GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 48

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#873407 7-Aug-2013 18:59

KiwiNZ: Your trivialisation of a tragedy is disgraceful and distasteful.

The memorial itself is a trivialisation of a tragedy.

2.5+ years on, hearing that some memorial has been tossed and ransacked just sounds like another day in Christchurch, only this time it wasn't the lords having their fun.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#873408 7-Aug-2013 19:05

PaulBags:
KiwiNZ: Your trivialisation of a tragedy is disgraceful and distasteful.

The memorial itself is a trivialisation of a tragedy.

2.5+ years on, hearing that some memorial has been tossed and ransacked just sounds like another day in Christchurch, only this time it wasn't the lords having their fun.

I am out

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

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user

#873511 7-Aug-2013 20:59

The International Spy poem by Denny Lyon

http://thesocialpoets.blogspot.co.nz/2010/12/international-spy-poem-libations-monday.html

Quotes:

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. - Jonathan Swift, The Drapier's Letter

Government is an unnecessary evil. Human beings, when accustomed to taking responsibility for their own behavior, can cooperate on a basis of mutual trust and helpfulness. - Fred Woodworth, The Match!, No. 79

In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery? - St. Augustine

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. - William E. Borah

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. - Abraham Lincoln

Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true. - Polish Proverb

If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops. - Kelvin Throop

Governments should not possess instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens. - Edgar A. Suter

Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds. - John Perry Barlow

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O'Rourke

code15

201 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 43

#873531 7-Aug-2013 21:50

After following this thread, I'm gonna have a go...

You cannot even try to debate the GCSB amendment bill if you haven't taken the time to read it. The media has done an extremely poor job informing New Zealand what the bill actually allows.

I've tried to read the bill. It's bluddy hard to decipher.

Can anyone answer these questions confidently?

A) Does this bill allow the GCSB to collect metadata of all NZ traffic to 'search' for possible criminal activity/terrorism? From what I read, I don't think it does. And this is the key thing everyone is worried about.

B) Am I interpreting the bill correctly where it allows information gathered about a NZer to be passed outside of NZ? (say the NSA?)

C) Does the Minister of Defence have the power to gather intelligence on a NZer at their personal discretion, without a warrant?

I just listened to a house debate about it, and the National Party insists that the bill "does not allow the GCSB to spy on any New Zealander willy nilly" and that a warrant IS required, AND only the defence force, police, or the NZ intelligence agency can request information from the GCSB.

I definitely believe that with a WARRANT the GSCB should be able to monitor internet traffic of a person. In the same way, with a warrant, the police can tap someones mobile phone.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#873551 7-Aug-2013 22:25

The warrant in this case doesn't need to be issued by a judge. The Prime Minister can at any time sign an order to that effect.

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.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#873599 8-Aug-2013 00:19

code15: After following this thread, I'm gonna have a go...

You cannot even try to debate the GCSB amendment bill if you haven't taken the time to read it. The media has done an extremely poor job informing New Zealand what the bill actually allows.

I've tried to read the bill. It's bluddy hard to decipher.

Can anyone answer these questions confidently?

A) Does this bill allow the GCSB to collect metadata of all NZ traffic to 'search' for possible criminal activity/terrorism? From what I read, I don't think it does. And this is the key thing everyone is worried about.

B) Am I interpreting the bill correctly where it allows information gathered about a NZer to be passed outside of NZ? (say the NSA?)

C) Does the Minister of Defence have the power to gather intelligence on a NZer at their personal discretion, without a warrant?

I just listened to a house debate about it, and the National Party insists that the bill "does not allow the GCSB to spy on any New Zealander willy nilly" and that a warrant IS required, AND only the defence force, police, or the NZ intelligence agency can request information from the GCSB.

I definitely believe that with a WARRANT the GSCB should be able to monitor internet traffic of a person. In the same way, with a warrant, the police can tap someones mobile phone.

According to snowdon prism contains data from nz's

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#873725 8-Aug-2013 10:43

turnin: According to snowdon prism contains data from nz's

NZ is part of the 'Five Eyes' programme, where information is routinely shared between fellow members. (US, UK, AU, Someone else I forget and NZ). There has been suggestions that the data is 'shared' via the 'NSA Cloud' in the US, but I doubt we'd ever get confirmation of that.

Twitter: ajobbins

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#873737 8-Aug-2013 11:06

code15:
A) Does this bill allow the GCSB to collect metadata of all NZ traffic to 'search' for possible criminal activity/terrorism? From what I read, I don't think it does. And this is the key thing everyone is worried about.

The bill is unclear on the topic of metadata, possibly on purpose. The proposed wording says that you can't intercept the 'Private communications' of NZers without a warrant (see note on warrant below), but does metadata fall under the definition of 'Private communications'?. John Key has given very vague responses to direct questions about metadata (which should be a red flag), and the US government have been very clear that they consider metadata to be up for grabs.

