The Neazor Report

September 27th, 2012 at 2:06 pm by David Farrar

The report is online here. It seems that the only information the Police asked of the was where he would be on a particular date and time, to minimise risks around his arrest. This is quite different from collecting information to be used in the prosecution around him.

The PM has said:

“At the time in question, was not a New Zealand citizen. He was, however, classed as the holder of a residence class visa, but it was not interpreted by the Police or GCSB at the time that he fell into the protected category of permanent resident.

“The GCSB relied on information provided to it by the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand. In my view, reliance on another party by GCSB is unacceptable.

“GCSB had a responsibility to fully understand what the change to the Immigration legislation in 2009 meant for its own operations, including whether individual visa holders were protected or not.

“It is the GCSB’s responsibility to act within the law, and it is hugely disappointing that in this case its actions fell outside the law. I am personally very disappointed that the agency failed to fully understand the workings of its own legislation.”

“I have received an apology from the Director of the GCSB and an assurance that he will take every step to rebuild public confidence in his organisation.”

As part of that process, Mr Key has sought an assurance that there are no other cases of people’s communications being intercepted unlawfully. The GCSB will be reviewing past cases back to 2009 when the Immigration Act was changed, and will report to the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General on this matter as soon as possible.

The GCSB will also:

  • Establish new approval processes in the support of Police and other law enforcement agencies. This type of operation is halted meanwhile.
  • Agree with Police and other law enforcement agencies how to confirm immigration status, before operations in support of law enforcement activity are undertaken within New Zealand.

The GCSB will submit these proposed changes to the Inspector-General in advance of their implementation.

So as I understood it they knew he was a resident, but did not think his type of residency was one which qualified him to be regarded as a permanent resident.

Tags: ,

170 Responses to “The Neazor Report”

  1. trout (916 comments) says:

    It was leaked some time ago that the purpose of the surveillance was simply to make sure the 4 arrested were at the Dotcom mansion at the same time. I guess their cellphones were tracked. The media, of course wanted to make a lot more of it; and this report will be called a whitewash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    I hope they will be much more rigorous than ‘did not think’ in the future.

    Now facts are out it seems like a lot of people have been raving and accusing much more than the situation warrants, but expect that raving and accusing to continue regardless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (7,852 comments) says:

    They spied on a NZ citizen.

    What’s more, they spied on that citizen for no good reason.

    Apologies don’t cut it.

    Sack the bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    *RESIDENT. Gah!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    believe that story and youll believe anything………………….

    …’He was the holder of a residents visa but they didnt think he qualified as a resident.’….

    Sounds like believing that you are half pregnant…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. BeaB (2,074 comments) says:

    Appalling! Scandal! Hang them all!

    As usual, NZ manages only very little scandals which usually turn out to be mistakes rather than conspiracies or sinister state action.

    I hope the media have somehting else to divert them tonight – a vital issue like losing the black horse perhaps.

    In the meantime, in the House, Grant Robertson is doing his limp best to establish exact details about times and dates etc in the hope that we are still listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “So as I understood it they knew he was a resident, but did not think his type of residency was one which qualified him to be regarded as a permanent resident.”

    The fact remains that Police asked Immigration for Dotcom’s file before GCSB started spying. So it seems that police did exactly what Neazor is asking for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Sounds like believing that you are half pregnant…..

    Well, exactly. Especially when police requested and obtained a copy of Dotcom’s file from Immigration. I imagine that file said he had permanent residency. The argument that police made a mistake simply doesn’t hold water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Keeping Stock (10,161 comments) says:

    Wrong again Redbaiter. Kim Dotcom is NOT a New Zealand citizen, and with criminal charges pending in the United States, he will not become one any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > I have received an apology from the Director of the GCSB

    I wonder if Dotcom has received an apology from GCSB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. alex Masterley (1,495 comments) says:

    An apology for checking on his whereabouts?
    It should only be a simple sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Funny, Alex. So the GCSB did nothing illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,814 comments) says:

    Yet another storm in a teacup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mark (1,406 comments) says:

    Keystone cops one thinks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. alex Masterley (1,495 comments) says:

    Ross,
    I have no problem acknowledging that GCSB acted unlawfully outside the remit of their governing legislation as Mr Neazor has confirmed.
    The question I have what are the consequences of the conduct. For some the tumbrills will be the only suitable sanction. In this case given the conduct complained of a simple apology should suffice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. OneTrack (2,753 comments) says:

    “So as I understood it they knew he was a resident, but did not think his type of residency was one which qualified him to be regarded as a permanent resident.”.

    Is there any sort of permanent residence that doesnt involve a permanent residency visa? (I assume thats what 2009 was about) Yep, looks like a bureaucratic cockup.

    But it looks like they give out permanent residency at the drop of a hat so imho it should be legal for gcsb to do any monitoring they want. Let the “protected category” be when they achieve citizenship, nothing less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > In this case given the conduct complained of a simple apology should suffice.

    Alex, didn’t you read my earlier post? The GCSB has apologised to John Key. The person they should be apologising to is Dotcom. Have they? I have heard no public apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    Thank goodness we don’t depend on Alex Masterly to defend our rights. His attitude seems to be “oh well simple mistake, nothing to see here, move on.”

    Not the wisest council I have seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    “But it looks like they give out permanent residency at the drop of a hat so imho it should be legal for gcsb to do any monitoring they want. Let the “protected category” be when they achieve citizenship, nothing less.”

    No need. I assume this was simply a case of the wrong agency being activated rather than any problem with the residency scheme. I would assume the correct agency for monitoring New Zealand residents would be the Security Intelligence Service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Can someone please explain to me why charges havent being laid against the people at the GCSB who did the illegal activity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    This is a beat-up.

