Cops

[dymot]

I don't give a flying **** about what you think.

That's great however it is an internet forum and people can post what they like and respond to who they like regardless on what anyone else thinks.

 

[bunsen burner]

So I guess then by your logic, the US government was responsible for allowing September 11 to happen? That's effectively what you are saying.

It's not what I'm saying at all. The security the US Govt had at the time was reasonable. In the Petrelis case, the Govt made IT security flaws 101. Having that data accessible to any police office is an amateur mistake. And more importantly, a police officer accessed it and provided the information to the defendent who was considered to be the biggest crime boss in WA at the time.

Despite the police not being able to control what people do while in the force, they suddenly become competent if they had engaged super dooper screening processes and restricted the information to a handful of people?

Super Dooper?

Try IT security 101. The amateur policies they had in place defy belief.

This is overlooking the fact that despite how much time an organisation spends implementing supposedly infallible systems to prevent such information being leaked, it is not actually possible for the police to be responsible for a rogue member gobbing off about such secure information.

Yes it is. Only certain officers should be able to access that data. It wasn't hacked into. It was accessed by an officer who had nothing to do with the case. He should not have been allowed to put his user name and password into that portal and be granted access.

This is security 101.

But let me guess, you're going to try an argue IT security with me? Didn't bother reading the rest of your rubbish.

 

[bunsen burner]

Yet you still cannot refute the rest of my post. Tell me even if the it system was flawless would it have prevented such information from getting out completely? As for the incompetence bit I am merely referring to what Bunsen Burner described it as.

It doesn't need to be flawless. There is no such thing as flawless. Everything can be hacked.

The problem is they allowed any cop to access this information. They didn't even make it hard. All they had to do was only allow a small amount of authorised people access to that information (through AD or however their system is set up). Would have been a lot harder for Kizon (allegedly) to access the location. He would have had to employ a top grade hacker (would he know one? How would he find one) or find out who has access and bribe them. And to do this he has to start asking questions, and cops on his pay roll have to ask questions. One false move and the good guys are alerted.

 

[Crimson Azure]

Play the ball not the man guys.

 

[bunsen burner]

All the "experts" on the Petrelis incident should really shut up and stop looking silly, because what actually happened was nothing at all like that.

Really? Perhaps you can share your information because mine comes directly from court statements. And perhaps you can declare where you got your information from?

Seriously, put up or shut up.

 

[bunsen burner]

How do those who disagree with how the force is being run currently think the situation can be changed?

Funding/training/selection criteria?

- Funding
- Training
- Strong leadership

The culture is a busted arse and needs to be changed. Recently the 2IC in NSW came out and begrudged that police don't have enough power. He claimed police should be heavily involved in sentencing. He may have even said they should decide what sentences to hand out. He feels that police are doing all the hard work to get criminals off the street and then they are being undermined by the legal system and judges. He also claimed there is a lack of respect for police amongst the public.

Such a person has no business in the police force. If he doesn't understand that we have a legal system with checks and balances, and that like any system there are flaws then he shouldn't be in a leadership position. Handing this power to the police would be a grave mistake and if he can't see how much worse our system would be, again, he shouldn't be in a leadership role within any AU police force. He also needs to understand that respect is earned and can't be demanded. If average law abiding Joes like me don't respect them then it's reasonable to believe that maybe they are not doing things they should be.

There are a lot of people like this in our police forces and they need to be put into retirement (costly, but the ship needs to be righted).

Then there is basic people skills. Stop talking to average Joes in a patronising manner. Not everyone is a criminal. Not everyone needs to be talking to with suspicion. Save that stuff for the real criminals.

There needs to be strong leadership that focuses on changing the culture of the force. Stop sticking up for police who do the wrong thing. Holding down offenders and bashing them is not ok. Arrest them and let the legal system take care of it. Abusing tasers is also not ok. Kick these glorified security guards out of the force. And when they all complain about it and claim they have had their power reduced, stay firm. Tell these cops if they don't like the new dawn they are welcome to leave because the police force is about doing their part to protect the community. This old school notion of giving trouble makers a clip around the back of the ear to prevent them from progressing in the criminal is just that - old school.

The culture in our police forces is toxic. It's a big and long job to change it but it needs to be done.

I'd also pay them more as well.

 

[Bosun]

So I guess then by your logic, the US government was responsible for allowing September 11 to happen? That's effectively what you are saying. Despite the police not being able to control what people do while in the force, they suddenly become competent if they had engaged super dooper screening processes and restricted the information to a handful of people? This is overlooking the fact that despite how much time an organisation spends implementing supposedly infallible systems to prevent such information being leaked, it is not actually possible for the police to be responsible for a rogue member gobbing off about such secure information. Therefore the logic by which you present to say you can equally blame the inept operations of the police is flawed and in no way can a rational person say they are equally responsible. The only party responsible is the rogue officer and the criminal organisations connected to the rogue cop who used the information to their advantage. If you looked back at the same situation in the US with the rogue soldier, it was concede by nearly everyone that even if they enhanced their screening processes on who enters the army that it would not definitely stop such an event from happening again.

