It does when I actually know people this has been done to - I even know people who were subject to surveillance because while the authorities believed they were guilty of something - based on errornous physical surveillance and spying - they were not. I am however not at liberty to disclose who these people were.
wrong again
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), or in common law jurisdictions Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit—"The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."[
So if I wish to contest a demand from the tax office the burden is on me to prove it, however if the police were to arrest me for some crime it is down to them to prove it.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Of course it does - how can the defendant properly defend against accusation if they are not aware of the evidence against them.
wrong. have a look as to how a court case works, or ask a lawyer. if you do what you did for the above you will see you are wrong again
And one held by a number of people far more versed in legal process than on a public open forum.
which doesn't change a thing
I'll take the opinion of a Fellow at Harvard and a Norwegian Professor over an anonymous poster on the internet. Further it is a lot more than you have provided to back up your opinion.
you can listen to who you like and form your own opinions how you like. it doesn't make you right however
How can I be wrong about something I have actually had experience of.
so not what you said in the first place, is it?
Yes it is - the presumption of innocence is the most basic principle in the UK justice system.
wrong. have a look as to how a court case works, or ask a lawyer. if you do what you did for the above you will see you are wrong again
I have been involved in a number of court cases. The most recent as an applicant. The right to see the evidence against you is a fundamental part of a fair trial. In the 1963 decision in Brady vs. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are required to provide defendants with any information that may help prove their innocence or favorably change the outcome of their trials. That decision recognized that an individual's right to a fair trial is undermined if prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence.
Of course it does - these people are experienced - I have no knowledge of your experience - you certainly are not providing anything like backing for your statements - just suggesting people are wrong - or just expressing an opinion - which is ironic given that this is an opinion forum.
you can listen to who you like and form your own opinions how you like. it doesn't make you right however
It does not make me wrong either - and I've provided a heck of a lot more than you have to back that opinion up.
"in the UK legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty"
I have been involved in a number of court cases. The most recent as an applicant. The right to see the evidence against you is a fundamental part of a fair trial. In the 1963 decision in Brady vs. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are required to provide defendants with any information that may help prove their innocence or favorably change the outcome of their trials. That decision recognized that an individual's right to a fair trial is undermined if prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence.
1) the bit in bold explains "how can the defendant properly defend against accusation"
2) we are discussing GCHQ which follows UK law, so why bring up details on an American case? not that it really matters as the same principle applies in this example
Of course it does - these people are experienced - I have no knowledge of your experience - you certainly are not providing anything like backing for your statements - just suggesting people are wrong - or just expressing an opinion - which is ironic given that this is an opinion forum.
wrong again
It does not make me wrong either - and I've provided a heck of a lot more than you have to back that opinion up.
wrong again. you are over generalising. sometimes it can
"in the UK legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty"
Yes the presumption of innocence is a basic fundamental part of the UK legal system - why do you think it is otherwise. The collection of data on all people is based on the presumption that anybody could be guilty and all they are looking for is the evidence of wrongdoing.
1) the bit in bold explains "how can the defendant properly defend against accusation"
And if they do not know about the evidence - part of the issue with secret surveillance is that it must remain just that - a secret. Indeed more than one trial has collapsed because the authorities refused to divulge the information and therefore was not applicable.
2) we are discussing GCHQ which follows UK law, so why bring up details on an American case? not that it really matters as the same principle applies in this example
Well precisely - the accused must have access to the evidence against them - it might be redacted, so a violent criminal does not know who gave the evidence if only to protect the witness but the evidence has to be available. Secret surveillance is incompatible with the aim - and there is nothing to stop the authorities declining to give that information if you don't even know it exists.
wrong again
Then provide something other than the words 'wrong again' to back it up.
wrong again. you are over generalising. sometimes it can
Again provide something as a counterpoint other than the words 'wrong again' - otherwise I will take the word of a professor over some anonymous poster on an internet forum whose only argument seems to be two words 'wrong' and 'again'
Unique is the sort of person that if you went to him with proof that evolution was a fact he would deflect it by saying "Well that's your opinion". After all he's right because the proven facts we've given him about what NSA and GCHQ get up too are simply "opinions". Someone who is this incapable of distinguishing between indisputable fact and subjective opinion is either really ignorant or is deliberately trolling I haven't found out which unique is yet but neither is particularly appealing. He's going to keep trying to prevent any discussion by repeating his "That's just your opinion" guff and I'm not sure I can be bothered to indulge it anymore.