B) Am I interpreting the bill correctly where it allows information gathered about a NZer to be passed outside of NZ? (say the NSA?)

Yes. Five Eyes network make no secret about the fact they regularly share secret data.

C) Does the Minister of Defence have the power to gather intelligence on a NZer at their personal discretion, without a warrant?

Not quite, but a cup of tea with the PM will probably get them what they want. There are warrants and there are warrants. Typically we think of warrants as having to be put in front of a judge. The role and power of the judiciary is purposely demarcated from that of government. However, in this case, the "warrant" is simply an approval by the Prime Minister (the same person representing the organisation seeking the warrant). This would be akin to giving the head of Police the power to sign off on Police warrants.

Most people I have spoken to have heard the statements about needing a warrant and assume that meant via the judiciary. I don't think John Key wants the gen pop to know what a 'warrant' really means in terms of this change.

Twitter: ajobbins

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user

#873772 8-Aug-2013 11:55

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0109/latest/versions.aspx

Sorry Looks like I posted just after the poster above the same info.
Please note the words "we" in the wording. The "we" refers to the GCSB writing the amendment.

The Bill amendment is less than 15 pages.

A) Does this bill allow the GCSB to collect metadata of all NZ traffic to 'search' for possible criminal activity/terrorism? From what I read, I don't think it does. And this is the key thing everyone is worried about.

Many submitters oppose new section 15A, particularly the phrase in new section 15A(1)(a) “not otherwise lawfully obtainable”. Op-position appears to be based on a misapprehension as to the exist-ing legislation. The use of this phrase in section 15A is however a straight carryover of an existing permission framework. We there-fore support its retention as it requires the Bureau to consider what other lawful means might be available to it in order to gain access to certain communications before seeking a warrant or authorisation to intercept such communications.

B) Am I interpreting the bill correctly where it allows information gathered about a NZer to be passed outside of NZ? (say the NSA?)

Look up Co-operation with other entities to facilitate their functions in the link above

The NSA already has an office and officer within GCSB. Also Research Echelon and Five Eyes

C) Does the Minister of Defence have the power to gather intelligence on a NZer at their personal discretion, without a warrant?

Urgent issue of warrants or authorisations
New section 19A (inserted by clause 18) provides for the urgent issue of warrants or authorisations by the Attorney-General, the Minister of Defence, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if the Minister is un-available and it is necessary to issue them before the Minister is avail-able. We recommend inserting new section 19A(4) (clause 18) to require that the Minister is informed as soon as is reasonably practicable after an urgent warrant or authorisation had been issued. We consider this amendment would further enhance the accountabilities under theGCSB Act.

Minister of Defence can issue a warrant at their discretion. A word in someones ear can achieve better results.

This amendment is being rushed for some unknown agenda.

An independent inquiry into all departments, about what information is/has been collected, only meta data made public of course.

Current and former MP's, journalists should ask for and be given any information that has been collected on them from any NZG department, agency or sub contractor.

The 80 or so people unlawfully spied on need to be informed of all information gathered.

They can publish that information redacted as they wish.

Another option is to let the GCSB and SIS free to chase rabbits in the McKenzie basin and be more productive.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#874370 9-Aug-2013 09:25

JimmyH:
Klipspringer:
freitasm:
Exactly as I said: better security at the memorial. Be it cameras, etc. You have no expectation of privacy in public.

Using this vandalism as support for a carte blanche for the GCSB to have powers over EVERYONE is way beyond the benefits proposed.

The internet is a public place.

No, actually it isn't.

Some parts of it are arguably public, like posting an opinion on a publicly searchable forum such as this one. The rest aren't.

Emails - say my bank statements, or between me and a doctor about a relatives medical condition - definitely aren't. Neither are activities such as accessing my employers email system using webmail, or logging onto the bank's site to check my balance. All of these are clearly private. And, just like steaming my letters open or tapping my telephone, without reasonable cause sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant the State should have no business intercepting or reading any of these.

hmmm don't think I agree with you.

Of course the internet is a public place. If it was not there is no ways it would be such a success.

I agree with what you are saying that there is a perceived privacy. But actually you not very private on the internet at all. Anything you send, receive, type is already not 100% secure. Some sites are more secure than others. I don't belive there is such a thing as 100% privacy on the internet. With some effort, a third party can already access your information. In some cases, its not even very hard. Ie a google employee reading your gmail about your medical condition. Your ISP snooping on your internet traffic. There is "perceived" privacy on the internet which is not really correct. Sure some types of security can be put in place, like encryption, to better secure your messages/emails etc .. But even that is only to a point. That privacy ends where your encryption ends.

Bottom Line: If its 100% privacy you are after then don't do it online.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#874411 9-Aug-2013 10:30

Klipspringer:
Bottom Line: If its 100% privacy you are after then don't do it online.

