producers get court order for isps to spy on us

S

sTrOnTiaBOnd

[OP]

mgcarley

Founder, Hayai Broadband
Regulars
Jun 22, 2009
6,298
113
Yeah, but in most of Europe, I can see exactly how much you earned last year by sending an SMS to a shortcode or find out your full name and address from your phone number (even mobile) on the publicly accessible Internet - among many other things which are for the most part, easily accessible, even to the public.

So you can pirate freely and quickly (yay) but you sure as hell don't have any of this imaginary privacy you're talking about. Which do you want more?

----------

On another note, if you want real privacy, go to my country. Privacy laws are super strict there.
 
S

sTrOnTiaBOnd

[OP]
Yeah, but in most of Europe, I can see exactly how much you earned last year by sending an SMS to a shortcode or find out your full name and address from your phone number (even mobile) on the publicly accessible Internet - among many other things which are for the most part, easily accessible, even to the public.

So you can pirate freely and quickly (yay) but you sure as hell don't have any of this imaginary privacy you're talking about. Which do you want more?

----------

On another note, if you want real privacy, go to my country. Privacy laws are super strict there.



ahmm you were saying something
Sky News: NZ passes new snoop and search law
 


mgcarley

Founder, Hayai Broadband
Regulars
Jun 22, 2009
6,298
113
This does not affect the Privacy Act of 1993, nor is it the same as the aforementioned Indian law. New Zealand (unlike India) still allows things like encryption, and (unlike India) this law is targeting individuals, not allowing blanket searches or warrantless taps.

Nor does it make ISPs responsible for checking for the piracy of films and such commercial interests: even the recent laws concerning piracy in NZ (allowing foreign studios access to this information) have not been used because we implemented them in a sane manner and force the aforementioned studios to pay what is really quite a nominal fee - only $25 - but which NO studio has yet actually paid (ergo, no information has been actually divulged because the legal requirements have not been met).

Even with the Amendments to the Telecom Act, the surveillance orders that can be issued relate more to crimes surrounding concerns such as drugs and weapons, not stuff like Piracy (that's covered by a separate law, as mentioned above). Please RTFA more carefully, or, if you are so inclined, the relevant section (311) of the bill itself and related acts, and stop being such a sensationalist.

I'm not saying I agree with the new law, just that it should not be misinterpreted to mean what you seem to think it means.