Privacy Blues
- Thread starter Keane 16
- Start date
- Status
hammerhead
Discoverer
An interesting thought.
While people complain about privacy, if by such measures a potential terrorist is found or a pedophile ring is found(extreme examples), I don't see what is bad with it. The problem ofcourse is what happens with private data thats as such completely legal and still can be exploited in the wrong hands of our police :lol:
The problem is with the trustworthiness of the police and the people in law enforcement. I think thats the part that should be debated and improved on rather than the capability of some to search and invade your privacy. And fact is also that many a time those who fret about privacy a lot also have something to hide :lol:
While people complain about privacy, if by such measures a potential terrorist is found or a pedophile ring is found(extreme examples), I don't see what is bad with it. The problem ofcourse is what happens with private data thats as such completely legal and still can be exploited in the wrong hands of our police :lol:
The problem is with the trustworthiness of the police and the people in law enforcement. I think thats the part that should be debated and improved on rather than the capability of some to search and invade your privacy. And fact is also that many a time those who fret about privacy a lot also have something to hide :lol:
Privacy has to do with dignity, and that is promised in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has said as much. The fact is I don't want cops going through my private stuff. In any case, that gives them too much power to harass you.
And your example of pedophiles and terrorists is quite naive. How many people are there in a city the size of Mumbai? 10 million? How many pedophiles and terrorists are there in the same city? I dunno - maybe a 100. And how many of them with incriminating stuff on their mobile phones? Hmmm..... 10.
So you have a 1 in a million chance of catching someone. And for that you have cops searching people's phones? Instead put those cops out to look for suspicious activity or contact informants. That is more likely to help. Or perhaps send them to guard high risk installations like airports, railway stations and busy markets.
On top of this, giving them the right to look at your mobile at random (as they were doing in Pune) is an invitation to abuse of powers. They can then find anything, even an SMS from your gf, claim it is lewd and throw you in jail. Sure, you'll get out in a day or two, but what is more likely is that you'll pay them and get off like that.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't even blame the people who are given more powers than they might need (cops). I blame the politicians who give it to them, and who refuse to do their jobs to keep them in check. Like that idiot Lt Governor of Delhi and his damned ID cards.
And your example of pedophiles and terrorists is quite naive. How many people are there in a city the size of Mumbai? 10 million? How many pedophiles and terrorists are there in the same city? I dunno - maybe a 100. And how many of them with incriminating stuff on their mobile phones? Hmmm..... 10.
So you have a 1 in a million chance of catching someone. And for that you have cops searching people's phones? Instead put those cops out to look for suspicious activity or contact informants. That is more likely to help. Or perhaps send them to guard high risk installations like airports, railway stations and busy markets.
On top of this, giving them the right to look at your mobile at random (as they were doing in Pune) is an invitation to abuse of powers. They can then find anything, even an SMS from your gf, claim it is lewd and throw you in jail. Sure, you'll get out in a day or two, but what is more likely is that you'll pay them and get off like that.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't even blame the people who are given more powers than they might need (cops). I blame the politicians who give it to them, and who refuse to do their jobs to keep them in check. Like that idiot Lt Governor of Delhi and his damned ID cards.
tusharrastogi
Contributor
USA is a bulls**t city. rules and ppl thr sucks...just chill dude... if ur an indian then its the mast country. no one is going to check you cell privacy. so relax
hammerhead
Discoverer
soggy316
Galvanizer
I kind of agree with Safin's point that privacy can be sacrificed if it is going to make the world safer. There are 2 possibilites
1. A pedophile/terrorist ring is busted because one of its members broke a traffic light and was searched. This to me is fine, you break the law, you are screwed. This is somewhat similar to the Al Capone Story
2. That mobile phone thing in pune - that was totally unwarranted, If i have not broken the law then I cannot be searched unless there is a valid reason for suspecting me to be involved in some kind of illegal activity .. this should be backed by evidence even if it is circumstansial.
However the simplest solution is - Use a nokia 1100
no smartphone no evidence....
1. A pedophile/terrorist ring is busted because one of its members broke a traffic light and was searched. This to me is fine, you break the law, you are screwed. This is somewhat similar to the Al Capone Story
2. That mobile phone thing in pune - that was totally unwarranted, If i have not broken the law then I cannot be searched unless there is a valid reason for suspecting me to be involved in some kind of illegal activity .. this should be backed by evidence even if it is circumstansial.
However the simplest solution is - Use a nokia 1100
no smartphone no evidence....
blr_p
Quasar
False dichotomy indeed :hap2:
and this quote really needs to be beaten into ppl..
"The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither."
and this quote really needs to be beaten into ppl..
"The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither."
blr_p said:
This quotation sums up my own opinion on the subject. Loosing privacy means loosing your most basic right "freedom"
kkndka said:
Who is going to decide on what is the balance?
