GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#882702 22-Aug-2013 12:06

SepticSceptic:
networkn: Thankfully this is now law, and people can get back to focusing on things which are actually important!

Snapper quota !!

Ye Gads, we are such small time in NZ, imagine such issues bringing the US or Russia to it's knees

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#883016 22-Aug-2013 20:15

SepticSceptic:
networkn: Thankfully this is now law, and people can get back to focusing on things which are actually important!

Snapper quota !!

Well a damn sight more people care about it.

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#883037 22-Aug-2013 21:00

Networkn: "Well a damn sight more people care about it."

Could you enlighten myself and others how you came to this conclusion.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#883109 23-Aug-2013 01:05

Woolly: Networkn: "Well a damn sight more people care about it."

Could you enlighten myself and others how you came to this conclusion.

Because arrogance. Actually, because ffafff. *grumble groan sigh*, because <form answer>.

(If your question is serious and you really did miss the sound bite, the real answer is: because John Key said so.)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#883121 23-Aug-2013 06:43

For those who think the system can do no wrong. "Once in the system, always in the system". Basically author was suspected of being the Unabomber because of his novels. After the real Unabomber was arrested, the FBI suspected the same author would be the guy behind the anthrax letters sent out just after 9/11. Even after this "little suspicion" was cleared up, his overseas mail still arrives opened by the feds.

Writer William T. Vollmann Uncovers His FBI File.

Sure. Governments can do no wrong. They know it all and are always right.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#883159 23-Aug-2013 08:37

Nobody here ever claimed goverments can do no wrong.

The benefits of this legislation will have some side effects yes. But the pros far outweigh the cons. My number one expectation from government is the safety and security of myself and family.

I'm glad government now have the legislation in place to do a better job at performing this basic expectation.

Now that this law has been passed, does that mean that the then "illegally obtained evidence" from the 2007 New Zealand raids is now legal? Can they now put Tame Iti and his cronies where they belong?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#883174 23-Aug-2013 09:00

You didn't... But others here in this thread (IIRC) came up with the argument that if the government security is looking at someone is because that person has done something and it's worth it.

My point is that once in the system, harassment can be really bad...

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#883248 23-Aug-2013 11:04

Klipspringer: But the pros far outweigh the cons. My number one expectation from government is the safety and security of myself and family.

Sure, it's just that this legislation doesn't give you any.

I'm glad government now have the legislation in place to do a better job at performing this basic expectation.

Except that it doesn't; there is not a single shred of evidence that it helps. Surely, if there was one case - any case - that could be credibly pointed to as solved by this kind of effort, it would be held up as a shining example of why it is necessary. No methods need to be exposed - they can simply say 'We caught this guy because we were vacuuming up everybody's communications.' This doesn't give anything away because we already know that's happening.

But there is not one such case. None. It didn't stop the London bombers, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, the USS Cole bombers, the Boston bombers, any of the US Embassy bombers or anyone. You haven't gained any safety or security this week.

Now that this law has been passed, does that mean that the then "illegally obtained evidence" from the 2007 New Zealand raids is now legal? Can they now put Tame Iti and his cronies where they belong?

No, the law is not retroactive. And even if it was, double jeopardy applies.

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

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

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#883256 23-Aug-2013 11:12

...so now the GCSB will be able to do some of the things that the Police and the SIS have been able to do for years.

Seems sensible to me.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#883269 23-Aug-2013 11:21

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
I'm glad government now have the legislation in place to do a better job at performing this basic expectation.

Except that it doesn't; there is not a single shred of evidence that it helps. Surely, if there was one case - any case - that could be credibly pointed to as solved by this kind of effort, it would be held up as a shining example of why it is necessary. No methods need to be exposed - they can simply say 'We caught this guy because we were vacuuming up everybody's communications.' This doesn't give anything away because we already know that's happening.

But there is not one such case. None. It didn't stop the London bombers, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, the USS Cole bombers, the Boston bombers, any of the US Embassy bombers or anyone. You haven't gained any safety or security this week.