    There was no prolonged surveillance on an NZ citizen. There was no defiant breach of the Law. The fireworks display is not, as Labour suggests, proof positive that he was a resident. Nor is a Google search. The original residency status granted (under the earlier Immigration Act) did not confer protected status. What conferred protected status was a deeming provision of the Immigration Act 2010.

    Someone dropped a pass and failed to check whether a non-permanent residency visa under the earlier Act was converted to a permanent residency visa under the replacement Act.
    Neazor talked of confusion. It was probably more a matter of failure to check a technical point.

    I have not checked the old legislation but I do know, for example, that if someone gets a long term business visa under the new Act, that person is not a permanent resident despite having residency status. It seems that Dottie may have had the same terminable status under the old Act but morphed into something else over overnight — probably without anyone noticing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rightandleft (651 comments) says:

    I believe I can clear up this residence wording issue. Before the 2009 law change came into effect in mid-2010 anyone who got residency in NZ was a Permanent Resident. They were simultaneously issued a Returning Resident Visa for two years. After those two years expired they could apply for an Indefinite Returning Resident Visa to sit alongside their Resident Visa. This second visa had no expiry date and allowed them to leave NZ for years at a time without jeopardising their NZ residency.

    In 2010 the wording changed so that now new residents were simply given a Resident Visa and the RRV, same as before. But after the two year initial period the Indefinite Returning Resident Visa’s name was changed to “Permanent Resident Visa”, sitting right beside their Resident Visa.

    The GSCB didn’t keep up with what the name change really meant. They read it that they were now allowed to spy on people who held resident visas but had not held them for two years yet and thus weren’t “Permanent Residents.” They were clearly wrong to think that. Now it is Residents and Permanent Residents who are off limits to the GCSB. Having obtained his residency in late 2010 Kim Dotcom was part of the brand new batch of visa holders who were residents but not permanent residents and thus the confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tas (596 comments) says:

    Question: Why is his residency status so important? I don’t think your rights to privacy should be dependent on your residency status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. alex Masterley (1,495 comments) says:

    Apologies Ross,
    I miss-read your post.

    Viking2 obviously fits into the hang em high school of thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. alex Masterley (1,495 comments) says:

    Nookin/rightandleft,
    The Immigration Act is a mishmash of amendments sitting on top of ammendments which needs a complete revamp.
    I’m not surprised there was a cock up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Nookin if this is a beat up, why arent there charges against those at the GCSB who did these proven illegal activities?
    Surely this will involve prosecuting the people involved including the GCSB director Fletcher

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rightandleft (651 comments) says:

    tas,

    It isn’t a matter of privacy rights, just a matter of which agency is allowed to spy on him. The GCSB only has jurisdiction over foriegners and intell gathering overseas, just like the CIA in America. The SIS gathers intell on NZ citizens and residents inside NZ’s borders, like the FBI in America.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > The fireworks display is not, as Labour suggests, proof positive that he was a resident.

    You’re missing the point. Police asked Immigration for a copy of Dotcom’s file in early December, prior to the GCSB spying on him. What do you think that file said? That Dotcom was a permanent resident? So what did Police do when it learnt of his permanent residency?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Martinh

    If you were told to collect Fred’s bike from a bike stand and someone mistakenly pointed out the wrong bike, should you be charged with theft? Same applies here. They were given the wrong advice and believed it. They should have been more thorough and checked it out themselves. It’s probably a point that they had never come across and it ddn’t occur to them. I haven’t looked at the penal provisions in the governing legislation and haven’t got time. It doesn’t follow that a cock-up is a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    ‏PM apologises to Dotcom over ‘basic errors’

    Prime Minister John Key says he apologises to Kim Dotcom for what he has described as “basic errors” by the Government Communications and Security Bureau.

    In a media conference after the release of the report into unlawful monitoring of Mr Dotcom and an acquaintance, Mr Key said he was “appalled” at the agency, saying it had “failed at the most basic of hurdles.”

    “Of course I apologise to Mr Dotcom, and I apologise to New Zealanders.”

    He said New Zealanders were entitled to be protected by the law “and we failed to provide that protection to them.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836884

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Morgy (171 comments) says:

    I’m with BeaB on this;

    “As usual, NZ manages only very little scandals which usually turn out to be mistakes rather than conspiracies or sinister state action”

    It is a cock up. End of story. Watching the house today it appears all will be sorted when John Key resigns.

    Jeez if I was him, I would piss off to Hawaii, live a quiet and anonymous life and tell us all to get fucked! How he puts up with this shit is beyond me. Heard on radio today how stressed he is looking….no that is anger and frustration he has to deal with idiots from the opposition and their “I can’t think for myself” minions. Now Robertsons calling for a full scale enquiry into this…..FFS!! Can’t get a bloody thing done around here. It’s rediculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    @felixmarwick
    Labour Leader @DavidShearerMP says Neazor report is a white wash. Also says he’s not impugning Justice Neazor’s integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Nookin, so you think that grabbing a stranger wearing a hat on the street and throwing them in your boot and then realising later they werent your friend means that you shouldnt get in trouble for that?
    Dont you think it should be brought before the Court for the Justice System to decide guilt and penalty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Martinh
    Nope. Only if there was an arguable case for a conviction. If it is apparent that there is a defence then dont prosecute. You are running with the Penny Bright school of thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Morgy (171 comments) says:

    **ridiculous**

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Nookin
    “If it is Apparent that there is a defence” Please tell me where Inspectors Neazors “confusion of the law” is ever a legal defence!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (6,794 comments) says:

    Public Servants eh? Make them all re-apply for their jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nookin,

    I have not checked the old legislation but I do know, for example, that if someone gets a long term business visa under the new Act, that person is not a permanent resident despite having residency status.

