Well that got my attention
I’ve not yet had time to read the Search Surveillance Bill, but have added it to my weekend reading, after viewing this story:
Sweeping powers to spy, bug conversations and hack into private computers could be given to a web of state agencies as diverse as Inland Revenue and the Meat Board.
The Human Rights Commission yesterday warned Parliament of the “chilling” implications of a proposed law that would see the intrusive powers usually only available to the police extended to all agencies with enforcement responsibilities.
It said that under the law, council dog control officers would be able to enter homes to install a surveillance device and the Commerce Commission would be able to detain people.
Inland Revenue would get the powers to assist its tax investigations, while the Meat Board would get them to enforce breaches of export rules.
The Human Rights Commission chief commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, said the Search Surveillance Bill was giving the powers away to a “grab-bag of every possible agency”.
This summary sounds very bad:
WHAT’S IN THE BILL
THE POWERS:
Video surveillance, watching private activity on private property, installing tracking devices, detaining people during a search, power to stop vehicles without a warrant for a search, warrantless seizure of “items in plain view”, power to hack into computers remotely, power to detain anyone at scene of search.
WHO WILL GET THEM:
Every agency with enforcement responsibilities, such as: Inland Revenue, Meat Board, local councils, Overseas Investment Office, Accident Compensation Corporation, Environment Risk Management Authority, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Pork Industry Board.
I feel bad I haven’t been more up to date on this issue. At first glance it looks pretty horrific. Select Committee submissions have already closed but if the Select Committee doesn’t pare back the range of agencies and powers, then amendments can be done at the Committee of the Whole stage.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Whose bill is it? Surely National didn’t invent and introduce this themselves – rather it is something that’s been rumbling along in the bureaucracy for some years? If National are spending their time inventing this as a new legislative agenda, then they are missing the point. They’re supposed to be spending time on getting the govt out of our lives, not intruding further.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
They’re supposed to be spending time on getting the govt out of our lives, not intruding further.
Everything changes when it comes to ‘law and order’…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Hopefully JK doesn’t back down to the paper pushers on this one.
What a fuck up
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
nickb – you’re a law student correct? You should be more cautious before making claims such as “what a fuck up”. Look at the organisations making the submissions here. The human rights and privacy commissions are interestes groups and it is not surprising there will be concerns raised by them. As a lawyer you need to analyse the law nick and make up your own mind. There are others saying that no powers are being extended and the boundaries are simply being clairified. Personally I think the case lies somewhere between “chilling” and “clarifying”. I wouldn’t be quick to jump on the MSM band wagon just yet.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
If this bill does offer agencies such as the meat board and the tax department the power to undertake covert surveillance then New Zealand certainly is up shit creek. Maybe this is the legislation that National are trying to pass while riding high in the polls…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
big brother..?..nanny-state..?
(brought to you by national..)
(with the support of act.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I’ve just had a quick look over the bill and I think this story is simply another media beat up. If you want to see really draconian powers, go and have a look at the those enjoyed by the Australian Tax Office for the past thirty or forty years.
I haven’t seen any reports of Australians being carted off to the the Lubyanka.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Hahaha, whaaaaaaaat?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
phouch off, phil.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Phil – this Bill results from work done by the Law Commission. The LC reference was given to the Law Commission by the Labour Government. This is a Labour baby Phil.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
If it means I’d be able to buy decent bacon again I’d be happy to give the Pork Industry board sweeping powers to check what is being pumped into it by the bastards who charge top dollar for the crap they produce.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Can’t help humming that tune by the Eurythmics “1984″
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
i guess i should be safe from the meat/pork-industry board..
hang on..!..i am a vegan..
advocating people don’t eat their product..
and decrying the institutional-cruelties they engage in..