The example of one case - any case is already quoted below.

You bring up the London bombers / Boston bombers etc ... The law was never suppose to completely wipe out terrorism. Its suppose to help out, and assist with catching the bad guys.

Do you have any idea as to how many acts of terrorism have been stopped in the US because of interception? Who knows. I'm willing to bet that there have been plenty of interceptions in the US and Brittan. Unfortuanitly these cases rarely make the news. Those that escape the interception, seem to be used as examples as to why the interception is not working. Just because there have been a few bombings it does not mean its not working. These things happen, and without this type of interception it would have been far worse.

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
Now that this law has been passed, does that mean that the then "illegally obtained evidence" from the 2007 New Zealand raids is now legal? Can they now put Tame Iti and his cronies where they belong?

No, the law is not retroactive. And even if it was, double jeopardy applies.

Interesting. But is it double jeopardy? gun charges was a separate offense. Nobody was ever charged with terrorism.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#883275 23-Aug-2013 11:36

Klipspringer:
Interesting. But is it double jeopardy? gun charges was a separate offense. Nobody was ever charged with terrorism.

So, if he was a terrorist then, why wasn't he charged with it then? Doesn't sound very fair to keep charging him with new crimes every time he's acquitted of the last one until one finally sticks.

No law against being an idiot? Charge him having a gun he wasn't supposed to. Failed to do your job and prove he had a gun he wasn't supposed to? Charge him with conspiracy to commit a murder. He didn't actually commit any murder? Charge him with being a terrorist. Nobody's actually afraid of him? Charge him with attempted blowing up of the universe.

If he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist: charge him with it. If there's not enough evidence to convict him of being a terrorist, then there's every chance that he's not actually a terrorist. He's a f***wit who runs around the bush playing soldiers because he never grew up and can't function in a grown-up's world.

Besides, if the police were so afraid that he and his idiot mates were a danger to society why didn't they just do their damn jobs and get a warrant and observe him legally? As far as I can tell, that's not a very high bar to jump over. And they were doing it for weeks, if not months, so it was hardly an emergency.

If he deserves to be in jail, but isn't, that's because the police didn't do their jobs properly, not because a bunch of namby-pamby whining liberals were afraid for their airy-fairy ivory tower ideals.

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

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

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#883277 23-Aug-2013 11:42

SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer:
Interesting. But is it double jeopardy? gun charges was a separate offense. Nobody was ever charged with terrorism.

So, if he was a terrorist then, why wasn't he charged with it then? Doesn't sound very fair to keep charging him with new crimes every time he's acquitted of the last one until one finally sticks.

Read up on the case its clear you not very familiar with it.

At the time he could not be charged with terrorism because the evidence obtained by police was obtained illegally. It could not be used in his trial.

My question was relating the the police evidence. Does this law change now deem that evidence legal. If so, he can now be charged with terrorism because there is now legal proof.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#883279 23-Aug-2013 11:44

Tbh, the reason the snapper quota 'matters more to NZers' is because the bill received 10's of thousands of submissions, where the GCSB reform bill received about 100.

Considering that is the way the govt receives public feedback on new law proposals, it kind of make sense.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#883295 23-Aug-2013 11:57

Klipspringer:

At the time he could not be charged with terrorism because the evidence obtained by police was obtained illegally. It could not be used in his trial.

Right, so, again -- why didn't they just do their jobs and get the evidence legally?

My question was relating the the police evidence. Does this law change now deem that evidence legal. If so, he can now be charged with terrorism because there is now legal proof.

No, because the law is not retroactive.

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

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

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#883346 23-Aug-2013 12:47

Klipspringer: At the time he could not be charged with terrorism because the evidence obtained by police was obtained illegally. It could not be used in his trial.

Think about that statement for a second. The police, the supposed instruments of the law, acted illegally. Does this seriously makes you feel warm and fuzzy?

On the topic of harrassment by police/spy states, here's a blog post by David Rovics.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48