But, why in this day and age to do we really need to be free from ‘unreasonable’ search and seizure? Aren’t all police actions, because they are undertaken by the police, inherently reasonable because they are undertaken against criminals. For example, I presume that there is no chance that the new proceeds of crime act powers, which do not require convictions in order for property to be confiscated, will never be used against someone who isn’t, at least in the eyes of the police, a criminal.

The problem is that both the Government (the Nats and the civil servants in the MoJ) are now viewing the Courts as being part of a crime control apparatus, rather than impartial arbiters between a prosecutor and a defendant. When the State, and the citizens in that State, hold that attitude then the justifications for personal freedoms that we traditionally use in a liberal democracy become useless.

As nickb points out, the mantra becomes one of ‘if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear’, which is, quite frankly, rubbish. The problem is that when we begin to tell the truth about the system, both police and justice, then we are seen as ‘undermining confidence’ in the enforcement authorities.

So, with the emphasis on crime control, can somebody give me an real reasons why, in this ‘enlightened age’, we need any protections from the extension of the power of the state? It seems, according to experts like JennaR and Dr Warren Young, that we may need some new reasons if we want to keep our supposed freedoms.

Who have we voted in that wants to fuck us inthe arse so much?

And are the elected ones going to actually decide, yeah thats what our citizens want, they want to be fucked in the arse more and more and more.

Well fuck them

I can totaly see why people do the molotov cocktail thing when they trying ot pull this bs.

Possible answers are:
1. For the average Kiwi.
2. To support and keep going the State machine. To allow the Machine to ‘dial up’ the legisation it thinks it needs.

If the answer is 2 – then look out for a dose of 6-9 years in the political wilderness starting 2014 if not 2011 – Just as Bolger / Birch laid the ground for in the 1990’s.

Given there is a legislative proposal on the table – the issue is ‘do the people really want this?’ Is it really necessary? etc. As the late Lloyd Mandeno (electrical engineer who did much to get power into the backblocks) would say ‘there must be a better way’.

There is IMO one method of controlling surveillance – user pays. The government and bureaucrats have got away with making service providers and users pay. It IRD wants to look up someone’s bank statements, it should pay the bank for this.

Heh, it’s kinda funny that the Human Rights Commission thinks that freedom of association is a “fundamental human right, essential to the functioning of a democratic society”. Maybe they could write something on VSM?

I have lost count of the number of cases I have read where dialogue goes something like this:

Police: We’re here to search your house.

Person: Do you have a warrant?

Police: No, but we’re just going to have a look around.

etc. The worry is that once laws like this are put in place, how will they ever be diluted or reduced? We are throwing our civil liberties away (or the supposedly limited government ACT and National party are destroying them).
No one will campaign on repealing stuff like this, lest the shouts of SOFT ON CRIME!!!!!!!!! follow them to electoral oblivion. The majority of the NZ public really are sheep aren’t they.

Oh well, hey, we have to be tough on crime don’t we.

Can you imagine the crap we will have in the future if we make the access easier for them when they already can’t be trusted to act properly within the rules now.
The mind boggles.
I say this being biased towards law enforcement and the Int/Sec establishment.

Sounds like a bill that has been hijacked by some zealous security wonks (almost typed wanks by mistake- oops!)

“If you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about”.

Holmes: …You’re no longer innocent until you’re proven guilty.

Collins: It’s fantastic, isn’t it?

Q&A:

All must be under the ambit of the courts with no exceptions accept against defined listed terrorist organisations and that must be accountable to the courts anyway to prevent abuse.

All others NO, especially local authorities..