(is that economic-terrorism..?..)
maybe i am a ‘target’..of the pork producers’ board..?
he wouldn’t look me in the eye..the other day..when i eyeballed him..
that boss of the pork producers..
when i asked him those questions..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/commentwhoarunsettling-times-at-a-green-party-do/
“..but the other one i had come to see/hear..was the head of the pig-farmers/producers association..
and the grinding sound from the back of the room that was my teeth..started soon into his speech..
he echoed the calls of other speakers..to only buy local pork..not imported pork..
he then..somewhat off-handedly..referred to ‘that animal welfare issue from a while back’..
and noted he had sorted it by sending out welfare-guidelines to all the pig farmers..
he then left the subject..and continued in his riff..
of ‘foregn pork bad..local pork good!’..
so..my question to him..
(which caused some consternation in the room..i must say..
one person came up after and said ‘good question’..and i got nods/winks/smiles from a couple of others..
but in general..the punters weren’t happy..)
.. was to ask him was he aware of the ironies inherent in much of this imported-pig being farmed in far better conditions than the animals here.?.
he started banging on about america having no animal welfare standards..
i tried to bring him back here..by asking if we could have a look at this new document/rules he has sent to all farmers..?
and ‘is it voluntary or compulsory?’..
he then said it wasn’t new..was just the current regime/rules…(an oxymoron ..?..surely..?..’animal welfare guidelines’..?..)
and that he/they are ‘waiting on the government’
so i asked..’so..no pigs in new zealand are one iota better off than they were when mike king went into that piggery..?..with the cameras..
your industry has made no voluntary moves..?..”
he didn’t get a chance to answer..as the person compering the event butted in and closed me down..
(wither free speech..?..eh..?..)..”
this is just so spooky..this proposed extension of surveillance-powers to the likes of the fucken pork producers’ board..?
the fucken dog-catcher..?
i guess i am kinda cheered by the fact of the initial dismay of the host..
and of the rightwing commenters..
i mean..seriously..!
this is not an left-right/ideological-issue…
this is a freedom issue..
(and the head of the pork producers’ is already pissed at me..
i mean..they might ‘plant’ some sausages on me..or something..)
this extension of surveillance powers is the biggest attack on us..
since forever..?
and must be stopped..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The UK has seen cases where councils have used covert video surveillance to catch people throwing recyclable items in to their general rubbish. I’d hate to see that sort of thing in NZ.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“..This is a Labour baby Phil..”
i don’t give a fuck whose baby it is..
and it is national/act/maori party who are going to pass it..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
doesnt mayyer who started this.
we know who is in power now and they are the onesw ho can stop this shit.
If tehy dont then government as a whole is just fucked
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Didn’t NZ vote for a change of government???
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
A Labour Party baby? Don’t make me laugh. Labour and National are both the same , each falling over each other to give more powers to State agencies. When has either ever cut back on powers of surveillance or detention? Don’t try and pretend that the National Party loves any freedom except the freedom to do business.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
N1TCO: “There are others saying that no powers are being extended and the boundaries are simply being clarified.”
Yeah Warren Young (the idiot who brought us the provocation repeal) and Val Simm (the idiot who brought us the Peter Ellis saga).
The LawCom is drastically lacking intellectual firepower at the moment, with dangerous results.
Giving the Meat Board or Dog Control the power to bug a private residence is not a fucking clarification.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
About bloody time, David. This is some scary stuff which up until recently has been flying under the radar.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
nandor tanczos
dead right,
And are you nandor tanczos?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Ok, so on one side we have:
Law Society
Human Rights Commission
Privacy Commission
And on the other hand we have:
Law Commmission
Potentially the National party.
Now say what you like about the masses of useless bureacracy we have, but (in the Privacy Commission’s case anyway) one of the few watchdogs of government intrusion into our lives. The Law Society also stands up staucnhly for freedoms, especially in criminal justice, even when it may be unfashionaBLE. All three groups attacked the EFA vehemently.