You are confusing the expectation of privacy with some sort of impossible perfect privacy.

You expect privacy in your home, but if someone puts their ear up to your window they can still hear what's going on inside. The internet is the same. I expect that my communications will not be casually hoovered up by the government, whilst being aware that Bad People do exist who could try (and possibly succeed) to do it.

Just because a Bad Person could do a Bad Thing and listen in on my private communications over the internet does not mean that I am OK with governments listening in to everything I do all the time.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Lenovo

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

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#874447 9-Aug-2013 10:55

code15: After following this thread, I'm gonna have a go...

Welcome to the discussion! :)

I thought your post was really good and I've been considering my response for a day or so.

code15: You cannot even try to debate the GCSB amendment bill if you haven't taken the time to read it. The media has done an extremely poor job informing New Zealand what the bill actually allows.

You highlighted that the media, like you, just can't make head or tail of this bill.

How can I be expected to explain something to you that I can't understand myself?

code15: I've tried to read the bill. It's bluddy hard to decipher.

This in it self should be a warning sign.

Who are laws for?

Why do we write laws?

Should we be writting laws that people simply can't understand?

Have you written to your MP and expressed you don't understand the bill and would like them to explain it to you?

What is the roll of an MP? Are they there to advocate your views?

code15: Can anyone answer these questions confidently?

A) Does this bill allow the GCSB to collect metadata of all NZ traffic to 'search' for possible criminal activity/terrorism? From what I read, I don't think it does. And this is the key thing everyone is worried about.

I think everyone is in agreement that the bill is letting the GCSB do this.

It's not ok with me and I wrote to my MP last week to tell her just that.

code15: B) Am I interpreting the bill correctly where it allows information gathered about a NZer to be passed outside of NZ? (say the NSA?)

I would think yes.

I think it's been made very clear that this is exactly what is going on and now they're just alining the law to make it legal.

code15:
C) Does the Minister of Defence have the power to gather intelligence on a NZer at their personal discretion, without a warrant?

No idea. But I fully agree with those who suggest that the 'boys club' in Wellington are just signing off on this sort of thing when they feel like it.

code15:
I just listened to a house debate about it, and the National Party insists that the bill "does not allow the GCSB to spy on any New Zealander willy nilly" and that a warrant IS required, AND only the defence force, police, or the NZ intelligence agency can request information from the GCSB.

Ok... that seems to be the group we don't trust.

code15:
I definitely believe that with a WARRANT the GSCB should be able to monitor internet traffic of a person. In the same way, with a warrant, the police can tap someones mobile phone.

I don't. I think the GCSB should have to go to the police to do that work if, and only if, the New Zealand public have agreed that such work is even legal in New Zealand and in our interest.

At present it does not appear to me that New Zealanders have actually agreed to police having this level of power.

What does appear to me is that most New Zealanders are to busy worrying about milk this week to actually care about stuff the don't understand.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#874448 9-Aug-2013 11:00

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
Bottom Line: If its 100% privacy you are after then don't do it online.

You are confusing the expectation of privacy with some sort of impossible perfect privacy.

You expect privacy in your home, but if someone puts their ear up to your window they can still hear what's going on inside. The internet is the same. I expect that my communications will not be casually hoovered up by the government, whilst being aware that Bad People do exist who could try (and possibly succeed) to do it.

Just because a Bad Person could do a Bad Thing and listen in on my private communications over the internet does not mean that I am OK with governments listening in to everything I do all the time.

Your home is not a public place.

You can't expect privacy in a park, the street, while driving down the road or any other public place.

Not sure why people assume privacy on the internet? Your privacy on it is just a very bad assumption.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#874449 9-Aug-2013 11:04

DonGould:

code15:
I just listened to a house debate about it, and the National Party insists that the bill "does not allow the GCSB to spy on any New Zealander willy nilly" and that a warrant IS required, AND only the defence force, police, or the NZ intelligence agency can request information from the GCSB.

Ok... that seems to be the group we don't trust.

Precisely. A warrant is required, but the Prime Minister can issue it himself on his own authority, without any formal check by anyone else. He has to 'consult' another minister (Foreign Minister, from memory) but I can't see that other minister - beholden to the PM for his/her cushy job - saying no very often. Also as far as I can see the law is silent on whether the warrant is still valid if the consulted minister disagrees, so I think it's safe to say the PM is granted the power to spy on anyone, any time.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#874451 9-Aug-2013 11:08

Klipspringer:

Your home is not a public place.

But it's easier for me to listen in at your window than to listen in on the Southern Cross cable. Which one is more private?

Or to put it into a different perspective, if I started following you around the park with a microphone in your face to record you, you'd be upset, right? But by your logic, the park is a public place, so that's perfectly alright.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 48