    That is incorrect. An LTBV is a temporary visa which allows a person to establish a business in New Zealand. Residency is obtained via the Entrepreneur category. People on an LTBV are not residents and I’m sure Kim Dotcom did not apply under this category. He invested 10 million I presume which would be the easiest way for a man like him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nookin,

    Someone dropped a pass and failed to check whether a non-permanent residency visa under the earlier Act was converted to a permanent residency visa under the replacement Act.
    Neazor talked of confusion. It was probably more a matter of failure to check a technical point.

    From the GCSB Act

    permanent resident means a person who is, or who is deemed to be, the holder of a residence class visa under the Immigration Act 2009

    From the Immigration Act:

    Classes of visa

    The following classes of visa may be granted under this Act:

    (a) residence class visas, consisting of—

    (i) permanent resident visas:

    (ii) resident visas:

    That took me less than 5 minutes. If this is not flouting the rules then it is surely the height of incompetence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    alex Masterley (1,050) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Nookin/rightandleft,
    The Immigration Act is a mishmash of amendments sitting on top of ammendments which needs a complete revamp.
    I’m not surprised there was a cock up.

    You mean the Immigration Act 2009? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    So summing up, after all that it was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Most people break the letter of the law every day because our laws are so ludicrously comlicated and often go against natural justice. A mistake, get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    LTBV did not apply to K.com. I mentioned it to illustrate that not all visas confer permanent residency and to draw the analogy to the business class visa granted to K.com – which, according to the Neazor report, didn’t confer permanent residency either.

    Martinh

    Get a book and look up mens rea. They were not confused about the law. They knew that they could not spy on a permanent resident. They were confused about fact. They thought he was not a permanent resident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Kevin their most important constriction is to not intercept NZ residents or citizens, do you find this ludicrously complicated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,131) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    …It doesn’t follow that a cock-up is a crime.

    Nope, but sometimes errors are so ridiculous that one reasonably questions whether it really was a “mistake”. This is one of the simplest rules that the agency must concern itself with.

    If you’re in a stolen car and you say “I didn’t know”, people are pretty skeptical if you didn’t take those basic steps to ensure the transaction was legitimate. But when it comes to a government agency we are all too willing to believe it was an innocent mistake even when the mistake is so ridiculous that it defies belief.

    Quite frankly, if the agency is going to run with “it was a mistake” then the Director should resign immediately. An apology does not suffice in the face of such incompetence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Nookin- Exactly, since you know what mens rea is- isnt that up to a court to decide mens rea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    ‘Police asked of the GCSB was where he would be on a particular date and time, to minimise risks around his arrest.’

    Sounds simple really. At least until you consider that the police had the capacity to do that themselves.

    Then of course the relationship between police and GCSB needs to be considered, taking into account that the later merely swings into action upon request whether it be lawful or not – but doesn’t even inform it’s own minister or watchdog until approaching a year after it’s mistakes, and presumably only when some difficult questions were advanced in the Auckland High Court as to who certain personnel were that attended the raid. The ‘innocent’ mistake is betrayed by the time it took GCSB to come clean to it’s statutory masters. We haven’t got the truth yet. Looks like we are getting a second ‘I don’t know’ John for the year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    So now that the dust is starting to settle we see yet another storm in a teacup, beaten completely out of shape by gossip columnists masquerading as journalists, a Labour leader looking for a spine, and a clueless Aussie watermelon …

    As far as criminal acts go this is right up there alongside getting ticketed for doing 108km/hr in a 100k zone. Not quite the dangerous driving causing death that Norman at al. would have us believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,132) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    LTBV did not apply to K.com. I mentioned it to illustrate that not all visas confer permanent residency and to draw the analogy to the business class visa granted to K.com – which, according to the Neazor report, didn’t confer permanent residency either.

    Kim Dotcom held a residence class visa under the Immigration Act 2009 which is the legal test. A very basic rule that should be understood by the agency. It evidently does not understand this basic rule and if we are to believe the unbelievable, that they really are that incompetent, then the Director should resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The system even stuffs up in criminal record tests on citizens like kiddy fiddlers which is far far more serious.

    I could understand key’s rhetoric in cases like that but here he just sounds like a sycophantic old SNAG trying to cuddle up to the far left and, ludicrously as we have seen on this blog, the far right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Morgy (43) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    I’m with BeaB on this;

    “As usual, NZ manages only very little scandals which usually turn out to be mistakes rather than conspiracies or sinister state action”

    It is a cock up. End of story. Watching the house today it appears all will be sorted when John Key resigns.

    Key need not resign. There is no evidence that he is at fault. But the Director of the agency is directly responsible for the organization and its agents, and in particular ensuring that agents are properly trained and know the most basic rules. He has evidently failed at this task. He has failed to properly manage his organization and the only reassurance that we can possibly have that this is not a coverup is if he resigns immediately, and before he does that he fires whatever officer or officers dropped the ball.

    As long as the Director remains how can we have confidence in the organization? We should just take their word that it was an innocent mistake despite the fact that the level of incompetence is so high it defies belief? Only resignation can properly restore confidence in the agency because if it were a coverup it’s hard to keep people quiet when they’ve been left out to dry. But as long as these people remain then it is quite reasonable to suspect a whitewash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    On a scale of 1 (minimal) to 10 (most serious).
    GCSB employee accidentally misinterprets the definition of resident in one particular case. 1/2
    Judge gives homicidal maniac bail who then kills someone 10

    How many judges have resigned because they stuffed up in the history of NZ 0

    Get over yourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    Weihana – but if people are fired for any relatively inconsequential stuff-up then won’t they be more likely to try to hide all their stuff-ups?