So yes, not1, I stand by my comment that this looks like a fuckup. I have read the bill myself.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
What Nandor said.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
For anyone thats interested:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0045/latest/viewpdf.aspx
The Bill in PDF format…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
National and its allies won the election last year. It’s their bill. It comes from Mr Power’s portfolio. See his justification:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/bill+boosts+law+enforcement+tools
It legitimates an unnecessary and unacceptable intervention into citizens’ rights. It should be rejected. My fear is, however, that both National and Labour will agree to it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Here’s a starter for ten points:
http://gonzofreakpower.blogspot.com/2009/10/spy-hard.html
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hack into computers remotely? I wondered why so many are using removable hard drives, just plug it in when needed!!
Use the main drive as a mule.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
every body start start filling there hard drives xtra space with loads heavily encrypted rubbish.
that will keep the nazis busy
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Maybe that comparison with Mussolini was that far off…
Really, why is are the National Socialist supporting this bill? And is ACT? If you want to snoop, you get a judge to sign a warrant, and the police can execute them. Really, I don’t want the IRD uploading viruses to people. Not that it would work on, as I’m not using Windows, but it’s the principle.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The meat board needs to vet my content?
I don’t fucking think so. Get John “Il Ducky” Key on the phone please.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
menace: if you’re on linux, I did see a new encryption trick recently.
When you encrypt your hard drive, the entire partition essentially looks like random gibberish. If you give up the password to that random gibberish, it will turn out that some of it is actually files, and the rest of it is empty so remains random gibberish.
The trick is, that you can have two mount points in that partition, and two passwords. Give one password, it gives up the files in the first half, the second half looks empty (random gibberish). Give the other password, the first half is random gibberish, and it gives you the files in the second half.
Apparently when you ask the security forces how they crack security on computers, the most common answer is “we ask people for the password, and they give it to us.” The beauty of this scenario is that when they ask you for the password, you give them the first one. They never know the second one exists….
Of course, if you want to get more esoteric, I also saw a way to embed files into the least significant bits of a music or video file – still plays as a (slightly fuzzy) song or video, but with the right tools you can get the file back out. All open source and free. (Free as in speech, not free as in beer).
And coming back to the topic of the post – sounds like Labour kicked off a review, gave it to the wallies at the Law Commission, and this is just the report back. It isn’t clear yet whether National (or Labour for that matter) actually support it. If it is really giving the dog catcher powers to bug people, I doubt they will support it. If it is just a media beat up, presumably we’ll get some more info.
I’d love someone (Nandor?) to provide a good summary of what powers this proposed legislation gives to bodies that don’t have them today. That specific list (e.g. “Dog catchers: currently – no powers on private property, future – can bug you, can compel evidence, can spy on your PC”) would be something that could then be used to make sure whatever amended bill isn’t a half-way house, but actually includes no enlarged powers at all, and some clarification or curtailment of existing powers.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
If these suggestions had been law when Mad Duck Mallard and H1’s team were putting the knife into Don Brash, would Broad’s police have found the thieves who took the Brash emails? I doubt it. You can’t legislate intelligence, will, and responsibility into people.
Why do we need more powers for police and other enforcers when they aren’t using the powers they already have. For example the police could do much more to harass and humble criminal gangs, but they seem more interested in the easier field of misdemeanours by the generally law abiding — student misbehaviour, car hoons, etc.
Even minor enforcement such as dog control could be greatly improved by efficient use of present powers, probably by farming the enforcement out to contractors. (Did you notice the case in Christchurch where an impounded dog was destroyed because the animal control folk put a wrong phone number in the record of a chip they had embedded in the animal?)
The inefficient and ineffective always want more tools, more power, and more authority to make their jobs easier.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
How much info can people easily access now? Is it easy to monitor peoples use of the internet for instance?
Because my cat has got a terrible porn problem and my wife already thinks its me.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
No need to worry folks if the Pork Board or the Dog Catcher get too nosey and want to bug your fridge or do an internal inspection on your pooch JK will just tell them to butt out just like he will to the Police if you give your kid a smack on the bum.
Nothing to fear here folks just move on please!
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Don’t try and pretend that the National Party loves any freedom except the freedom to do business.”
What juvenile crap. The National Party is (contrary to their stated principles) a bunch of Progressive dumbarses who never think in such concepts as freedom, in respect of business or anything.
