Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 48
4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864567 23-Jul-2013 19:25
One person supports this post
Send private message

TheUngeek: These people moaning about lack of over sight etc. Can you point out the sections and phrases of the bill you are worried about?
In fact that goes for anyone against it. Please post up the words that have you upset


Righto; I don't have time to do a blow by blow analysis, but from the GCSB bill:


The Minister may grant the proposed interception warrant or access authorisation if satisfied that—
“(a)the proposed interception or access is for the purpose of performing a function of the Bureau under sections 8A or 8B


In this case The Minister is the Prime Minister. So in other words, the PM may grant a warrant; it doesn't need to be a judge.


“8A Information assurance and cybersecurity
This function of the Bureau is—
“(a)to co-operate with, and provide advice and assistance to, any public authority whether in New Zealand or overseas, or to any other entity authorised by the Minister, on any matters relating to the protection, security, and integrity of—
“(i)communications, including those that are processed, stored, or communicated in or through information infrastructures; and
“(ii)information infrastructures of importance to the Government of New Zealand; and


The information can be handed over to any government agency the PM feels like giving it to.


“(b)without limiting paragraph (a), to do everything that is necessary or desirable to protect the security and integrity of the communications and information infrastructures


And anything that the Bureau or the PM says is necessary 'for security' is fair game (and nobody else knows what they're doing, so they can't disagree).


“25When incidentally obtained intelligence may be retained and communicated to other persons
“(1)Despite section 23, the Director may—
“(a)retain incidentally obtained intelligence that comes into the possession of the Bureau for 1 or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2); and
“(b)communicate that intelligence to the persons specified in subsection (3).


If they're trawling everything then they're not targeting New Zealanders; anything that they then do intercept is incidental and may be held onto and passed on to other agencies if they're interested.

And the interception bill:


47 Network operator must notify Director
(1)A network operator must notify the Director of any proposed decision, course of action, or change made by or on behalf of the network operator regarding—
(a)the procurement of any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest; or
(b)any change to any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest; or
(c)any change to the ownership, control, oversight, or supervision of any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest.


Given that virtually everything a telco does has a security implication -- after all, we carry people's private conversations -- this gives the GCSB the right to veto all major and most minor design decisions, right up to 'we don't like vendor H so you can't use them any more.'

But for completeness:


46 Areas of specified security interest
(1)In this section and section 47, an area of specified security interest, in relation to a network operator, includes—
(a)network operations centres:
(b)lawful interception equipment or operations:
(c)any part of a public telecommunications network that manages or stores—
(i)aggregated customer information, including authentication credentials; or
(ii)administrative (privileged user) authentication credentials:
(d)any place in a network where data aggregates in large volumes, being either data in transit or stored data:
(e)any area prescribed under subsection (2).
(2)The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, prescribe additional areas of specified security interest.


So, as I said, it's basically everything, plus the PM may add stuff at any time whenever he wants to.

He can also add any new kind of service, or class of service, at any time:


20 Regulations
(1)The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations—
(a)requiring all or part of a specified class of network or service to which section 13 applies to comply with sections 9 and 10:


Overall, these two bills hand an enormous amount of power directly into the hands of the Prime Minister, exercisable at his or her discretion simply by invoking 'security'. In some cases another Minister or the Commissioner must also jointly issue the order, but those posts are appointed by the Prime Minister and therefore pose no serious limitations on the PM. Certainly our current one is not above publicly threatening to defund the Human Rights Commission because they have the audacity to do their job and call him out. I don't imagine a minister or intelligence commissioner who got their job directly from the PM will do that.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864569 23-Jul-2013 19:27
Send private message

Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864570 23-Jul-2013 19:30
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
TheUngeek: These people moaning about lack of over sight etc. Can you point out the sections and phrases of the bill you are worried about?
In fact that goes for anyone against it. Please post up the words that have you upset


Righto; I don't have time to do a blow by blow analysis, but from the GCSB bill:


The Minister may grant the proposed interception warrant or access authorisation if satisfied that—
“(a)the proposed interception or access is for the purpose of performing a function of the Bureau under sections 8A or 8B


In this case The Minister is the Prime Minister. So in other words, the PM may grant a warrant; it doesn't need to be a judge.


“8A Information assurance and cybersecurity
This function of the Bureau is—
“(a)to co-operate with, and provide advice and assistance to, any public authority whether in New Zealand or overseas, or to any other entity authorised by the Minister, on any matters relating to the protection, security, and integrity of—
“(i)communications, including those that are processed, stored, or communicated in or through information infrastructures; and
“(ii)information infrastructures of importance to the Government of New Zealand; and


The information can be handed over to any government agency the PM feels like giving it to.


“(b)without limiting paragraph (a), to do everything that is necessary or desirable to protect the security and integrity of the communications and information infrastructures


And anything that the Bureau or the PM says is necessary 'for security' is fair game (and nobody else knows what they're doing, so they can't disagree).


“25When incidentally obtained intelligence may be retained and communicated to other persons
“(1)Despite section 23, the Director may—
“(a)retain incidentally obtained intelligence that comes into the possession of the Bureau for 1 or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2); and
“(b)communicate that intelligence to the persons specified in subsection (3).


If they're trawling everything then they're not targeting New Zealanders; anything that they then do intercept is incidental and may be held onto and passed on to other agencies if they're interested.

And the interception bill:


47 Network operator must notify Director
(1)A network operator must notify the Director of any proposed decision, course of action, or change made by or on behalf of the network operator regarding—
(a)the procurement of any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest; or
(b)any change to any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest; or
(c)any change to the ownership, control, oversight, or supervision of any equipment, system, or service that falls within an area of specified security interest.


Given that virtually everything a telco does has a security implication -- after all, we carry people's private conversations -- this gives the GCSB the right to veto all major and most minor design decisions, right up to 'we don't like vendor H so you can't use them any more.'