    If they admit their mistakes, learn from the mistakes and improve their systems then why insist in resignations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s curious that the Neazor Report is almost devoid of any timeline or dates. The only date mentioned is that Dotcom had permanent residency from 29 November 2010. But the GCSB didn’t start spying on him until 16 December 2011, more than a year later. To suggest there was simply a mistake here is straining credibility. I think someone is covering their butt, and until there is a thorough inquiry we really don’t know all the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. flipper (3,766 comments) says:

    The report was pre-empted by JK earlier this week when he said “human error”.
    Rules – Royal Commission and other Inquries….
    Rule 101: Do not appoint any one who cannot be guaranteed to produce anything less than a “suitable” report.
    Rule 101.2: Ensure that the Terms of Reference will facilitate the desired result.

    When the dust eventually settles JK et al might need to pass amending legislation to ensure that the Dept of PM and Cabinet are privy to all SIS/GCSB data. (Afterall they already have a liasion officer working there, do they not?).

    The only damage done to anyone in this silly bloody nonsense is to the credibility of JK’s administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (556 comments) says:

    Is that it? Seriously, what a fucking yawn fest. Wake me when David Shearer says something sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Kevin (532) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Judge gives homicidal maniac bail who then kills someone 10

    How many judges have resigned because they stuffed up in the history of NZ 0

    If an accused commits a crime while on bail the judge has not made a mistake, or not necessarily anyway. Perhaps you possess powers mere mortals do not, but I’m not aware of any judge that has the power to see the future and to control the actions of those released on bail. The job of the judge is to properly apply a legal test to determine whether a person is granted bail. That legal test does not depend on his ability to see the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,736) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Weihana – but if people are fired for any relatively inconsequential stuff-up then won’t they be more likely to try to hide all their stuff-ups?

    If they admit their mistakes, learn from the mistakes and improve their systems then why insist in resignations?

    But this is not an inconsequential stuff up. This is a stuff up that undermines the credibility of the entire organization precisely because the stuff up was so basic.

    The line that it was simply a mistake is not very believable given that the error is so basic. The GCSB Act has 35 sections. Hardly a complex maze of rules and the rule they violated was one of the most basic. If it was a mistake then the Director has failed miserably at his job and should resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “The only damage done to anyone in this silly bloody nonsense is to the credibility of JK’s administration” Exactly. And Jonkey woulds like a smivelling little weasel. The prime minister of our country whinging like this is not a good look. “hugely disappointing” “personally very disappointed”. OMFG. This is a PMs rhetoric if Fiji invades Samoa.

    “Oh, we’e so sorry all you terrorists out there, just get residency and you’ll be OK”

    Mrs Key calling Jonky

    Here puss puss puss…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. flipper (3,766 comments) says:

    Not a great fan of yours Ross69, but your timeline comment is something that I have been banging on about all week.
    Well said 69.

    If only Shearer, Peters et al picked on the content they could expose the sepsis beneath. But the fools can’t see that.

    Neazor must be laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Paulus (2,544 comments) says:

    Big Yawn – Shearer is again making an arse of himself – like the Aussie commy – is he a legal immigrant like his camp followers ?
    Usual media beatup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    god NZ politics is hopeless. Why dont they worry about something real like the fact we’re heading to the botom of the OECD. I think our kids would thank us more for that than if some pen pusher forgot to dot his i.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Paulus and Kevin, what inane responses,it appears you have no better way of denouncing the arguments put forward here that this report is a piece of cover-up junk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Elaycee (4,322 comments) says:

    I see the usual suspects (students, leftards, fawning media, ‘know all’s’ and wannabe lawyers) have sidestepped the key point:

    It seems that the only information the Police asked of the GCSB was where he would be on a particular date and time, to minimise risks around his arrest.

    No evidence gathering. No wire taps. No conspiracy. Just a request to ascertain where four people were likely to be at a point in time, so arrest warrants could be executed simultaneously across several time zones.

    The inability on the part of the GCSB to check whether this convicted criminal had the correct permanent residence status or not, is certainly a cock up on their part. But it will have zero effect on the extradition process – Dotcom has charges to answer and the time for him to front up, is long overdue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    alex Masterley (1,050) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Apologies Ross,
    I miss-read your post.

    Viking2 obviously fits into the hang em high school of thought.

    Ah no. But I do fit the theory of truth and honesty. Admittedly not a prerequisite to be a lawyer and often beyond most lawyers understanding.
    This is not about Dotcom, this is about well paid people (suppossedly educated in the law), complying with the law.
    People who should know the Law, people who we as taxpayers entrust the unholding of that Law and the Soverign Rights of New Zealanders.
    That Law is there because we asked for it to be there and its there to protect individuals from the power, corruption and terror of the state.
    If you don’t understand that Alex then you should hand in your practising certificate and join the dole que.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    It is remarkable the people who think the Dotcom case is a non-issue. This case has been plagued by unlawful activity seemingly at every turn. From the unlawful warrants, to unlawful copying of data to the US, to unlawful surveillance. Some here seem happy to accept any number of “mistakes” made by our authorities and still believe in the pretense that we are a nation of laws.

    How many unlawful activities on the part of our authorities are ignored because those who are subject to such treatment lack the financial means of someone like Dotcom and are therefore unable to mount a proper defense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    Elaycee (2,807) Says:
    September 27th, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    I see the usual suspects (students, fawning media, ‘know all’s’ and wannabe lawyers) have sidestepped the key point:

    It seems that the only information the Police asked of the GCSB was where he would be on a particular date and time, to minimise risks around his arrest.

    Elaycee. Not thinking properly today. Unusual for you.

    They made an illegal request and used the old “telecom” trick of confusion to get their way. Confusion that the GCSB should have been clear about (mention highly paid people here).

    Given that Davidson and co have already made the point that a Senoir Policeman appears to have lied to the court doersn’t that make you just a little uneasy about this?