Nevertheless a supporter of carbon taxes and the myriad of draconian parliamentary acts the Greens would pass if the could has no business posturing here as a defender of freedom.
NZ’s basic problem is the ascendancy of Progressive thinking in its culture. From ACT right through to Jim Anderton’s Neanderthals, progressive ideas dominate the political landscape.
True Conservatives, who are more scarce in NZ than rocking horse shit, would ensure this atrocious Stalinistic rubbish never grew any further than the atom of an idea in some knuckle dragging half educated uncivilized bureaucrat’s mind.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
So, I read Robert Winter’s link above: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/bill+boosts+law+enforcement+tools
Power’s people are certainly claiming it as a government bill that they believe improves a previous bill introduced by Labour. I wonder why those on the left who are complaining now didn’t complain about this last year when Labour introduced it?
Anyway, that is neither here nor there. The summary from Power’s folks suggests some good things, but is silent on some of the bad.
– clarification of visual surveillance, and restrictions of power to watch people who are on private property. Sounds like a good clarification
– application of some new technologies that the old law didn’t envisage or encompass. Again, sounds reasonable
– Police-only ability to compel people to give answers. I really don’t like the sound of this – the right to silence is a long established common law right is it not?
– allowance of warrantless surveillance in urgent circumstances. I can understand that if a police officer sees a crime being committed on private property, it might be OK for them to investigate. And we wouldn’t want that evidence to be thrown out of court – clearly there is no time to get a warrant. Conversely, a power like this would tend to get abused – what’s the bet that all policework suddenly gets urgent?
– allows surveillance for a wider range of offences. I don’t disagree with this in principle, so long as these are still police type offences. I’m not interested in other organisations having this power though – and the summary isn’t clear
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“There are others saying that no powers are being extended and the boundaries are simply being clarified.”
Possibly true – which means the current boundaries barely exist and state agencies have been potentially getting away with all sorts of dodgy things already.
I suspect a few of the more outrageous clauses in the bill will be junked, in order to make it look more moderate, but the final result will authorise all sorts of public servants to go snooping on the basis of prejudice, wildly exagerrated suspicions or plain incompetence.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“I wonder why those on the left who are complaining now didn’t complain about this last year when Labour introduced it?”
I recall a flurry of complaints last year, mostly from groups I would describe as ‘left’. Who exactly are you saying is complaining now who didn’t complain previously?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I have a sneaking suspicion that Ministers are blindly accepting the advice of bureaucrats and not giving very much consideration to what the public (expecially its potential supporters) think. This IMO is starting to pose the greatest risk to the longetivity of a National government. There is a double whammy here, quite apart from loss of votes, it can cause loss of party activity, hence less funds and fewer door knockers, hoarding erectors, etc to help win an election. Then the leader blasts the Party president, the board and the faithful for not throwing enough resource into elections, just as Rob muldoon did in 1984.
National ministers and their support staff who are reading this – take very, very, careful note.
One thing on surveillance. A police officer was recently murdered while planting a device. If amateurs from other agencies get this power, they could be unwittingly putting their staffs’ lives at risk. They do not have the experiencs and skills that the police do.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“What juvenile crap. ”
Hmmmmm…
Nandor Tanczos = several term parliamentarian and the public face of Green party for many years.
Redbaiter = anonymous nut-case on the internet who can’t argue anything without the ad hominem. I can picture the vein on his forehead swelling at this very moment.
What to think?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
RRM- “anonymous nut-case on the internet who can’t argue anything without the ad hominem”
Just makes me ask the question- “Why bother?” when this contradictory rubbish is the sum of the intellect I attempt to reason with.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
That’s just it Masturbaiter. You’ve never reasoned with anyone, so why start? You just troll, and attempt to club people over the head with abuse thinking this will make them go away.
Your last post attempted to “reason” some sort of argument about conservatism or freedom, from some premise about “knuckle-dragging” and “being uncivilised”.
Who are you?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Ah, come on everybody, it ain’t that serious. This is all in the name of beating the crims and keeping us secure, after all.
