NZ backed the US in lobbying against the UN resolution to protect privacy

Forums › Off topic › NZ backed the US in lobbying against the UN resolution to protect privacy

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#955387 20-Dec-2013 11:07

Klipspringer: I'm curious though as to why people in NZ are always so secretive about the party they vote for and their salary?

We expect to know what our MP's earn, what gifts the mayor gets yet we want to remain secretive about our own salaries.

We want our members of state to live under a "Five Eyes" kind of lifestyle so that they can answer to us. We want to be able to know as much about their lives as possible. Lots of contradiction.

Of course we do. Public lives are "PUBLIC" because they have to be scrutinised. We NEED to know their earnings, their previous accumulation of money and property because no one wants a Prime Minister or President receiving bribes.

If we don't have this information how can we be sure the guy who started as a clerk making $25,000 and is now a MP driving a BMW around town didn't make his money by receiving bribes and giving benefits for private individuals and companies?

The other way around is not desirable because we don't want any undully power over citizens by members of an elite that should be there to serve, not to manipulate things.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#955390 20-Dec-2013 11:11

Klipspringer:
Fred99:
I'm surprised that you could, in a couple of paragraphs, justify the right of government to hold absolute power, then condemn democracy as "people here don't really understand what they doing when they voting".

When people don't know what they're doing, and sometimes when they do know what they're doing when voting, the result can be less than benign, benevolent government. Democracy is in many cases "mob rule", and if nothing is there to keep government in check, the consequences can be very ugly indeed.

I'm not condemning democracy and agree with your point though on "mob rule". (Just look at Africa) Its an interesting topic this one and I have thought about many times. One just has to imagine what living in a 100% democracy would be like. Yay, lets get rid of taxes.

When we vote we should be a little bit more serious about it.

IMO I see a benevolent government as a much better system. But lets leave this one for another day.

KiwiNZ:

That you can state that and others chose not to is what this is all about, the choice to reveal or the choice to conceal.

But as I said the IRD already has most of that information anyway. I'm not really revealing anything. And believe me Im not going to sleep any worse tonight.

I'm curious though as to why people in NZ are always so secretive about the party they vote for and their salary?

We expect to know what our MP's earn, what gifts the mayor gets yet we want to remain secretive about our own salaries.

We want our members of state to live under a "Five Eyes" kind of lifestyle so that they can answer to us. We want to be able to know as much about their lives as possible. Lots of contradiction.

IRD know what we earn not what we spend
Unless you are being paid with public funds ones earnings are of no business than those from whom it is paid and IRD. MP's salaries are paid from tax payers funds and as such are disclosed as are public servants.
One of the corner stones of democracy is the right to vote, the right to vote in private, the right to vote unmolested, the right not to vote.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955395 20-Dec-2013 11:18

freitasm:

No, a government is not the highest order of law. That's why in a democratic nation there is separation of powers. One branch creates the laws (Parliament or Senate), another branch execute the laws (President, Prime Minister) and another branch enforce the laws (Judiciary).

There's no "government is the highest order of law" because no one entity or person should be above the law, which is for everyone.

It goes far further than that when one takes into account that NZ is actually a Monarchy.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#955397 20-Dec-2013 11:20

Get it right.

We are a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State, not the Head of Government.

In terms of absolute power you are probably thinking of someone such as the King of Thailand who has power over everyone in the country. Just see how different we are.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#955401 20-Dec-2013 11:22

Democracy is a fragile thing difficult to achieve and to retain, it is easier taken by stealth and it is by force. It requires, apathy, FUD and acceptance for it to be removed.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955403 20-Dec-2013 11:26

freitasm:
Klipspringer: I'm curious though as to why people in NZ are always so secretive about the party they vote for and their salary?

We expect to know what our MP's earn, what gifts the mayor gets yet we want to remain secretive about our own salaries.

We want our members of state to live under a "Five Eyes" kind of lifestyle so that they can answer to us. We want to be able to know as much about their lives as possible. Lots of contradiction.

Of course we do. Public lives are "PUBLIC" because they have to be scrutinised. We NEED to know their earnings, their previous accumulation of money and property because no one wants a Prime Minister or President receiving bribes.

If we don't have this information how can we be sure the guy who started as a clerk making $25,000 and is now a MP driving a BMW around town didn't make his money by receiving bribes and giving benefits for private individuals and companies?