What me and paul have told you about the NSA and GCHQ activities is not our opinion, it is indisputable fact that has been proven beyond all doubt. The opinion part is what we think of that surveillance, do we think it's justified or not. You seem to think it is but remember, that's just your opinion!
look up what the definition of a fact is and find out
Yes the presumption of innocence is a basic fundamental part of the UK legal system - why do you think it is otherwise.
i don't
]
The collection of data on all people is based on the presumption that anybody could be guilty and all they are looking for is the evidence of wrongdoing.
wrong
And if they do not know about the evidence - part of the issue with secret surveillance is that it must remain just that - a secret. Indeed more than one trial has collapsed because the authorities refused to divulge the information and therefore was not applicable.
and your point? without evidence being provided to the court, the court can't rule on that evidence
[quote
Well precisely - the accused must have access to the evidence against them - it might be redacted, so a violent criminal does not know who gave the evidence if only to protect the witness but the evidence has to be available. Secret surveillance is incompatible with the aim - and there is nothing to stop the authorities declining to give that information if you don't even know it exists.[/quote]
and again, if the evidence isn't provided to the court, the court can't act on it, can they?
Then provide something other than the words 'wrong again' to back it up.
i have. see the first part of my reply here
Again provide something as a counterpoint other than the words 'wrong again' - otherwise I will take the word of a professor over some anonymous poster on an internet forum whose only argument seems to be two words 'wrong' and 'again'
you can listen to who you want, but that doesn't make you right
Unique is the sort of person that if you went to him with proof that evolution was a fact he would deflect it by saying "Well that's your opinion".
wrong. plus are you not aware that the "theory" of evolution is not a fact?
After all he's right because the proven facts we've given him about what NSA and GCHQ get up too are simply "opinions". Someone who is this incapable of distinguishing between indisputable fact and subjective opinion is either really ignorant or is deliberately trolling I haven't found out which unique is yet but neither is particularly appealing. He's going to keep trying to prevent any discussion by repeating his "That's just your opinion" guff and I'm not sure I can be bothered to indulge it anymore.
well you are on of the people who has displayed an inability of tell the difference between fact and opinion, even though i've suggested those who appear to have the two things mixed up look up the meaning of the word
someones opinion is not necessarily guff, no matter how wrong they may be
What me and paul have told you about the NSA and GCHQ activities is not our opinion, it is indisputable fact that has been proven beyond all doubt.
wrong. for a start you are over generalising again, and secondly on or both of you mentioned that some of what you said was a guess. a guess is not a fact.
some of what you have said may be true, others may be wrong, and some may be opinion
The opinion part is what we think of that surveillance, do we think it's justified or not. You seem to think it is but remember, that's just your opinion!
and that's the bottom line. your opinion is one thing and mine is something else. you are welcome to your opinion
Unique what are your thoughts about the proposal to ban encryption that doesn't have a backdoor in it for the government to use? The biggest problem I have with it is what is going to happen to millions of online banking users using backdoored encryption when bad people decide to use the government backdoor for less than benign purposes.
Unique what are your thoughts about the proposal to ban encryption that doesn't have a backdoor in it for the government to use? The biggest problem I have with it is what is going to happen to millions of online banking users using backdoored encryption when bad people decide to use the government backdoor for less than benign purposes.
I thought that idea had been strangled at birth - don't tell me it has come back >:(
There are of course two problems with this
1. There is no way of knowing if the person or persons using the backdoor are authorised or not
2. Much of the encryption software is either created entirely or built upon open source software - making it pretty much impossible to control any of it. The NSA| tried years ago to force the creator of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) to put in a back door and was promptly told to Foxtrot Oscar.
The US National Security Agency (NSA) secretly paid US$10 million to encryption vendor RSA to include a back door in its BSAFE encryption product. In the deal, MRSA agreed to set as the default setting the intentionally flawed Dual Elliptic Curve key generation mechanism created and promoted by the NSA.
In 1996, four years after the Clipper chip idea was soundly defeated, the Clinton administration offered a compromise to allow export of cryptography if the manufacturers would agree to allow law enforcement to decrypt any encrypted material on demand. RSA was one of the 11 companies that announced its intention to develop the private key recovery system
Following Edward Snowden‘s revelation that the NSA influenced cryptography standards in an attempt to intentionally make them weaker, RSA published an advisory warning its customers away from the company’s BSAFE product. The RSA advisory contained this gem of a prescient pre-denial:
“RSA always acts in the best interest of its customers and under no circumstances does RSA design or enable any backdoors in our products. Decisions about the features and functionality of RSA products are our own.”
