freitasm: I rest my case. The extreme right is strong in some parts of this country.

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

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

ajobbins:

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

It can also be used to make someone who hasn't broken the law but who is say, politically inconvenient, look like a bad guy - especially when the evidence can be selectively chosen and engineered into the desired context.

Klipspringer:

ajobbins:

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

It can also be used to make someone who hasn't broken the law but who is say, politically inconvenient, look like a bad guy - especially when the evidence can be selectively chosen and engineered into the desired context.

Are you saying its possible to have on video, somebody breaking the law, who is not actually breaking the law? Otherwise I’m missing your point. Maybe provide us with an example? To me having the surveillance is far better than not having it. (even if its missing in parts) Either the video shows somebody breaking the law or it does not. Sure there may be other circumstances that led up to the event, things that happened before/after which may have caused the event. Are you meaning that the video be engineered as in modified? If that’s what you mean then it’s the same for anything really. My point is that you cannot really make somebody “look like a bad guy” if he/she is breaking the law on video. The courts get to decide on the video and its context. Surely the more information available to the court the better?

SaltyNZ:

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

See, the thing is that it's very clear who is a public servant and who is not. There's an objective definition: if you get paid by the taxpayer, you're a public servant. 'Potential terrorist' is easily distorted to include whoever the authorities want it to include. Only a week ago leaders from all over the world went to honour the life of a man who was branded as a criminal and a terrorist and imprisoned for 30 years... Then went on to be the first black president of South Africa. It's really that simple. The government has the ability to use force of all kinds - physical, financial, etc. - against you, and your only redress is to ensure that the power they are granted is as little as possible.

freitasm: He is saying that someone that is not held accountable could at some point get an innocuous evidence and distort it to get rid of competitors, break alliances, usurp the power and do things that wouldn't be possible without being able to create a story out of unrelated evidence.

It is not unheard of fabricated stories used to discredit others or get rid of opponents to a regime.

You seem to be too naive and put too much faith in others. You will learn.

Klipspringer:

freitasm: He is saying that someone that is not held accountable could at some point get an innocuous evidence and distort it to get rid of competitors, break alliances, usurp the power and do things that wouldn't be possible without being able to create a story out of unrelated evidence.

It is not unheard of fabricated stories used to discredit others or get rid of opponents to a regime.

You seem to be too naive and put too much faith in others. You will learn.

This is really getting extremely tinfoilish now...

I can think of multiple examples where this sort of thing has happened already.

Its no different to me recording a conversation/video of somebody without their knowledge and then using that conversation/video against that person in the way you describe. I could even do it with their personal emails.  Heck Ive lost count on the amount of times Ive heard stories like this on the news.

The only difference? Somebody in power will have the surveillance/email. Is that really a threat? No.

ajobbins:
A national government is in power, and have control over the GCSB and responsible for the collection of mass surveillance. They aren't doing well in the polls and it's looking very likely they will be defeated in an upcoming election.
A few senior leaders decide to fabricate a series of emails and text messages made to look like they were sent from the leaders of the opposition, suggesting deep corruption and other illegal acts. They release these publicly, saying their surveillance algorithms collected them. The government has them thrown in jail, and they have no recourse because, unlike other kinds of evidence, there is no oversight to the collection and verification of the evidence. That is all hidden under the guise of 'National Security' and you're simply expected to accept that the evidence is genuine.

Klipspringer:

ajobbins:
A national government is in power, and have control over the GCSB and responsible for the collection of mass surveillance. They aren't doing well in the polls and it's looking very likely they will be defeated in an upcoming election.
A few senior leaders decide to fabricate a series of emails and text messages made to look like they were sent from the leaders of the opposition, suggesting deep corruption and other illegal acts. They release these publicly, saying their surveillance algorithms collected them. The government has them thrown in jail, and they have no recourse because, unlike other kinds of evidence, there is no oversight to the collection and verification of the evidence. That is all hidden under the guise of 'National Security' and you're simply expected to accept that the evidence is genuine.

If we were a bunch of stupid sheep then yes we can all agree with that.

Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people.

How often do we have bad reporting, but we still get to the truth.

If the government in NZ ever did this I'm sure we would have the whole country behind these people in jail.

Your example has one flaw. You asuming that the goverment controls the courts and gets to make the call to just throw these people in prison. Its a little over the top mate. Nobody is just going to be thrown into jail without a free and fair trial.

SaltyNZ:

Klipspringer:  I have nothing to hide and in a way I can probably sleep a bit better..

Sure you do:

* Your religion
* Who you voted for in the last election
* How much you get paid
* What you like to do with your significant other in the bedroom
* That you sing in the shower

All those things are perfectly normal, everybody does them. But I'm sure you don't feel the need to share them with us. And like MF said, governments change. Tomorrow you might wake up and find that any of those things are now a crime. It HAS happened in the past. Trusting governments with anything they don't need is a bad idea.

KiwiNZ:

In an earlier post you said this "Unfortunately people here don't really understand what they doing when they voting." now you say this "Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people."

Some what self contradicting 

Klipspringer: If we were a bunch of stupid sheep then yes we can all agree with that.

Fact is, I like to think New Zealanders have a little more intelligence than just to believe whatever we told by government. We like to think things through before forming opinions and conclusions about people.

How often do we have bad reporting, but we still get to the truth.

If the government in NZ ever did this I'm sure we would have the whole country behind these people in jail.

Your example has one flaw. You assuming that the government controls the courts and gets to make the call to just throw these people in prison. Its a little over the top mate. Nobody is just going to be thrown into jail without a free and fair trial.