    Its not about the informaytion gained but about doing as the Law prescribes without tking the Law into thier own hands.
    We have seen this before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    That Corrin Dan on TV1 news isnt very capable.
    Tv3s new female political reporter got it so much better by saying that Neazor actually was investigating himself so the report is lacking independence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Michael (898 comments) says:

    Right, read the report. It says the GSCB acted illegally through error, that it needs to do better in checking what’s in its governing legislation before initiating any surveillance. That’s pretty damning, I would suspect there will be a new face heading up the GSCB before long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. MH (674 comments) says:

    the report is already in its 5th revised printing,copies already have been sent to the CIA,MI5,ASIO,Huawei and a courtesy copy to the Fijian PM. It has been titled “The Hanging Gendarmes of Babble-on” by Judge Nebbersay Neazor for $10..or you can get it for free to music of your choice on Kim Dotcomedy’s site Meddleloadium.

    Someone explain The gardens of Babylon erected by Nebuchadnezzar to elaysee,before he has to swig another rum and coke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Thanks elaycee good post. The simple matter of fact is that, although these usual subjects can willow in righteous indignation over,some theoretical technicalities in law, what has happened will not make a wit of difference to anyone’s lives.

    But the indignation is never present when government makes billions of dollars worth of cock ups and support policies causing serious dysfunction in society, massivly effect you and your children’s well being.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    How many unlawful activities on the part of our authorities are ignored because those who are subject to such treatment lack the financial means of someone like Dotcom and are therefore unable to mount a proper defense?

    many, many. Look at the finance companies to start with.

    This time we have someone with the cash to go head to head with the State without being behoven to the State.
    Now I see that as a good thing. He can therefore defend himself vigorously.
    No problem there.

    Probably pisses of the lawyers on the gravy chain though that someone can act commercially.
    Oh and has more money than them. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,814 comments) says:

    Just love the ways of the left.

    Shearer says he does not want to impugn the character of Justice Neazor and immediately proceeds to ………… impugn the character of Justice Neazor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Corin Dan, like Greg Boyd, is a dick. The both of them think they’re super important investigators and but don’t always know what they’re talking about. Boyd is worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The whole thing is just setting us up for an incompetent or sycophantic judge, trying to ingratiate themselves into a lefty or iwi trough, to deny extradition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Jeez that pussy key is going to drag it on and on – being interviewed again on close up – instead of saying its over and let’s move onto something serious like the bankrupting government spending and debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Well i can see why CloseUp is being shut down, no research there at all to find out further facts. Most interesting your last words were what Key said Kevin…nothing to see here….move along……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Good. Call an election national.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RF (1,324 comments) says:

    FFS I am becoming tired of sound bites from the man that chucks mango skins at the poor and the other one that wants his flag back from the Chinese whatever.

    Build a bridge and get over it.

    Some major stuff ups by those that should know better and few heads will possibly roll. So what.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    ha Kevin, i vote for that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Elaycee,

    – Dotcom has charges to answer and the time for him to front up, is long overdue.

    Except the US so far refuses to hand over the evidence to permit a fair hearing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    And our courts have a right to question the veracity of the grounds for extradition. Civl actions are not grounds for extradition and the use of the FBI and others to enforce civil actions is repugnant to any thinking person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    I do now really worry about the govts competence in negotiating with the US in these secret trade talks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    Neazor was always horribly conflicted. He had the role as Inspector-General of monitoring the GCSB’s activities. Key asking him to report on obviously illegal activities, which Neazor had miserably failed to monitor, would always result in Neazor covering his own arse above anything else.

    Key should have appointed another current or retired Judge to undertake the investigation, preferably someone like Justice Ted Thomas who had the courage to rat on a fellow Judge (Justice Bill Wilson) whom he considered had acted corruptly and with conflict of interest and who subsequently resigned in disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,794 comments) says:

    Someone at CYFS cocked up and a child died. Someone cocked up at GCSB and nobody died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. davidp (3,550 comments) says:

    Tomorrows news:

    An employee at a government agency goes home with a government purchased biro. A judge investigates and determines that altho this was technically theft, it was an accident because the employee had forgotten it was in his shirt pocket. Russell Norman bangs on about illegality and demands that the PM resigns. Winston Peters calls for a commission of inquiry. Toad says the judge was covering his arse since it was the judge’s job to track all office stationary. David Shearer says that he won’t question the judge’s integrity, but then questions the judges integrity. Lefties everywhere fake outrage that public servants should be fully aware of the law. Grant Robertson asks how John Key couldn’t have known about the theft because the public servant lives in Auckland, and so does John Key. Meanwhile, millions of voters wonder what the fuss is about and why our left wing politicians erupt in hysterics so often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. sparky (235 comments) says:

    I wish the authorities would get rid of this DOTCON, he is nothing more than a thief. He has a Criminal History, that is enough for me. I can’t understand why kiwi’s want to be so bloody stupid, closeting this creep. He has got his money stealing from others. Extradite him back to the US. He says he has nothing to worry about, so get rid of him. He is busy tweeting how bloody great he is to the gullible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. sparky (235 comments) says:

    None of all this theatrical nonsense will stop us voting for John Key. He is a far better man for the job despite everything that has gone on. The Labour/Greens have done nothing else but try to villify the PM, who leaves them for dead, and now their putting a creep like Dot CON on a pedastal. It is about time they realised what idiots they actually are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Someone cocked up at GCSB and nobody died

    Oh, I see. So the test is not whether anything illegal was committed, but whether someone died. Righto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    sparky (36) Says:
    September 28th, 2012 at 4:43 am

    I wish the authorities would get rid of this DOTCON, he is nothing more than a thief. He has a Criminal History, that is enough for me. I can’t understand why kiwi’s want to be so bloody stupid, closeting this creep. He has got his money stealing from others. Extradite him back to the US. He says he has nothing to worry about, so get rid of him. He is busy tweeting how bloody great he is to the gullible.

