Comments on: R v Internet Part II

By: dave

dave — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:03:27 +0000

kiwiyoda,
I have had information from the court that the victim was paid the 5k reparation on 30 November.

By: kiwiyoda

kiwiyoda — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:15:42 +0000

Although he was discharged without “conviction” he apparently to date hasn’t paid the victim the agreed 5k reparation. “He was given permanent name suppression because naming him would affect his record and concert ticket sales.” Can’t be making too much money if pe can’t afford the court ordered reparation.” What good is name suppression if it only protects the victimiser and casts suspicion on other prominent kiwi entertainers. Also what is the court doing to enforce the reparation payment.

By: Viking2

Viking2 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:05:30 +0000

Musician’s victim breaks silence

Sunday, 6, Dec, 2009 10:05AM

The teenage girl indecently assaulted by a prominent musician has broken her silence.

Seventeen-year-old Brittany Cancian is demanding the prominent entertainer be named.

She has spoken exclusively to the New Zealand’s Woman’s Weekly, saying the case has left her wanting justice.

The Lower Hutt teen says police tried to dissuade her from pursuing charges against the star, who has permanent name suppression.

Brittany Cancian says she has been treated like a dog.

By: Yvette

Yvette — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:39:23 +0000

So, is some one guilty of breaking a court suppression of identity, if they do not actually reveal a name, but make sufficient information available for someone else to determine the name themselves, even if that information requires some further deduction?

By: Yvette

Yvette — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:25:47 +0000

http://big-news.blogspot.com/ mentions your posting, David, but has a cleaner screenshot:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/r_v_internet_part_ii.html
From what remains in that image I could still find the Facebook page and draw my own conclusions. [see I don't exactly say what, in case that is aiding and abetting, although saying where a cleaner copy of the image is may be enough!]
I doubt however John Key had to go to this trouble – someone [guilty of breaching the law] probably just told him. The question here is whether you David in raising the matter and providing enough information [although actually intending to show how many times you had to hide information and how difficult that was] have broken the law in enabling me to find out the supposed suppressed name? Or am I alone in my guilt for taking the extra steps needed to find out – to be equal in my knowledge to John Key, who will be equally guilty if he actually asked for the information ["John Key was curious. He wanted to know the name of a high profile entertainer that got name suppression. . . Key said he asked somebody he knew."]
I guess if they come after you, DPF, they can also go after Key too – and you seemed better motivated!

By: Put it away

Put it away — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:55:33 +0000

The edges of the main photo you can still see are recognisable as the cover photo of his latest single…

By: noskire

noskire — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:06:57 +0000

If you type in the “entertainers name”, then “name” into Google, Google Auto Suggest comes up with “***** name suppression”. Is that a breach as well?

By: Political Busker

Political Busker — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:05:22 +0000

http://menz.org.nz/2009/bank-of-new-zealand-v-bad-dad/

I cannot say that #22 is anything like kiwisfirst.com – but it is certainly worth consideration.

By: m@tt

m@tt — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:11:27 +0000

Showing your normal lack of attention to detail.

By: lastmanstanding

lastmanstanding — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:52:40 +0000

Dont too too hard on yourself David What you did was to prefectly illustrate the dumbarse purpose of trying to coverup information in the new world.

Sadly the 19th century legal system and Judicary just dont get it they are all stuck in a time warp or believe if they say we arent allowed to know the truth then thats it

The idiots need to get with the programme and stop trying to prevent the citizens from having information.

they are acting like the old Priests in the ancient time when the peasants couldnt be trusted with knowledge and information.

By: mike tan

mike tan — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:37:32 +0000

lol this turned out hilariously positive for the anti-supression crowd

By: Put it away

Put it away — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:07:33 +0000

So many toolbars eating up your screen real estate ! DPF = teh n00b !!! Cut that all back to just the navigation menu in text-only ( no icons ) to be L337 !!!!!

By: dave

dave — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:33:51 +0000

dpf check your ph message

By: KiwiGreg

KiwiGreg — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:33:22 +0000

I think knowing Tau Henare is a fan of Snickers is actually TMI.

By: Repton

Repton — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:09:34 +0000

Also, DPF — you use Norton? Really?

By: Repton

Repton — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:04:26 +0000

So, “Vise Ma’ Asi” is a fan of this guy. According to his public facebook info, Vise is a fan of five musicians, only two of whom are New Zealanders..

By: fizzleplug

fizzleplug — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 +0000

He is also visible (and identifiable) in the remaining photo

By: democracymum

democracymum — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:28:07 +0000

I think you have done an admirable job of demonstrating by example, just how hard it is to keep this sort of thing a digital secret

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:24:33 +0000

Good God. I did it again. And I spent several minutes looking at the graphic in case there were any other mentions. It is amazing what blind spots you can have. I have added an extra box!

By: mjanderson

mjanderson — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:22:45 +0000

What happens when a page such as this [breaching name suppression - firefox application bar] is uploaded to the web, and web search archives are kept which show the page has breached name suppression and can be accessed through web archives such as google?