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about if the dog control officer, ird, police and other agencies conduct warrantless surveillance on you and enter your home to poke around.
After all, the crims have too many rights and we must curtail them (to paraphrase Judith Collins), so let’s not complain about it.
While we are at it we should make everybody in the country give the police a dna sample…
Edit: and why retain the right to silence? And juries? After all, judge alone trials are far more efficient…
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
no..it’s a fair question red..
do we listen to/heed the opinions of tanczos..
one who has been in the tent..for some years..
or do we heed the ad hominem/ideological-ridden diatribes/rantings of some pensioner in tauranga..?
it’s a tough call..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
How does that song from The Who go? Something about ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ I think…
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Anything that allows warrentess searches of private property should be fought at every opportunity.
I prefer not to live in a police state thanks.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
And while we are on the topic, just why should we retain the right to silence? After all, we would like to think we live in a more enlightened age than when such a concept was necessary, don’t we?
And how about removing jury trials? Judge alone trials are far more efficient and would come to the right verdict far more often than juries.
And don’t get me started on the presumption of innocence…
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Gad Sir! Mr Smith is right. We should lock up everybody from birth as a precautionary measure and only let out those who have proved they won’t misuse their freedom!
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The real point is RRM that in your anonymous and off topic criticism, you did exactly as you criticise me for. I don’t care what standing anyone may have. Well known or anonymous, they’re all entitled to a POV, but I have little time to reason with obviously deranged fuckwits and blind hypocrites like you.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“you did exactly as you criticise me for…. deranged fuckwits and blind hypocrites like you.”
But here’s the thing Masturbaiter – I’m one anonymous internet commentor, criticising another anonymous commentor’s words as being crap.
YOU on the other hand, are an anonymous internet commentor, slagging off a public figure who (unlike ourselves) has the balls to comment under his own name, and who has stood up and walked the walk for many years. And you are basically saying that we should listen to you because… well just because. Not because of any coherent argument, because you haven’t made any. Just because you know how to curse.
Do you see how that’s different?
Whoever you are?
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Get back on topic you ranting raving half witted bore.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Everyone excep politicians Sam, remember they’ve already made themselves excempt from covert attention.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
So what you’re saying, Adolf, is that we should trust the government because they always act in our best interests?
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Masturbaiter:
The topic isn’t NZ’s supposed infestation with Progressives, no matter how much you’d like to bring your hobby horse to this party.
F.E. Smith:
That is all very well if you want to have laws based on an assumption that you can trust the Authorities. Personally I think the veneer of human (even western) civilisation is a pretty thin one and I would rather not have all sorts of summary powers in place, ready and waiting for the wrong would-be dictator to come along and give us all a raping with them. Maybe slippery slope arguments are for conspiracy theorists, I just don’t think it’s worth the risk!
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Repton, what I’m saying is that you should at least read the bill before you shoot your mouth off. I take it you CAN read? Oh, sorry! It’s obvious you can read but cannot comprehend the words.
If you read the bill carefully, you might find it difficult to sustain some of the hysterical complaints put forward in this morning’s Herald.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“That is all very well ”
He’s being facetious you black hole dense waste of space.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Aha! He is too. my bad.
I, er, stand by everything I just said however. You on the other hand still haven’t actually said anything…
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
no red..the removal of the right to silence is planned by national/act/maori party..
nothing ‘facetious’ about that at all..
or..didn’t you know about that yet..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“And while we are on the topic, just why should we retain the right to silence? After all, we would like to think we live in a more enlightened age than when such a concept was necessary, don’t we?”
Hah.
Why don’t we just bug every citizen’s home, and have roving surveillance vans picking up civilian’s conversations? If they have got nothing to hide they will be fine, and imagine the crime-fighting imapct!
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Yeah why the hell should we retain our rights when they’re inconvienient to our politicians?
I have a hint, go to any small town any where in New Zealand and you’ll find a structure of some kind covered with a list of names. Thats bloody why.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“From ACT right through to Jim Anderton’s Neanderthals, progressive ideas dominate the political landscape. ”
What about the Libertarianz?