    Clearly you lack any intelligent ability to assess and assemble the facts. you would rather listen to the Jackboot.
    Best you go live with a warlord.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    Government agencies are increasingly trying to keep information secret, the office charged with ensuring fair access to public information says.

    “When the Government stonewalls information requests or tries to carve out special exemptions for itself, it’s throwing sand in the engine of our constitution

    A growing number of complaints were about agencies not responding in time to requests. All OIA requests must be responded to within 20 working days, even if it is to get an extension, Dame Beverley said.

    “Too often it’s just delay, delay, delay and no answer.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7740266/Agencies-stonewall-on-OIA-requests

    Not directly related to Dotcom but an clear indicator of the Attitude the exists within the administrative dept of NZ.

    The other word he might have used was inept. That may be preferable to the other, more sinister, explanation – that the GCSB spied on Dotcom knowing it was unlawful but, because it is so heavily protected by secrecy, believed it would never be caught. It was only rumbled because a policeman tripped over his words in court.

    Shades of Edgar Hoover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    The Neazor report is long on detail about the potential for confusion over the wording of a law change in 2009, but does not explain how some of the supposedly brightest minds in the country preferred to rely on police assurances they were operating within the law, rather than check themselves.

    Nor does it explain a review carried out by the GCSB in February into the Dotcom case after which we are led to believe – despite a wealth of media reports about Dotcom’s residence status – the bureau apparently still did not twig that it had blundered.

    It was left to Key to underscore the seriousness of the blunder by apologising not just to Dotcom, but New Zealand.

    It also doesn’t excuse the way in which English was led to sign the secrecy document nor does it excuse English from failing to be more vigourous on behalf of a NZ citizen and taxpayers generally.

    But if the rollout of humiliating apologies was designed to draw a line under the affair, it is probably too late to avoid the Government and Key, as the minister with oversight of the GCSB, being caught up in the backwash of the general air of ineptitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    Does anyone else think that the head of the GCSB should actually front the press in the Beehive and make the apology. Key has fronted and that’s good but in my opinion its like a mother fronting for a naughty child.
    The child hides behind mothers skirts while Mum copes the crap.

    I beleive Key is genuine about the apology but key didn’t committ the offense.

    A common criminal would be attending a family group conference so why should the highly paid boss og the GCSB be allowed to hide behind Keys shirt tails?

    He can shrug his shoulders and remain unaccountable to the public.

    Lets have him in front of the Press. Set an example for the accountability required of our public officials in front of the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    The role of the Inspector-General: http://www.gcsb.govt.nz/about-us/oversight.html

    Well surprise, surprise – he was discharging his statutory responsibility. No conflict at all for Labour or the Greens to be concerned about. But then I’m sure none of us doubted that they knew that anyway.

    The principal role of the I-G is to assist the Minister in the oversight and review of New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies, and in particular:

    to assist the Minister in ensuring that the activities of those agencies comply with the law;
    to inquire into any complaint by-
    a New Zealand person; or
    an employee or former employee of the Agencies,
    that that person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy or procedure of the Agencies;
    to inquire into any matter where it appears that a New Zealand person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy or procedure of the Agencies; and
    to inquire into the propriety of particular activities of the Agencies.

    The I-G may inquire into any matter, no matter how operationally sensitive (including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information) to the extent strictly necessary for the performance of his or her functions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    bhudson, you have interpreted the situation wrong. The I.G is meant to be doing that constantly, ie he is meant to be looking into the GCSB actions the whole time. So he has now done a report into what he has stuffed up ie why he had not being looking into the GCSB correctly so that these illegal things occurred. Surprise surprise he has not added how he allowed this to happen under his watch, not many people will openly incriminate themselves.
    That is the clear as daylight conflict
    Do you understand the conflict now? like everyone else who knows you cant investigate yourself independently unless you are a computer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    If Neazor was a man with any dignity he would say he cant do the inquiry independently but he hasnt and surprise surprise he wont do media interviews which would ask him this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Martinh,

    Clearly Neazor doesn’t understand what it means to have a conflict of interest.

    It was stated yesterday that the Director of the GCSB has met with John Key 15 times this year. So 15 meetings and not once did the Director disclose that his department had acted illegally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Last year John Key was singing the praises of Ian Fletcher, head of the GCSB. It’s a shame he is in the job for 5 years. “Mr Fletcher is a skilled leader who will make a valuable contribution to the bureau and wider New Zealand intelligence community,” said Mr Key.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=37020

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Ross69

    Humour me for a moment. Where is the conflict facing Neazor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Martinh,

    Your assumption is incorrect. If you read again the role of the I-G, you will see that it is

    “to inquire into any complaint by-
    a New Zealand person; or
    an employee or former employee of the Agencies,
    that that person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy or procedure of the Agencies;
    to inquire into any matter where it appears that a New Zealand person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy or procedure of the Agencies;”

    It is not for the I-G to scrutinise every activity of the agency as it occurs, but to inquire into activities where issues have been alleged.