It takes one terrorist to kill a lot many of people and it takes one pedophile to destroy the lives of hundreds of children. How many are you likely to find? I don't know, but i sure would want to find them out rather than they finding someone out. (And btw 100 only, somehow i think you missed adding a couple of zero's there
)I never actually mentioned they should search each and every ones phone. They should search the people whom they suspect. But if in that process there are some false leads, i won't call that privacy violation. You have to violate some privacy to do a lot of law enforcement. Terrorist is a private person also. Without tapping into his life, how do you expect me to find out that he is a terrorist. Looking at his activities? How does one do that. Infiltrate maybe, tap his phones maybe. Does that mean we have a 100% record of success and identification when we do that. No. That is my point. I doubt thats naive.
I don't condone if they were doing that at random in Pune, but in some cases at major national events they have to do that. Eg today on account of republic day lot of cars are being searched at random. I am sure phones are being tapped also. Your example is not quite good enough. There is little chance of someone going to jail over sms, and even if he did there would be a complaint against him.
As i mentioned, privacy invasion is not an issue, the issue is the cops and their trustworthiness. Are they doing their duty dilligently. That is the part that has to be debated and improved on. Privacy invasion will always be there and thats not always a bad thing.
Quotes are always fantastic to read but sometimes they are fantastically idealistic.
Ever heard of the Stasi? Read up about them, and you'll understand. As for terrorists being private persons, well guess what. No terrorist has been caught by illegally invading his private space. Ever. They are caught by investigation, intelligence informants and the use of warrants.
What happened last time they didn't get a proper warrant? That idiot geelani got off from the parliament attack case. And the attack did take place. Use a warrant and I have no problems.
As for searching when there is a suspicion, well, let us hope they do so properly. The question is, what do they suspect you of, and what do they search for? As I told you, the chance of finding a criminal like that is low, but you are sure as hell harassing innocents.
As for idealism vs realism, guess what. The lack of privacy is the biggest security risk. If you go and collect information on people (and that is what a lot of these hairbrained schemes mean), it will easily be sold and misused. Look at it this way - terrorists often get fake passports. But if you investigate them, you can find them out because they have built up fake records, and at some point you'll find a break, and be able to catch them. But if you build up complete records of innocent people, well someone or the other will bribe or break his way in, steal the entire (real) background of someone and then you have identity theft..... when the thief is a terrorist, that is all the more dangerous.
Wow, you certainly trust the cops. Ask superczar about how they got a few thousand rupees from him on a routine traffic stop when they didn't even accuse him of a criminal act, just something he never did understand. The point is this - if a guy breaks a signal, bust his ass by all means. If he does something more, go ahead and arrest him. But stopping people and looking at cell phones is a bad idea. You really are getting into things you shouldn't. And you are also pushing away a lot of avenues you do have. Guess what, some terrorists probably do use SMS for sending terror related communication. Right now, we have a chance, if we know who they are, to monitor that communication and find out what they are up to. If they think that they are going to be stopped at traffic lights and frisked, they just won't use SMS for such communications. End result is that even a wiretap won't work! I am terrified that when the US decides to wiretap everyone's lines and all the internet, all that will happen is the terrorists will start encrypting their email. As of now, encrypting email is painful and not easy in most throw away webmail accounts (the kind these guys use). But once wiretapping is common, trust me, everyone will start using this... and so encrypted emails won't even stand out.
Ah, but they have never found anyone out like that! You just don't get those breaks in real life unfortunately. Let me also give you a hint on security - random checks are often better than mandatory checks. Mandatory checks are possible only at a very few control points and are more of a lets stop amateurs from doing something stupid, or if you have specific information, as opposed to criminal doing something criminal, and random checks are only useful at certain high risk areas.
You know, suppose you do get a sharp object on to the plane. They aren't really worried about that (if they find one in your bags, all they do is throw it out and let you go; clearly they don't think you are a terrorist). What they are worried about is if a terrorist, who did not have a weapon, takes that from you and uses it as a weapon.....
My point here is that a lot of what people are talking about is just security theatre - an attempt to pretend you are doing something when you are not. Unfortunately, it does not really scare terrorists - those guys are willing to kill themselves, so you can't use the fear of capture against them.
What happened last time they didn't get a proper warrant? That idiot geelani got off from the parliament attack case. And the attack did take place. Use a warrant and I have no problems.
As for searching when there is a suspicion, well, let us hope they do so properly. The question is, what do they suspect you of, and what do they search for? As I told you, the chance of finding a criminal like that is low, but you are sure as hell harassing innocents.
As for idealism vs realism, guess what. The lack of privacy is the biggest security risk. If you go and collect information on people (and that is what a lot of these hairbrained schemes mean), it will easily be sold and misused. Look at it this way - terrorists often get fake passports. But if you investigate them, you can find them out because they have built up fake records, and at some point you'll find a break, and be able to catch them. But if you build up complete records of innocent people, well someone or the other will bribe or break his way in, steal the entire (real) background of someone and then you have identity theft..... when the thief is a terrorist, that is all the more dangerous.
