 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure, sometimes the right to privacy may be abused to hide illegal
> material
> (eg. child porn or terrorist plans), but I still don't think that privacy
> should be lifted from everybody simply because a few individuals abuse it
> to hide illegal material.
Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the
police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC.
Imagine the public outcry if (sorry Tim!) the police couldn't check Tim's PC
because of privacy laws, but then Tim went on to do worse things, and it
came out later on during a trial that the police suspected Tim was involved
but couldn't do anything about it.
A bit like the outcry here when it was revealed that Fritzl had already been
in prison for raping a young woman, and yet he was allowed to adopt children
with no extra checks, purely because his records had been deleted due to
"privacy" laws.
It's not always the case that more privacy is better for society as a whole.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
>
> It's not always the case that more privacy is better for society as a whole.
True, but it is getting the balance right that seems to be difficult.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the
> police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC.
If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want, that's a sure
way of getting a police state.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where the
>> police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his PC.
>
> If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want,
They can't, they need to demonstrate to a judge that they have reasonable
reason to believe that a PC *might* contain illegal material. If they have
proof that someone living in a house has downloaded CP, then I think it's
reasonable to confiscate every PC in that house.
Don't worry Warp, they're not just going to choose you at random because you
"look funny" then come in and take your PC!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Don't worry Warp, they're not just going to choose you at random because you
> "look funny" then come in and take your PC!
Yet.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If the police can invade the privacy of anyone they want, that's a sure
> way of getting a police state.
Yep. And I'll note that it's almost never the case that lack-of-privacy
applies to famous powerful people. I mean, in the US right now, people
are getting beat to crap by the cops for taking pictures of cops, and we
can't even get the president to obey a subpoena from the congress.
I wouldn't mind cameras everywhere public if everyone could look at the
pictures. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> The 10 GB used by the hidden container, if contiguous (which I suspect
> it is), will always appear as a 10 GB contiguous block of free space
> when you decrypt the outer container.
There have been file systems designed for this purpose where the sectors
are allocated randomly and chained together. I don't know if TrueCrypt
does this, since I'm not especially trying to hide the existence of
encrypted stuff from law enforcement as much as I am from thieves who
might break in.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:06:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Yeah. Frankly, I don't yet have anything to warrant the
inconvenience
> of hiding TC (or any similar system) usage. But good to know the options
> are there...
Same here, though I've been thinking of playing with it. encfs is enough
for me just at the moment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:30:01 +0200, scott wrote:
> Privacy is not being lifted from everyone, just people like Tim where
> the police had a reasonable reason for wanting to check what was on his
> PC. Imagine the public outcry if (sorry Tim!) the police couldn't check
> Tim's PC because of privacy laws, but then Tim went on to do worse
> things, and it came out later on during a trial that the police
> suspected Tim was involved but couldn't do anything about it.
Here in the US we have a phrase for that - "Probable Cause" (I sometimes
hear it as "Reasonable Probable Cause"). If the police suspect Tim is
involved in something illegal and that suspicion is reasonable (not just
"Hey, he looks evil, I'd better have a look"), then they are entitled.
Checking random laptops at the border is not reasonable probable cause,
it's hoping they get lucky. Big difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:06:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Frankly, I don't yet have anything to warrant the
> inconvenience
>> of hiding TC (or any similar system) usage. But good to know the options
>> are there...
>
> Same here, though I've been thinking of playing with it. encfs is enough
> for me just at the moment.
To counteract what I just said, I always believe that one (or at least
I) should always continually play with this stuff. If I wait till I have
something to hide, then my usage of it will be a dead giveaway.
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Checking random laptops at the border is not reasonable probable cause,
> it's hoping they get lucky. Big difference.
Exactly my point. Besides, it is totally a waste of police time (and they
know it, or they would find out pretty quickly) to check randomly, because
such a low % of people have anything they would be interested in.