    There is no conflict in this instance; the I-G was fulfilling his statutory responsibilities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Apropos my query to Ross and bhudson’s comment.
    The Inspector-General is not part of the Security Intelligence Service. The Office of Inspector-General is established by an entirely independent Act of Parliament. The function as described as under
    “Functions of Inspector-General
    (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, the functions of the Inspector-General shall be—
    (a)To inquire, of the Inspector-General’s own motion or at the request of the Minister, into any matter that relates to the compliance by an intelligence and security agency with the law of New Zealand:
    (b)To inquire into any complaint by—
    (i)A New Zealand person; or
    (ii)A person who is an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency,—
    that that person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency:
    (c)To inquire at the request of the Minister or of the Inspector-General’s own motion, but subject to the concurrence of the Minister, into—
    (i)Any matter where it appears that a New Zealand person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency:
    (ii)The propriety of particular activities of an intelligence and security agency:
    (d)Without limiting the generality of paragraph (a) of this subsection, to review from time to time the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures adopted by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to ensure compliance with the provisions of sections 4A [to 4G] of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 in relation to the issue and execution of [intelligence warrants]:
    [(da)without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures adopted by the Government Communications Security Bureau to ensure compliance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 in relation to the issue and execution of interception warrants and computer access authorisations:]
    (e)To prepare and submit to the Minister from time to time for his or her approval programmes for the general oversight and review of each intelligence and security agency and for the discharge by the Inspector-General, in relation to each intelligence and security agency, of the particular functions specified in this section:
    (f)To carry out any programme or amended programme or substituted programme approved by the Minister under paragraph (e) of this subsection.
    (2)The Inspector-General shall not, of his or her own motion or in response to a complaint made to the Inspector-General, perform any of the functions set out in subsection (1) of this section in relation to any activity of an intelligence and security agency except to the extent that—
    (a)A New Zealand person or an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency has or may have been adversely affected; or
    (b)The law of New Zealand may have been contravened.
    (3)In carrying out any inquiry in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this section, it shall not be a function of the Inspector-General to inquire into any action taken by the Minister.
    (4)Except to the extent strictly necessary for the performance of his or her functions under subsection (1) of this section, the Inspector-General shall not inquire into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information.
    (5)The Inspector-General shall not conduct an inquiry into a complaint made under subsection (1) of this section by an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency unless—
    (a)All established internal remedies have been exhausted; or
    (b)The employee or former employee and the chief executive of the relevant intelligence and security agency otherwise agree in writing.
    (6)Where an inquiry has been conducted by the Inspector-General following a complaint, the Inspector-General may make such recommendations for the redress of that complaint as the Inspector-General thinks fit (including remedies that involve the payment of compensation).”
    The Inspector-General has no operational or supervisory role. He is not investigating himself.
    I cannot understand Ross69 logic when he refers to the fact that the Director met with the Prime Minister 15 times. So what? The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Inspector General are two different people, appointed under the different legislation, with different job descriptions and are different qualifications.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    bhudson,

    Section 11(1)(da) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 states a function of the Inspector-General as following:

    …without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures adopted by the Government Communications Security Bureau to ensure compliance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 in relation to the issue and execution of interception warrants and computer access authorisations:”

    Part 3 includes the provision protecting residents from interception.

    paragraph (a) states:

    …to inquire, of the Inspector-General’s own motion or at the request of the Minister, into any matter that relates to the compliance by an intelligence and security agency with the law of New Zealand…

    So it would seem that the IG does in fact have a general responsibility for ensuring compliance with the law and not merely in response to complaints. His responsibility is to inquire of his own motion, or that of the Minister, and not merely when a public scandal has emerged.

    In this context surely a more independent inquiry is prudent. Regardless of the IG’s integrity surely the mere appearance of bias should be avoided and when this scandal specifically relates to the procedures in place to ensure compliance with Part 3 of the GCSB Act then there is the appearance that the IG may have failed to provide proper oversight. Indeed one of the questions that arise from his report is how such a stupid mistake could have occurred. This seems to be unanswered by the report and one is naturally left wondering why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nookin,

    The Inspector-General has no operational or supervisory role

    This is the sticking point which I’m not sure on. From reading the Act, and without much knowledge about the role of the IG, it is unclear to me whether he reviews procedures “from time to time” or whether his purpose is entirely independent and that he comes into play after the fact. The words “from time to time” suggest he has a role in ensuring compliance with the law that would normally be independent for the purposes of the Minister but not be entirely independent where an error results from inadequate procedures, which may or may not have been reviewed by the IG.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    The excerpts still all relate to an ‘after the fact’ event. That is, irrespective of who initiates the inquiry, the inquiry can only happen after the event. You simply cannot inquire into something that hasn’t happened.

    Similarly to “review the effectiveness..of the procedures” is also to review something already in place and being acted upon. It is not to scrutinise operational events as they take place. That is more appropriately the role of the Director and his reports.

    The I-G’s “own motion” does not place a burden upon the I-G to call his own inquiries; it merely grant’s him the right to do so at his own volition.

    The I-G has acted completely in line with his statutory responsibilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Weihana

    I guess the closest analogy is where the demarcation line is between governance and management. You would not expect the I-G to be involved in or consulted over a decision to look at Dotcom. You would expect him to be aware of procedures to be followeded to identify people who do have or do not have residency. Those procedures have not been revealed. Whatever they are, they were not foolproof. As a result, we can reasonably expect Neazor to ask for, receive and review more robust procedures.

    I agree with bhudsons comments.

    The condemnations are clearly rife and most of them are overly inflated (Labour and Greens). It would be much more helpful to see what the prescribed procedures were, what procedures were adopted and why no-one picked that Dotcom’s status changed to permanent as a result of the transitional provisions of the 2009 Act. Get that info and, if it warrants it, start yelling then. In the meantime I suppose we will have to put up with a lot of ignorant comment while Dotcom milks the publicity for all it’s worth.

    I would have thought that the government and opposition would have other priorities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    You appear to be conflating the roles of the Director and the I-G.

    The I-G reviews the effectiveness and appropriateness of procedures, but he does not own them. That is the Director.

    What is more, it is not the I-G’s role to detail the procedures, but to determine and advise how they may be ineffective or inappropriate. The Director is then responsible for the detail of the change to bring it into compliance.