A White House panel appointed to review the government’s surveillance policies found in its report — “Liberty and Security in a Changing World” — that “encryption is an essential basis for trust on the internet” and called for the NSA to cease any efforts to undermine it.
You sound like a pupil of one of those post-modernist (whatever that is!) professors in the 1990s, who preached relativism - some nutty french academic started this in the 1960s i think. First line is the only definition of relativism required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
To quote another definition: "the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions"
OR have you just swallowed an irony pill, in that absolutely anything someone else posts is just an opinion but you can factually state they're "wrong" whilst offering no evidence yourself? Perhaps you mean "In my opinion that is wrong, but my opinion is no more valid than yours". Although in all cases its less valid, until you provide any evidence to back up your claim.
Just out of curiosity you must draw a line somewhere as to how much state surveillance (even if it is only currently being collected but can't all be looked at) is too much for you? Upgraded CCTV cameras that have face recognition so your entire movements in a city are always logged by GCHQ? All your phone conversations recorded? A CCTV camera in your living room? Surely you have a line somewhere that is unacceptable. My line has been crossed, where currntly every telephone number i dial is logged and duration of call stored, every IP address i visit logged, everyone i email logged, even any route map i look up on googlemaps logged.
You sound like a pupil of one of those post-modernist (whatever that is!) professors in the 1990s, who preached relativism - some nutty french academic started this in the 1960s i think. First line is the only definition of relativism required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
To quote another definition: "the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions"
OR have you just swallowed an irony pill, in that absolutely anything someone else posts is just an opinion but you can factually state they're "wrong" whilst offering no evidence yourself? Perhaps you mean "In my opinion that is wrong, but my opinion is no more valid than yours". Although in all cases its less valid, until you provide any evidence to back up your claim.
Just out of curiosity you must draw a line somewhere as to how much state surveillance (even if it is only currently being collected but can't all be looked at) is too much for you? Upgraded CCTV cameras that have face recognition so your entire movements in a city are always logged by GCHQ? All your phone conversations recorded? A CCTV camera in your living room? Surely you have a line somewhere that is unacceptable. My line has been crossed, where currntly every telephone number i dial is logged and duration of call stored, every IP address i visit logged, everyone i email logged, even any route map i look up on googlemaps logged.
Do you mean like any device with a camera which is connected to the internet (cabled or wireless)................ what was it Snowden has to say about that now?........ Oh yeh, l remember now, same as he had to say about digital and mobile telephones etc.........which was the same as he had to say about.............and so on. Only I suppose that sort of thing will be legal, no warrant required with this legislation. If not this legislation, then the next expansion of it...............and so on.
Perhaps some people should google, let's say, "camfecting" for starters.
Do you mean like any device with a camera which is connected to the internet (cabled or wireless)................ what was it Snowden has to say about that now?........ Oh yeh, l remember now, same as he had to say about digital and mobile telephones etc.........which was the same as he had to say about.............and so on. Only I suppose that sort of thing will be legal, no warrant required with this legislation. If not this legislation, then the next expansion of it...............and so on.
Perhaps some people should google, let's say, "camfecting" for starters.
I'm operating a self imposed ban on any "smart" technology right now for that reason. Smart TV's are quite literally what 1984 warned us about, that's not hyperbole because they actually had screens with cameras in them where you could be remotely watched and listened to at any time and never know.
I'm operating a self imposed ban on any "smart" technology right now for that reason. Smart TV's are quite literally what 1984 warned us about, that's not hyperbole because they actually had screens with cameras in them where you could be remotely watched and listened to at any time and never know.
Indeed, smart TV's are particularly insecure. I'm totally with you regarding this matter on both threads (although a little less vocal perhaps) and I'm sure Alfa is too............it's the 'nothing to hiders' that need to sit up.
You sound like a pupil of one of those post-modernist (whatever that is!) professors in the 1990s, who preached relativism - some nutty french academic started this in the 1960s i think. First line is the only definition of relativism required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
To quote another definition: "the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions"
OR have you just swallowed an irony pill, in that absolutely anything someone else posts is just an opinion but you can factually state they're "wrong" whilst offering no evidence yourself? Perhaps you mean "In my opinion that is wrong, but my opinion is no more valid than yours". Although in all cases its less valid, until you provide any evidence to back up your claim.
