joker97: Just a rhetorical.

Let's say there is spying.

Let's say Winston Peters goes in power. Or any other politician you want to name, say hone.

You think they gonna say hmm, this spying started with Helen, let's abolish it and let the nz public and whole world know, for example China, that we longer spy. To do that we announce to the world we break alliance with Australia, Britain and the US politically and economically. Yay let's start cutting tax and borrow another half billion here, and chase away the Hollywood people and close the country to it's own citizens only.

BarTender:

joker97: Just a rhetorical.

Let's say there is spying.

Let's say Winston Peters goes in power. Or any other politician you want to name, say hone.

You think they gonna say hmm, this spying started with Helen, let's abolish it and let the nz public and whole world know, for example China, that we longer spy. To do that we announce to the world we break alliance with Australia, Britain and the US politically and economically. Yay let's start cutting tax and borrow another half billion here, and chase away the Hollywood people and close the country to it's own citizens only.

You completely didn't read my post and divert the argument to completely irrelevant points. Lets not forgot that National within the first year of being in office before the GFC brought in the tax switch that left a 1 billion dollar hole in the budget. This was after the previous Labour and National before them had managed to bring the national debt to it's lowest levels in years. Or that the motion picture business only bring in transitory jobs and receives hefty tax cuts for doing it (that even Act want to abolish). No... lets try and stay on topic shall we?

I have and have never had an issue with the GCSB. I think their function is vital for a secure and well running democracy.

Tangimoana has been open since 1982, and Waihopai since 1989. If previous governments had wanted to close it and exit 5 eyes it would have already happened. I don't want it to happen and never said I did. 

What I have said many times and you choose to just ignore it is:

What I object to is spying under the guise of "terrorism" when what is going on is anything but investigation of terrorism is wrong. Gathering metadata on all our citizens either by GCSB or partners in 5 eyes and doing so without a legal LI warrant issued is unacceptable.

You disagree that the primary focus isn't terrorism and say terrorism is their primary focus and that the ends justifies the means.

So lets just agree to disagree on this one and stop with the personal attacks eh?

frankv: I think the core questions are:
1. Is the state *entitled* to know everything about you? Or, conversely, are you entitled to keep secrets from the state?
2. Are you entitled to share those secrets with others? (i.e. freedom of speech)
3. Are we prepared to give up the above rights for some reason (fight terror, drugs, national security, national good, whatever)?
4. Is the state allowed to usurp those rights, without consultation?

frankv: I think the core questions are:
1. Is the state *entitled* to know everything about you? Or, conversely, are you entitled to keep secrets from the state?
2. Are you entitled to share those secrets with others? (i.e. freedom of speech)
3. Are we prepared to give up the above rights for some reason (fight terror, drugs, national security, national good, whatever)?
4. Is the state allowed to usurp those rights, without consultation?

And for those who agree with 3... Benjamin Franklin said: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

By spying on NZers, or even planning or attempting to do so without a mandate, the GCSB and John Key *have* usurped our rights. By changing the law to allow it, without a clear mandate, John Key, the National Govt, and all those who knowingly voted in favour of it continued to do that. And the Opposition parties, in not recognising or exposing the truth, are either complicit or inept. On this issue, the whole Parliamentary process has failed us.

Geektastic: 
"Is the state allowed to usurp rights without consultation?"

To believe that the answer to this is no is to live in a fairy tale land

Geektastic:

"Is the state allowed to usurp rights without consultation?"

To believe that the answer to this is no is to live in a fairy tale land - which many seem to do here, assumedly because genuine terrorist atrocities have never happened in NZ (ignore Rainbow Warrior, which many around the world applauded)

The state is the law. The state can - and will - do whatever it pleases regardless of statute if it deems it necessary. Why do you think, for example, the US has black budgets and black programs? In some instances it is for legitimate secrecy. In others it is because they are operating outside the law but consider that they need to do so.

If you believe otherwise, you do not know what 'power' actually means in the political sense.

Generally NZ has avoided such clandestine government activity and significant threat due to remote location etc. I sincerely doubt that will remain the case ad infinitum. The oddity is that the more attention and scrutiny you place the security services under, the more likely they are to act without the law because it becomes too hard to do it within the law.

testha:

Geektastic:

"Is the state allowed to usurp rights without consultation?"

To believe that the answer to this is no is to live in a fairy tale land - which many seem to do here, assumedly because genuine terrorist atrocities have never happened in NZ (ignore Rainbow Warrior, which many around the world applauded)

The state is the law. The state can - and will - do whatever it pleases regardless of statute if it deems it necessary. Why do you think, for example, the US has black budgets and black programs? In some instances it is for legitimate secrecy. In others it is because they are operating outside the law but consider that they need to do so.

If you believe otherwise, you do not know what 'power' actually means in the political sense.

Generally NZ has avoided such clandestine government activity and significant threat due to remote location etc. I sincerely doubt that will remain the case ad infinitum. The oddity is that the more attention and scrutiny you place the security services under, the more likely they are to act without the law because it becomes too hard to do it within the law.

There are no reasons to reduce peoples rights without consultation. None.

And I dont live in a fairy land. I just happen to enjoy the freedoms I have and rather not give them up for some secret reasons.

The least the government can do is ask the people if they would be willing to do so. I am not, I have seen the other side. Feel free to ask me how it was, I can tell you some nice stories what it means if a government has access to all the information about its people.

I said it before and will say it again, I would rather live with the very low risk of a potential terror attack if that means that democratic values will remain.

joker97: i am curious as to why if NZ govt spies on us that they didn't see the Moment of Truth coming?

Geektastic:

To believe that the answer to this is no is to live in a fairy tale land - which many seem to do here, assumedly because genuine terrorist atrocities have never happened in NZ (ignore Rainbow Warrior, which many around the world applauded)