The other way around is not desirable because we don't want any undully power over citizens by members of an elite that should be there to serve, not to manipulate things.

I agree with you.

By the same token, government needs the ability to be able to scrutinise the public lifestyles of possible terrorists. We need to know where they live, what they eating, who they talking to, where they going, who is funding them etc etc ...

Who deserves more privacy? IMO possible terrorists deserve no more privacy than MP's

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#955405 20-Dec-2013 11:26

Klipspringer:
freitasm:

No, a government is not the highest order of law. That's why in a democratic nation there is separation of powers. One branch creates the laws (Parliament or Senate), another branch execute the laws (President, Prime Minister) and another branch enforce the laws (Judiciary).

There's no "government is the highest order of law" because no one entity or person should be above the law, which is for everyone.

It goes far further than that when one takes into account that NZ is actually a Monarchy.

We are a Unitary Parliamentary constitutional Monarchy

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955409 20-Dec-2013 11:33

freitasm:
We are a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State, not the Head of Government.

Only true if she is in New Zealand
The Governor-General is the head of state.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#955411 20-Dec-2013 11:36

Klipspringer:
freitasm:
We are a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State, not the Head of Government.

Only true if she is in New Zealand
The Governor-General is the head of state.

No the Queen is the Head of State, The Governor General is her representative (Vice regal)

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955420 20-Dec-2013 11:48

freitasm:
No, a government is not the highest order of law. That's why in a democratic nation there is separation of powers. One branch creates the laws (Parliament or Senate), another branch execute the laws (President, Prime Minister) and another branch enforce the laws (Judiciary).

There's no "government is the highest order of law" because no one entity or person should be above the law, which is for everyone.

These separation of powers can also be described as just the three branches of government.

When I talk about "government" I'm referring to the whole package.

Government by my definition is the highest order of law in New Zealand.

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
freitasm:
We are a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State, not the Head of Government.

Only true if she is in New Zealand
The Governor-General is the head of state.

No the Queen is the Head of State, The Governor General is her representative (Vice regal)

Unsure of this one really. I always thought that the Queen was only head of state when she was in New Zealand.

A bit too complicated and I think we now way off topic.
Anyway its all interesting none the less

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#955421 20-Dec-2013 11:49

Klipspringer: By the same token, government needs the ability to be able to scrutinise the public lifestyles of possible terrorists. We need to know where they live, what they eating, who they talking to, where they going, who is funding them etc etc ...

Who deserves more privacy? IMO possible terrorists deserve no more privacy than MP's

This is the same as saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent. You are putting EVERY SINGLE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN in the same basket as terrorists.

Law enforcement should only look into someone's private life it there were real concerns about activities and crime in progress. Saying everyone can be looked at just for the sake of keeping everyone inline is preposterous.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#955432 20-Dec-2013 11:56

I agree that the Government and it's agencies have a duty to protect and to assist in the duty a level of documented surveillance is needed. However that surveillance must not be unfettered. It must be audit able, and have oversight and challengeable. If it is covert those conditions will never be met
and that is dangerous.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955434 20-Dec-2013 11:57

freitasm:
Klipspringer: By the same token, government needs the ability to be able to scrutinise the public lifestyles of possible terrorists. We need to know where they live, what they eating, who they talking to, where they going, who is funding them etc etc ...

Who deserves more privacy? IMO possible terrorists deserve no more privacy than MP's

This is the same as saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent. You are putting EVERY SINGLE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN in the same basket as terrorists.

Law enforcement should only look into someone's private life it there were real concerns about activities and crime in progress. Saying everyone can be looked at just for the sake of keeping everyone inline is preposterous.

No its not.

Its very different. By supplying the possible terrorists with privacy you not giving anyone the chance to find evidence.

By this definition you are putting EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST in the same basket as us law abiding citizens. (And we can't do much about them)

Law enforcement (at customs/immigration for example) does not only look into peoples private lives when there are concerns, evidence of crime etc ... They do it to everybody that crosses the border. Why should this be different?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#955436 20-Dec-2013 11:59

So you think everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#955437 20-Dec-2013 12:02

freitasm: So you think everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

No. Of course not.

Evidence from surveillance etc can be used to prove somebody guilty.

Not being able to get the surveillance in the first place is a different story.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7