Wrong, the organisation itself is also responsible for not implementing the security measures, policies and technology (application and infrastructure) that would have limited the data availability to authorised personel only (ie not beat cops let alone any cop). Role based access control is not ****ing hard to implement. If it was any other business field dealing with private, TS or financial information heads would have rolled, service contracts torn up and a **** load of firings. Incompetence at its finest (or scariest if Hard to Beat is correct on purposeful design).

 

[vealesy]

Do you think this stuff isn't by design?

I know it is. It just cant be proven.

The secret handshake brigade have that sealed nice and tight.

 

[bunsen burner]

It's alarming that at the time this happened, the police and every single person in WA knew John Kizon was the biggest crime boss of WA. He had escaped so many convictions everyone knew he had some police in his pocket. So what do they do? They allow any old cop to access the secret location of Andrew Petrellis. Surely, only a small team of people who handle witness protection should have access?

 

[dymot]

It's alarming that at the time this happened, the police and every single person in WA knew John Kizon was the biggest crime boss of WA. He had escaped so many convictions everyone knew he had some police in his pocket. So what do they do? They allow any old cop to access the secret location of Andrew Petrellis. Surely, only a small team of people who handle witness protection should have access?

This was 1995. As someone who is an IT expert, you should realise how naive and clueless many bodies were on the things that could happen with computer systems back then. Again even if a small number of people had access to the information it would only reduce the risk, not eliminate it.

 

[bunsen burner]

Again even if a small number of people had access to the information it would only reduce the risk, not eliminate it.

This is the crux of IT security. You can never eliminate risk, just different levels of mitigating chance of compromise. Each layer in security you add on, the more people who can access your system are eliminated.

Think about physical house security. Any house can be done, but the more security layers you add the less likely you get burgled. Imagine you like in Toorak and have a Picasso (similar scenario to WA police).

Put a dog in your back yard and security alarm and the average joe burglar who doesn't know you have a Picasso will simply choose an easier house. But to the people who know you have a Picasso, you're still at risk. You may need to some more security - make it harder for someone targeting you to get in and easier for them to get busted.

The WA police didn't even bother with the guard dog or security system. They made it easy for any police office to access that information. Just one extra basic layer of security would have made it so much harder for the wrong people to obtain that address.

Even in 1995 that's some cowboy shit.

 

[mantis]

How will you implement the ignore function with Juddsablue?

He has half of BF posters on ignore, especially on the SRP board, anyone who disagrees with him, bam, ignore.

 

[dymot]

He has half of BF posters on ignore, especially on the SRP board, anyone who disagrees with him, bam, ignore.

Apparently I am never to talk to him again.

 

[bunsen burner]

Apparently I am never to talk to him again.

To be honest, you're hard to have a conversation with. A normal conversation/debate/argument goes like this:

poster 1: I think this because this this and this
poster 2: I disagree because this this and this
poster 1: but you haven't taken into account this and this
poster 2: yes but....

When communicating with you you don't seem to have the comprehension skills to communicate at this level.

Example:

I said this: The people who killed Petrelis: wrong and I would prefer they get busted

You directly quoted it and said this: so it is ok for the criminals to illegally exploit the system and kill the informant

This sort of thing has been consistent with you throughout the whole thread. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you because you don't seem to be able to comprehend standard English.

There are detractors here (nothing new to me) having a go at me for sledging you. Seriously, what alternative do I have? You won't (or more likely are unable) to have a proper conversation so that leaves me little alternative than poking fun at your obvious lack of intelligence.

Ever noticed there's many people I vigorously debate with but don't resort to such measures? It's for no other reason that they can interpret my point and argue against my point. As soon as some has little ability to interpret my point and argue there's no point in me arguing my point. If the person challenging me doesn't understand what I'm saying then there is no point in me talking to them about said subject. So I'll just hone in and poke fun at them for being a dumb arse. I could actually just walk away and say "**** off don't talk to me" and sometimes do, but inevitably these thickheads don't get and still try to argue with you.

I suspect this whole post will go over your head.

 

[Gasometer]

He has half of BF posters on ignore, especially on the SRP board, anyone who disagrees with him, bam, ignore.

How does one 'ignore' on BF?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

How does one 'ignore' on BF?

- Left click on dymots avatar
- Left click ignore

 

[dymot]

To be honest, you're hard to have a conversation with. A normal conversation/debate/argument goes like this:

poster 1: I think this because this this and this
poster 2: I disagree because this this and this
poster 1: but you haven't taken into account this and this
poster 2: yes but....

When communicating with you you don't seem to have the comprehension skills to communicate at this level.