Of course I could be wrong, and maybe 25% of people entering the border are
carrying CP or terrorist plans, in which case I suspect it makes sense to
stop people randomly, or just search everyone!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Checking random laptops at the border is not reasonable probable cause,
> > it's hoping they get lucky. Big difference.
> Exactly my point. Besides, it is totally a waste of police time (and they
> know it, or they would find out pretty quickly) to check randomly, because
> such a low % of people have anything they would be interested in.
> Of course I could be wrong, and maybe 25% of people entering the border are
> carrying CP or terrorist plans, in which case I suspect it makes sense to
> stop people randomly, or just search everyone!
I think that the idea is that checking random people acts as a deterrent.
If you have something illegal, the random search could happen to you.
Are you willing to take the risk?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Are you willing to take the risk?
Given that the fear-mongering is about suicidal terrorists, I don't
think this logic works any more.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Are you willing to take the risk?
>
> Given that the fear-mongering is about suicidal terrorists, I don't
> think this logic works any more.
Checking laptops at borders is not as new as one may think - it's just
gotten a lot of press lately. It falls under the same category as
checking other luggage.
I'm not sure it's of much use regardless, as it's trivial to just store
any questionable material somewhere online and download it later.
--
Every little BYTE helps.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:36:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I think that the idea is that checking random people acts as a
> deterrent.
>
> If you have something illegal, the random search could happen to you.
> Are you willing to take the risk?
The thing is, the stated intent of doing this is as part of watching for
terrorists.
But if they're planning on dying anyways, it matters not a lot if they
get caught - if they send enough people through, *someone* will succeed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:22:22 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:06:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah. Frankly, I don't yet have anything to warrant the
>> inconvenience
>>> of hiding TC (or any similar system) usage. But good to know the
>>> options are there...
>>
>> Same here, though I've been thinking of playing with it. encfs is
>> enough for me just at the moment.
>
> To counteract what I just said, I always believe that one (or at
least
> I) should always continually play with this stuff. If I wait till I have
> something to hide, then my usage of it will be a dead giveaway.
That's a good point....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:36:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> I think that the idea is that checking random people acts as a
>> deterrent.
>>
>> If you have something illegal, the random search could happen to you.
>> Are you willing to take the risk?
>
> The thing is, the stated intent of doing this is as part of watching for
> terrorists.
>
> But if they're planning on dying anyways, it matters not a lot if they
> get caught - if they send enough people through, *someone* will succeed.
I'd question the assumptions there. That it hasn't happened implies
either there is virtually no threat, or that they actually *do* care not
to get caught. I'm leaning towards the latter. The belief that they
don't value life, I suspect, is mostly TV drama (what Bruce Scheiner
(sp?) calls security theater).
Besides, even if they didn't care about living, people aren't cheap,
you know.
--
Race track: The place where windows clean people.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I) should always continually play with this stuff. If I wait till I have
>> something to hide, then my usage of it will be a dead giveaway.
>
> That's a good point....
It's a point I always make with regards to email. I wish the people I
emailed regularly would use gpg/pgp type encryption often - even if the
content is quite innocuous. No real luck in getting them to do so. And
the case is relatively easy to make: They'd be really incensed if they
found out the postal authorities were reading their snail mail.
--
Race track: The place where windows clean people.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:13:29 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I'd question the assumptions there. That it hasn't happened
implies
> either there is virtually no threat, or that they actually *do* care not
> to get caught. I'm leaning towards the latter. The belief that they
> don't value life, I suspect, is mostly TV drama (what Bruce Scheiner
> (sp?) calls security theater).
I was reading something about Schneier earlier today - "security theater"
is pretty much what it seems to be to me.
> Besides, even if they didn't care about living, people aren't
cheap,
> you know.
True, but it all depends on how you calculate the ROI from the
terrorist's perspective.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:15:33 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> It's a point I always make with regards to email. I wish the
people I
> emailed regularly would use gpg/pgp type encryption often - even if the
> content is quite innocuous. No real luck in getting them to do so. And
> the case is relatively easy to make: They'd be really incensed if they
> found out the postal authorities were reading their snail mail.
True....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