Just out of curiosity you must draw a line somewhere as to how much state surveillance (even if it is only currently being collected but can't all be looked at) is too much for you? Upgraded CCTV cameras that have face recognition so your entire movements in a city are always logged by GCHQ? All your phone conversations recorded? A CCTV camera in your living room? Surely you have a line somewhere that is unacceptable. My line has been crossed, where currntly every telephone number i dial is logged and duration of call stored, every IP address i visit logged, everyone i email logged, even any route map i look up on googlemaps logged.
in a conversation/discussion, both facts and opinions can be shared. sometimes people can get confused between facts and opinions, so to clarify things it's sometimes worth pointing this out, especially if someone is arguing an opinion over a fact, such as in most of replies to my comments
in a conversation/discussion, both facts and opinions can be shared. sometimes people can get confused between facts and opinions, so to clarify things it's sometimes worth pointing this out, especially if someone is arguing an opinion over a fact, such as in most of replies to my comments
I have seen very few facts in what you have posted in this thread. Certainly very little if anything backed up by a third party.
Comments
wrong again
so not what you said in the first place, is it?
wrong. have a look as to how a court case works, or ask a lawyer. if you do what you did for the above you will see you are wrong again
which doesn't change a thing
you can listen to who you like and form your own opinions how you like. it doesn't make you right however
How can I be wrong about something I have actually had experience of.
Yes it is - the presumption of innocence is the most basic principle in the UK justice system.
I have been involved in a number of court cases. The most recent as an applicant. The right to see the evidence against you is a fundamental part of a fair trial. In the 1963 decision in Brady vs. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are required to provide defendants with any information that may help prove their innocence or favorably change the outcome of their trials. That decision recognized that an individual's right to a fair trial is undermined if prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence.
(see http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/01/opinion/la-ed-brady-proposition-115-20130401)
Of course it does - these people are experienced - I have no knowledge of your experience - you certainly are not providing anything like backing for your statements - just suggesting people are wrong - or just expressing an opinion - which is ironic given that this is an opinion forum.
It does not make me wrong either - and I've provided a heck of a lot more than you have to back that opinion up.
look up the meaning of the word "fact" and find out
wrong again. look back and see what you wrote before
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=78233900&postcount=94
"in the UK legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty"
1) the bit in bold explains "how can the defendant properly defend against accusation"
2) we are discussing GCHQ which follows UK law, so why bring up details on an American case? not that it really matters as the same principle applies in this example
wrong again
wrong again. you are over generalising. sometimes it can
How can something experienced not be a fact.
Yes the presumption of innocence is a basic fundamental part of the UK legal system - why do you think it is otherwise. The collection of data on all people is based on the presumption that anybody could be guilty and all they are looking for is the evidence of wrongdoing.
And if they do not know about the evidence - part of the issue with secret surveillance is that it must remain just that - a secret. Indeed more than one trial has collapsed because the authorities refused to divulge the information and therefore was not applicable.
Well precisely - the accused must have access to the evidence against them - it might be redacted, so a violent criminal does not know who gave the evidence if only to protect the witness but the evidence has to be available. Secret surveillance is incompatible with the aim - and there is nothing to stop the authorities declining to give that information if you don't even know it exists.
Then provide something other than the words 'wrong again' to back it up.
Again provide something as a counterpoint other than the words 'wrong again' - otherwise I will take the word of a professor over some anonymous poster on an internet forum whose only argument seems to be two words 'wrong' and 'again'
What me and paul have told you about the NSA and GCHQ activities is not our opinion, it is indisputable fact that has been proven beyond all doubt. The opinion part is what we think of that surveillance, do we think it's justified or not. You seem to think it is but remember, that's just your opinion!
look up what the definition of a fact is and find out
i don't
wrong
and your point? without evidence being provided to the court, the court can't rule on that evidence
[quote
Well precisely - the accused must have access to the evidence against them - it might be redacted, so a violent criminal does not know who gave the evidence if only to protect the witness but the evidence has to be available. Secret surveillance is incompatible with the aim - and there is nothing to stop the authorities declining to give that information if you don't even know it exists.[/quote]
and again, if the evidence isn't provided to the court, the court can't act on it, can they?
i have. see the first part of my reply here
you can listen to who you want, but that doesn't make you right
wrong. plus are you not aware that the "theory" of evolution is not a fact?