Example:

I said this: The people who killed Petrelis: wrong and I would prefer they get busted

You directly quoted it and said this: so it is ok for the criminals to illegally exploit the system and kill the informant

This sort of thing has been consistent with you throughout the whole thread. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you because you don't seem to be able to comprehend standard English.

There are detractors here (nothing new to me) having a go at me for sledging you. Seriously, what alternative do I have? You won't (or more likely are unable) to have a proper conversation so that leaves me little alternative than poking fun at your obvious lack of intelligence.

Ever noticed there's many people I vigorously debate with but don't resort to such measures? It's for no other reason that they can interpret my point and argue against my point. As soon as some has little ability to interpret my point and argue there's no point in me arguing my point. If the person challenging me doesn't understand what I'm saying then there is no point in me talking to them about said subject. So I'll just hone in and poke fun at them for being a dumb arse. I could actually just walk away and say "**** off don't talk to me" and sometimes do, but inevitably these thickheads don't get and still try to argue with you.

I suspect this whole post will go over your head.

ROFL it will go over my head because it is a load of crap and highly ironic. I am not the only one you have insulted in this thread, there have been others. People had a go at you because it seems than rather respond in a rational and coherent manner yourself, you need to attack the other posters who question/disagree with you to get your point across. This includes Stratton Gun for example.

The reason I responded with that question was due to the fact that despite you saying what you claim you feel with Petris you previously made comments that stated you didn't feel sorry for what happened to him, which to a reasonable person raises the question of whether in fact you do want the people busted because in your eyes he got what he deserved.

 

[dymot]

- Left click on dymots avatar
- Left click ignore

The fact you have to ignore me and others speaks loudly about your willingness to have debates with people. For someone who is so concerned about media censorship and false reporting, this is hilarious.

 

[Gasometer]

- Left click on dymots avatar
- Left click ignore

 

[JUBJUB]

I don't give a flying **** about what you think.

Yet you keep replying to dymot

 

[bunsen burner]

ROFL it will go over my head because it is a load of crap and highly ironic. I am not the only one you have insulted in this thread, there have been others. People had a go at you because it seems than rather respond in a rational and coherent manner yourself, you need to attack the other posters who question/disagree with you to get your point across. This includes Stratton Gun for example.

The reason I responded with that question was due to the fact that despite you saying what you claim you feel with Petris you previously made comments that stated you didn't feel sorry for what happened to him, which to a reasonable person raises the question of whether in fact you do want the people busted because in your eyes he got what he deserved.

Dumb person's dilemma:

The problem with dumb people is that they aren't smart enough to realise they are in fact a dumb arse.

 

[dymot]

Dumb person's dilemma:

The problem with dumb people is that they aren't smart enough to realise they are in fact a dumb arse.

WOW seems like you are melting very quickly. Funny how you cannot refute the claims i have made regarding your insulting comments towards other posters than myself.

So I guess it is unreasonable for people to question why Wong remains a Labor member considering their views on homosexual marriage when she supports for it on a personal level despite her personal claim that she supports the views of the party.

 

[mantis]

How does one 'ignore' on BF?

As HTB posted, but you can't put Mods on ignore, much to HTB's chagrin.

 

[bunsen burner]

WOW seems like you are melting very quickly. Funny how you cannot refute the claims i have made regarding your insulting comments towards other posters than myself.

Sure I can:

JuddsABlue: he's in your boat (i.e. he's a dumbarse)
Stratton: Startton came on and didn't initially debate the topic but rather came on and had a crack at me. I returned serve
JubJub: Same as Stratton, but at least Stratton made an effort to enter the actual debate. JubJub is nothing but a massive pussy.

So I guess it is unreasonable for people to question why Wong remains a Labor member considering their views on homosexual marriage when she supports for it on a personal level despite her personal claim that she supports the views of the party.

Unreasonable? More like "stupid".

The ALP doesn't support gay marriage for one reason and one reason only: votes. The Churches are very powerful and if they say to all their members "don't vote for party X because they support gay marriage and this will destruct the fabric of our society" then a fair few people who would have voted for party X are going to listen.

Penny Wong has:

1. Shown she is a team player and has been strong to put aside her convictions to support the party.
2. What choice does she have? Libs? Worse than ALP when it comes to same sex marriage. Greens? Not the right career move for the ambitious. If you want to make a difference you have to be in one of the major parties. She will bide her time holding her tongue and I suspect soon she will have her day and gay marriage will be legalised.

Again, you display your simplistic "one way or the other, no in between" mentaliity.

 

[Bosun]

WOW seems like you are melting very quickly. Funny how you cannot refute the claims i have made regarding your insulting comments towards other posters than myself.

So I guess it is unreasonable for people to question why Wong remains a Labor member considering their views on homosexual marriage when she supports for it on a personal level despite her personal claim that she supports the views of the party.

What on earth are you talking about? How, in anyway does that relate to the discussion at all?