutiny or documentation in history. Simply because our constitution and Australian federalism in particular is fundamentally broken. I'm also enjoying being the devil's advocate on this thread.
No you did. Sharing your netflix logon details (a felony in some US states) and violating the TOS by accessing netflix from outside the US are two different things.
Hahahah. I read someones sig on slashdot that said: The problem with voting is that the government still gets elected.
That was an awesome article. Thanks for posting it.
Assuming that information collected will be misused is just as bad as assuming that all information someone attempts to obfuscate is illegal. Isn't it? How secure is your information now? You can bet your ass it will be less secure the more times it is copied and stored! Funny you mention Asio- who recently noted that there is no practical way they can protect their networks from penetration.
These Terms of Use, which include our Privacy Policy and End User License Agreement ("EULA") govern your use of the Netflix service, including all features and functionalities, instant streaming, our website and user interfaces, and all content and software associated therewith (the "Netflix service" or "service"). By using, visiting, or browsing the Netflix service, you accept and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, you should not use the Netflix service, including our website and user interfaces. So no, in theory you don't have to click anything to agree with their TOS. Bet that hasn't been tested in court though. Furthermore, the legality of using this service in Australia where broadcasting the content using that medium is VERY grey. While everyone is being paid there seems to be no big fuss, but as soon as some enterprising media house realises they're missing out on the Australia tax IMHO the prosecutions will commence. As an aside, it's definitely a felony in some US states to share your netflix login with anyone else- and that's a TOS violation.
That's a straw man mate.
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” Based on your smug arrogance anonymous coward, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the original statement I made which doesn't say anywhere that people have no right to privacy. It says that people who do illegal things should get what they deserve.
Ok, I stand corrected. But if you can read my thoughts I'd better get out my tinfoil hat.
Yes it does. By using VPN to access that service from an unauthorised jurisdiction aren't you then illegally accessing a computer system to which you have no right? Isn't there a pretty stiff penalty for doing that?
Hell I live in Australia and I don't like what our inept government is doing and that they will keep their own files on systems maintained by very low paid IT workers and protected by security built by the cheapest bidder. But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack. Ask yourself if the Pentagon, NASA, ASIO, banks and credit card companies can't protect their data what chance do you REALLY think you have? Do you think that in North Korea there is any expectation of privacy. How about the other despotic regimes around the world where the local princeling can just come into your house and take what he wants without fear?
VPN still has endpoints. Google the text and find the citations yourself.
Innocent until proven guilty is how everything should work. People have jumped on the bandwagon of saying "just because he wants to do stuff anonymously you have automatically assumed he is a criminal". No I didn't. I asked: WHAT is it you want to hide. IF it is a criminal activity THEN you deserve what you get. IF you want to hide (as wild_quinine posted) information about your messy break-up, power bills, medical data and who you're cheating on your wife with- fair enough, that should be your private business and not, available for a price because it was easily lifted from some poorly secured government or ISP stash. But I'll flip that around for you again and say that if data is on any networked computer it is at risk. Just because there is some new government legislation you're worried about doesn't mean that you shouldn't already have taken some precautions over what information you have lying around. Furthermore, what precautions have anyone you've transmitted that information to taken (ie: your mistress, your dentist, etc. etc. etc.) I don't begrudge an innocent person their right to privacy. But I say that your guarantee of privacy is vanishingly small. Once you come to accept that fact it might change how you interact with technology.
Now that I can agree with 1000%.
Why would you need to do that anonymously?
Method 1: Anything involving physical delivery or cash trails can be stung... "The site can only be accessed via TOR, which masks IP address details that could otherwise be stored by an ISP and associated with a user account. Silk Road trade relies on the virtual currency BitCoin for transactions. Alana Sullivan, acting national of Custom’s cargo and maritime targeting branch, said it monitors Silk Road along with other illicit-drug sites and was aware of the Australian presence on Silk Road as both sellers and buyers. “Persons who buy or sell through online market places, on so-called ‘anonymous’ networks should understand that they are not guaranteed anonymity,” said Sullivan. The statement follows a recent comment by Chris McDonald, an associate professor in computer science at the University of Western Australia and Dartmouth College in the US, that the federal government has “no chance of beating” TOR encryption, The Age reported in in April. Law enforcement may not be able to beat TOR’s encryption. However, this did not prevent US authorities in April arresting eight men accused of operating The Farmer’s Market -- another service that used the TOR anonymiser to facilitate trade. Undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents had infiltrated the organisation after becoming trusted buyers over several years of investigation. " Method 2: Information seized from Tor nodes is anonymised but may not be encrypted. "Without going to deeply into what Tor is, Egerstad was operating some Tor nodes. Anyone, including you or me can do it and pretty soon, all sorts of traffic will start flowing through the systems under your command. Tor dusts up the trail you leave behind. When you browse a Web site through Tor (and many people do), no one has any idea where you or your computer are because of how Tor anonymizes your IP address. But that doesn't mean the payload is safe. For example, the user IDs and passwords being used to access inboxes on mail servers. Most such access is not done over secure protocols -- especially when it's browser-based access -- and Tor does nothing to secure those payloads. You're IP address might as well be coming from Mars. But if you're transmitting user IDs and passwords over unencrypted links, does your IP address really matter? " Method 3: (partly uses method 2) Big data mining can identify you by your use of language. With access to unencrypted TOR data from the exit nodes you can create a profile of suspects then search general web traffic for matches, kind of like matching fingerprints. The more info you have access to the higher chance of a successful match. This is used in antiterrorist operations. BTW, this I think is the legislation to which the original poster is referring... http://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=7499