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Redbaiter = anonymous nut-case on the internet who can’t argue anything without the ad hominem. I can picture the vein on his forehead swelling at this very moment.
Yet he still makes more sense than yourself…
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
A magic 8 ball could make the same claim Bevan.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
MikeE>Anything that allows warrentess searches of private property should be fought at every opportunity.
I’m with you on this. The most serious violator of this principle at the moment is Customs. They x-ray bags at the airport and seem to have the right to open them up and go through the contents just because they feel like it. Why should people be subject to a search just because they’ve traveled overseas?
It isn’t search related, but I’m not sure that I agree with number plates for cars. There would be rioting in the streets if you required people to wear an identifying number in public, but we seem to be happy to require this if someone travels in a car. It can’t be crime related because crimes are committed by people both with and without cars.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Rosslyn NOONAN was of course a hard left Unionist who raised few objections to anything during the Clark Tyranny and her appointment as Chief Human Rights Commissioner was more about the preservation of Socialism than any concern that administration had for the individual or freedom. There is no need for her office their are over a hundred elected MPs who should be filling the functions of her office.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Murray:
“I have a hint, go to any small town any where in New Zealand and you’ll find a structure of some kind covered with a list of names. Thats bloody why.”
I’m sorry but you have it all arse-about-face if you really see our history as a set of obligations instead of a source of inspiration. We are very lucky in New Zealand to have a mainly-virtuous recent past to look at, containing little to give us cause for soul searching… something I imagine many native Germans would envy. If “what would grandpa do” is really sufficient for you in setting the correct course to continue on, then you are lucky grandpa was on the virtuous path, but not a lot is really able to be said about your own good judgement.
And it should be obvious to all here that increasing state power to pry and interfere is undesirable and should be resisted. This thread is nothing more than an exercise in shouting “me too!”… stop taking it so seriously. And Masturbaiter is a nutter.
“A magic 8 ball could make the same claim Bevan.”
But if it’s MAGIC, surely and without a doubt it would make more sense than me – that would be its magic power.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Well being an historian there’s a better than average chance that I’m not talking out of hole in my ass.
No one waving placard everyone anything worth dick. Our rights are hard earned and hard kept. We’re also one of the most war like country for its population on the planet. Our recent history would have made it clear to you if you any comprehension of actual history, not the party plotical soundbites you use as an excuse for not emplying your own brain.
Dear leader Clark put more kiwis in combat zones than any other PM since WWII. Including Iraq. Shame the facts don;t really feel the need to conform to your speceptions but reality is a stubborn bitch that way.
RRM talks shit, must be a day ending in y.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Wow… how many beers have you had so far? (I’m just finishing my first.)
For a “historian” you sure read like an angry little disaffected person to me.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Whats the bet this will go through in one form or another, not once do i hear of government limiting their overall power, we just had this current government ignore a referendum so they could horse trade with each other whats individual privacy in comparison.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:27 am
I work in law enforcement… This is bad, the stuff cowboys love…
October 24th, 2009 at 7:42 am
In the current context, let’s not forget the mantra of Clark’s legislative apologists and praise singers:
“Comrade. If you have nothing to hide and stay within the law, you have nothing to fear.” I guarantee that this legistlation will be spun – by National – using the self-same line of BS.
This legislation is a dire threat to civil liberties and New Zealand’s democracy.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@DPF – for some background check out the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act (RIPA) from the UK.
If the NZ version is half as sweeping as the original UK version, we’re in pooh.
There was a big backlash against RIPA when it was in the Bill stage in the UK, and it did fortunately get watered down in powers and toughened up in oversight/control of who could use the act.
Doesn’t matter who wrote the Bill, it’s going to be our act.
@Flashman – always liked the retorts to the ‘nothing to hide’ presumption by Govt. Still, if the MP’s & Govt of the day had nothing (about their expenses) to hide, they’d have nothing to fear either.