But for completeness:


46 Areas of specified security interest
(1)In this section and section 47, an area of specified security interest, in relation to a network operator, includes—
(a)network operations centres:
(b)lawful interception equipment or operations:
(c)any part of a public telecommunications network that manages or stores—
(i)aggregated customer information, including authentication credentials; or
(ii)administrative (privileged user) authentication credentials:
(d)any place in a network where data aggregates in large volumes, being either data in transit or stored data:
(e)any area prescribed under subsection (2).
(2)The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, prescribe additional areas of specified security interest.


So, as I said, it's basically everything, plus the PM may add stuff at any time whenever he wants to.

He can also add any new kind of service, or class of service, at any time:


20 Regulations
(1)The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations—
(a)requiring all or part of a specified class of network or service to which section 13 applies to comply with sections 9 and 10:


Overall, these two bills hand an enormous amount of power directly into the hands of the Prime Minister, exercisable at his or her discretion simply by invoking 'security'. In some cases another Minister or the Commissioner must also jointly issue the order, but those posts are appointed by the Prime Minister and therefore pose no serious limitations on the PM. Certainly our current one is not above publicly threatening to defund the Human Rights Commission because they have the audacity to do their job and call him out. I don't imagine a minister or intelligence commissioner who got their job directly from the PM will do that.


Yep, looks good to me, what's the problem?
Then again I don't listen to labour and the greens and think key is the boogie man.

4310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 864571 23-Jul-2013 19:35
One person supports this post
Send private message

You don't have to listen to the greens or labour or think the PM is the boogie man to have issues with the bill. Long time national voter here, can't stomach the greens. But I have concerns.

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 163


  Reply # 864572 23-Jul-2013 19:40
Send private message

SaltyNZ, which WINZ office do I get your mobile number from, thought I might give you a call?


... oh, for those of you a little perplexed about the question above, who know that Salt is neither on a benefit or working for WINZ, perhaps you'd like to look up CERA invoices that were on systems hosted by WINZ that where publicly accessible for who knows how long before some random reporter actually did the right thing and made it public!

You really really really want to have a government department having stores of more of your data given how prone they are to not being able to look after it at all?

Really?

That's what I'm going to protest.




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


BDFL - Memuneh
61200 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11980

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 864573 23-Jul-2013 19:41
2 people support this post
Send private message

TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.






12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864575 23-Jul-2013 19:45
Send private message

TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


Human rights are as basic to life as food and water. You can post on here because of human won and kept for you.

Without human rights and the commission my life would be extremely difficult.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864581 23-Jul-2013 19:49
Send private message

freitasm:
TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.




It bloody well was not. Do not twist my words.
The human rights commission in this country does nothing.


BDFL - Memuneh
61200 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11980

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 864582 23-Jul-2013 19:51
Send private message

TheUngeek:
freitasm:
TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.




It bloody well was not. Do not twist my words.
The human rights commission in this country does nothing.



I will quote again since it's not in this page:

TheUngeek: When the human rights time wasters come out with a load of crap they get what they deserve. Thats one place we should save costs.


These "human rights time wasters" are the ones working for your rights.





12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864587 23-Jul-2013 19:53
Send private message

TheUngeek:
freitasm:
TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.




It bloody well was not. Do not twist my words.
The human rights commission in this country does nothing.




With respect, you are very wrong.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864589 23-Jul-2013 19:54
Send private message

You know full well I was talking about the human rights commission..
Trying to twist what I said to discredit me is shocking behaviour from someone running this website.

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864590 23-Jul-2013 19:54
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
TheUngeek:
freitasm:
TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.




It bloody well was not. Do not twist my words.
The human rights commission in this country does nothing.




With respect, you are very wrong.


What do they do then?

1359 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 344


  Reply # 864592 23-Jul-2013 19:57
Send private message

DonGould: SaltyNZ, which WINZ office do I get your mobile number from, thought I might give you a call?


... oh, for those of you a little perplexed about the question above, who know that Salt is neither on a benefit or working for WINZ, perhaps you'd like to look up CERA invoices that were on systems hosted by WINZ that where publicly accessible for who knows how long before some random reporter actually did the right thing and made it public!

You really really really want to have a government department having stores of more of your data given how prone they are to not being able to look after it at all?

Really?

That's what I'm going to protest.


That reporter in no way did the right thing! And in no way is a blog writer a "reporter".

12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 864594 23-Jul-2013 19:59
Send private message

TheUngeek:
KiwiNZ:
TheUngeek:
freitasm:
TheUngeek: Do not assume I dont want human rights.
I merely don't think the human rights commission does anything or is needed.
Don't you dare accuse me of not knowing or valuing all our armed forces have and will do for us.
I find that assumption to be extremely insulting


You feel insulted? Your previous comment was an insult to everyone who ever fought for human rights.

Back on topic, SaltyNZ gave you, from someone inside the telco world, one snippet that shows government working to intrude even in technical decisions that aren't really part of their knowledge. Do you have any idea on how much this can impact in innovation and development for this country?

Seriously, I think this whole bill is a knee jerk reaction to the fact our security forces broke the law when performing surveillance on a New Zealand resident, acting on request of some foreign powers. Once they figured out the public found out about their unlawful actions they jumped on a "let's change the law to increase security" but really is just a way for them to have a emergency exit next time they do it.




It bloody well was not. Do not twist my words.
The human rights commission in this country does nothing.




With respect, you are very wrong.


What do they do then?


One thing you could try, hire a wheelchair and spend a month using it. Then imagine using it before all the access rights etc were won.

The other is wake up open eyes and learn




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 864596 23-Jul-2013 20:01
Send private message

What on earth are you talking about?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 48
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.