Wow, you certainly trust the cops. Ask superczar about how they got a few thousand rupees from him on a routine traffic stop when they didn't even accuse him of a criminal act, just something he never did understand. The point is this - if a guy breaks a signal, bust his ass by all means. If he does something more, go ahead and arrest him. But stopping people and looking at cell phones is a bad idea. You really are getting into things you shouldn't. And you are also pushing away a lot of avenues you do have. Guess what, some terrorists probably do use SMS for sending terror related communication. Right now, we have a chance, if we know who they are, to monitor that communication and find out what they are up to. If they think that they are going to be stopped at traffic lights and frisked, they just won't use SMS for such communications. End result is that even a wiretap won't work! I am terrified that when the US decides to wiretap everyone's lines and all the internet, all that will happen is the terrorists will start encrypting their email. As of now, encrypting email is painful and not easy in most throw away webmail accounts (the kind these guys use). But once wiretapping is common, trust me, everyone will start using this... and so encrypted emails won't even stand out.
Ah, but they have never found anyone out like that! You just don't get those breaks in real life unfortunately. Let me also give you a hint on security - random checks are often better than mandatory checks. Mandatory checks are possible only at a very few control points and are more of a lets stop amateurs from doing something stupid, or if you have specific information, as opposed to criminal doing something criminal, and random checks are only useful at certain high risk areas.
You know, suppose you do get a sharp object on to the plane. They aren't really worried about that (if they find one in your bags, all they do is throw it out and let you go; clearly they don't think you are a terrorist). What they are worried about is if a terrorist, who did not have a weapon, takes that from you and uses it as a weapon.....
My point here is that a lot of what people are talking about is just security theatre - an attempt to pretend you are doing something when you are not. Unfortunately, it does not really scare terrorists - those guys are willing to kill themselves, so you can't use the fear of capture against them.
Your ideas of what constitutes all that you are saying is not clear. You should read up on how these are done.
First of all the whole case on Geelani was built on phone taps that were done on him. If you don't believe that evidence, how have you pronounced him guilty without you knowing anything else about him. If your argument is to hold, he is innocent citizen of this country. You canot have it both ways as and when you like on the basis of your likes and dislikes.
I think your first statement is all that i ever said. You are spinning yarns when none is needed. If you wanted to say that we should do it properly with men of integrity(hard to find them) thats all i am saying and thats what there is to debate.
Again the presumption is that you are saying that the people will misuse it in the law enforcement. First of all your impression of law enforcement is not in very high esteem(fairly enough, there are plenty of black sheeps in there as there are in the society in general in every sphere, you get a reflection there also) however there are plenty of men of integrity in there and your blanket classing them in one bracket is unfortunate.
And when you investigate those very records identify the people. And have you ever guessed that for every attack(Say terrorist) there are 100 that are busted. How do you think that happens. Maybe you should find that out. Your examples just highlight the need of securing that data, they don't tell me not having them at all. They are useful pieces of information that essential in today's world to track down all kinds of things including illegal immigrants, terrorists, law breakers and all that.
I don't trust all of them, actually not many in the traffic department anyway :lol: and i am not going to comment on one person's case at all. Thats hardly the point. As i said, sometimes searches are needed, not all the time. Why in this context it was being done, i have no idea. I certainly do think it was not some traffic cop who decided to do that. There must be orders and they can either be based on some solid intelligence or bad one.
Yeah i agree. I don't think its become a norm anyway cos i haven't seen anyone complaining in most places i have gone about cells being looked into. Why it was done in Pune, they would know better.
And terrorists will always move to newer methods and law enforcement will also have to move on. Having said that terrorists or anyone else never stop using phones and they never will. Someone always flukes up inspite of trying his best.
Wrong. They have. Geelani! :lol:
Have you read that case up. I advice you do that.
I disagree. Actually you get most breaks in real life by tapping. You can't even imagine how successful it has been. One of the best as far as intelligence gathering goes. If it wasn't it won't be used but its widely used(and misused by the politicians :lol
You are giving me hint on security, the ones i have already espoused in the 2nd post i made.
What i said said:
Thank you but i know that. Nice to know you agree also.
I didn't get that. It means one and the same thing. Don't allow anyone to carry potentially harm causing things.
Yeah, i hear a lot of this fear psychosis being built up. I might say i agree also in some cases that its hyped for vested interests. However the threat is real. The checks scare the terrorists or at best it makes the job real harder for them and thats plain obvious as they don't have success as often as they would want. They are busted 100 times for each small success. Thats possible vy good law enforcement, intelligence and some people's hard work. In between we all lose a bit of privacy but as long as its not misused on a major scale by the law enforcement people, i think its something you have to live with. I don't think its misused and in 0.1% cases it is, there is always a scope of improvement. Fact is like in anything else you hear about these things whens things go bad. not when they are done well. Is there scope of improvement. Sure. Do i trust traffic cops. No :lol: Do i trust cops, sometimes, sometimes not. Do i trust the cops doing the taps. In most cases yes. I know the cycle of permissions that goes through and in most cases there aregood men at the top and it helps bust rings that i don't want to be operating.
blr_p
Quasar
Safin said:
History has shown worldwide that when ever this kind of information is availiable that in most instances it has been misused or abused, even in so called free(er) countries. No one, it seems is immune to the power this mass information on the citizenry wields
Some witch hunt or the other usually happens and the main reason for doing it in the first place (ie security) gets relegated to what ever the political cause celebre of the day is.
Don't you think we can learn from these experiences instead of repeating them ?
SledgeHammer
Contributor
- Status