well you are on of the people who has displayed an inability of tell the difference between fact and opinion, even though i've suggested those who appear to have the two things mixed up look up the meaning of the word
someones opinion is not necessarily guff, no matter how wrong they may be
wrong. for a start you are over generalising again, and secondly on or both of you mentioned that some of what you said was a guess. a guess is not a fact.
some of what you have said may be true, others may be wrong, and some may be opinion
and that's the bottom line. your opinion is one thing and mine is something else. you are welcome to your opinion
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
I thought that idea had been strangled at birth - don't tell me it has come back >:(
There are of course two problems with this
1. There is no way of knowing if the person or persons using the backdoor are authorised or not
2. Much of the encryption software is either created entirely or built upon open source software - making it pretty much impossible to control any of it. The NSA| tried years ago to force the creator of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) to put in a back door and was promptly told to Foxtrot Oscar.
The US National Security Agency (NSA) secretly paid US$10 million to encryption vendor RSA to include a back door in its BSAFE encryption product. In the deal, MRSA agreed to set as the default setting the intentionally flawed Dual Elliptic Curve key generation mechanism created and promoted by the NSA.
In 1996, four years after the Clipper chip idea was soundly defeated, the Clinton administration offered a compromise to allow export of cryptography if the manufacturers would agree to allow law enforcement to decrypt any encrypted material on demand. RSA was one of the 11 companies that announced its intention to develop the private key recovery system
Following Edward Snowden‘s revelation that the NSA influenced cryptography standards in an attempt to intentionally make them weaker, RSA published an advisory warning its customers away from the company’s BSAFE product. The RSA advisory contained this gem of a prescient pre-denial:
“RSA always acts in the best interest of its customers and under no circumstances does RSA design or enable any backdoors in our products. Decisions about the features and functionality of RSA products are our own.”
A White House panel appointed to review the government’s surveillance policies found in its report — “Liberty and Security in a Changing World” — that “encryption is an essential basis for trust on the internet” and called for the NSA to cease any efforts to undermine it.
See http://www.farces.com/nsa-paid-rsa-us10-million-to-include-encryption-back-door/
Bad ideas really are like bad pennies - they keep coming back.
Pro tip: try actually reading the struff you link to. It might help you be less wrong. Although I doubt it.
You sound like a pupil of one of those post-modernist (whatever that is!) professors in the 1990s, who preached relativism - some nutty french academic started this in the 1960s i think. First line is the only definition of relativism required:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
To quote another definition: "the idea that scientific and mathematical theories are mere "narrations" or social constructions"
OR have you just swallowed an irony pill, in that absolutely anything someone else posts is just an opinion but you can factually state they're "wrong" whilst offering no evidence yourself? Perhaps you mean "In my opinion that is wrong, but my opinion is no more valid than yours". Although in all cases its less valid, until you provide any evidence to back up your claim.
Just out of curiosity you must draw a line somewhere as to how much state surveillance (even if it is only currently being collected but can't all be looked at) is too much for you? Upgraded CCTV cameras that have face recognition so your entire movements in a city are always logged by GCHQ? All your phone conversations recorded? A CCTV camera in your living room? Surely you have a line somewhere that is unacceptable. My line has been crossed, where currntly every telephone number i dial is logged and duration of call stored, every IP address i visit logged, everyone i email logged, even any route map i look up on googlemaps logged.
Do you mean like any device with a camera which is connected to the internet (cabled or wireless)................ what was it Snowden has to say about that now?........ Oh yeh, l remember now, same as he had to say about digital and mobile telephones etc.........which was the same as he had to say about.............and so on. Only I suppose that sort of thing will be legal, no warrant required with this legislation. If not this legislation, then the next expansion of it...............and so on.
Perhaps some people should google, let's say, "camfecting" for starters.
I'm operating a self imposed ban on any "smart" technology right now for that reason. Smart TV's are quite literally what 1984 warned us about, that's not hyperbole because they actually had screens with cameras in them where you could be remotely watched and listened to at any time and never know.
Indeed, smart TV's are particularly insecure. I'm totally with you regarding this matter on both threads (although a little less vocal perhaps) and I'm sure Alfa is too............it's the 'nothing to hiders' that need to sit up.
wrong again. try taking your own advice
in a conversation/discussion, both facts and opinions can be shared. sometimes people can get confused between facts and opinions, so to clarify things it's sometimes worth pointing this out, especially if someone is arguing an opinion over a fact, such as in most of replies to my comments
I have seen very few facts in what you have posted in this thread. Certainly very little if anything backed up by a third party.
Just this thread?