    The I-G cannot have a conflict because he doesn’t actually create the procedure he reviews – i.e. he is not reviewing his own work. At most he is reviewing the Director’s implementation of his advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Where is the conflict facing Neazor?

    You seriously have to ask? Try doing your own research but Gordon Campbell has already addressed this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’m feeling generous:

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/09/27/gordon-campbell-on-the-flawed-inquiry-into-the-dotcom-security-breaches/

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1209/S00173/gordon-campbell-on-the-failures-of-the-neazor-report.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > one of the questions that arise from his report is how such a stupid mistake could have occurred

    And why the mistake wasn’t picked in when GCSB conducted a review in February 2012. Why didn’t Neazor pick up the mistake, or does he only pick up mistakes once they’ve been admitted in Court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    ross69,

    Gordon Campbell misunderstands and misrepresents what the oversight actually is.

    For instance, in reviewing warrants the I-G would not be expected to establish the validity of each fact. He would not be expected to review that the status of Dotcom as a non-qualifying NZ resident is accurate; a review of procedure would be “did you establish that the subject is classified as a foreign national?” Procedurally they did. They just happened to make an error of fact in doing so.

    Anyone who thinks that procedural review (as opposed to an inquiry) would pick up that sort of mistake is wishing it to be something other than it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Thank you for your generosity Ross. I would prefer to read the legislation (which I have done) and repeat — where is the conflict? Spell it out.

    What Mr Cambell has done is place his own gloss on an executive summary of the role of the I-G. What he say and what the Act says are different.

    The idiot thing about your interpretation is that the I-G could never review a complaint because, if what you say is correct, the complaint would never have arisen if he had done his job in the first place and therefore he is always investigating his own failings. That is nonsense and you know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Nookin and BHudson if you look at the legislation part 11 1a says IG can inquire at his own motion that the GCSB is complying with the law. This has being a massive case over the news for months, are you trying to tell me that on his regular meetings with the GCSB he did not have the DotCom case mentioned once. Obviously you and i dont know that as he has not mentioned any of his involvement in the report.
    The legislation says he can look into the GCSB when a NZ law may have being broken, he didnt to do that until asked to do that by the Govt a week or so ago, that could be neglect of duty isnt it? Shouldnt he of being looking into it by himself earlier, he has the powers to do that. This came out in the high court over a month ago whats he being doing in the meantime? Surely he should of at least disclosed in the report when he became aware of this issue.
    There is where evidence of the conflict is affecting the impression of the reports quality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > the I-G could never review a complaint

    But this wasn’t a complaint…this was illegal behaviour by GCSB. It’s curious that you don’t seem to understand the difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    I had a quick look at Gordon Campbells thing on Scoop, i think he doesnt understand the difference between the terms of use or whatever thing he got off the SIS website and the actual legislation for the GCSB IG

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    martinh,

    That the I-G can initiate an inquiry at his own motion, does not create an obligation to do so. There would have been no reason to instigate such an inquiry before the issue became known.

    I think you are ‘looking for zebras’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > in reviewing warrants the I-G would not be expected to establish the validity of each fact.

    He doesn’t need to establish the validity of each fact…he simply needs to understand what the GCSB did. Did the GCSB ask the SIS and Immigration for info about Dotcom’s residency status, a fairly basic question? GCSB works closely with both the SIS and Immigration, so that should have taken place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    ross69,

    I suggested what the procedural check would have amounted to. If the file stated “immigration status confirmed/validated” a general review would be unlikely to have picked it (that specific error) up.

    You are still seeking for a general review to pick up lower level details. That is something that is far more likely to occur with an inquiry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    “But this wasn’t a complaint…this was illegal behaviour by GCSB. It’s curious that you don’t seem to understand the difference.”

    OK then, be obtuse. I will put it this way, then

    “The I-G could never review illegal behaiviour because if he had done his job it would not have happened.” It is still nonsense.

    The Director is the one to look at — not the I-G. I think you can understand that. You are just too prejudiced and bloody-minded to try.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Of course an even better test, for ross69 and martinh, in this particular case would be:

    If Neazor had reported that it was an exceedingly egregious travesty and it was all John Key’s fault, would you still claim he had a conflict of error and therefore we shouldn’t accept his report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Hudson you still arent considering that its important to know when the GCSB were aware they had done this as at that point the IG should of/would of being involved. They were aware at least over a month ago that we know of but perhaps much longer- The date they became aware of it is not included in Neazors report at all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    To answer your question Bhudson Yes i surely would, dont go political on me here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    martinh,

    I refer to my previous last sentence to you… looking for zebras

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    bhudson, your staunch and steely defense of your brave leader Key will not go unnoticed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    martinh,

    To answer your question Bhudson Yes i surely would

    Then, to refer to Nookin’s comments, you are claiming that the I-G can never fulfill his statutory obligations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    bhudson
    If Neazor had blamed Paula Bennett then Ross69 would be demanding a knighthood for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It is worth noting that Dotcom paid $4 million for a lifestyle property BEFORE his mansion was raided. So we have to believe that all those involved with the decision to spy on him knew nothing of this purchase, even though it was well publicised?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6324781/Kim-Dotcom-bought-4m-property-in-December

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Hudson you will have to explain to me slowly the zebra comment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Hudson read my reply to you and Nookin again about his obligations-
    Nookin and BHudson if you look at the legislation part 11 1a says IG can inquire at his own motion that the GCSB is complying with the law. This has being a massive case over the news for months, are you trying to tell me that on his regular meetings with the GCSB he did not have the DotCom case mentioned once. Obviously you and i dont know that as he has not mentioned any of his involvement in the report.
    The legislation says he can look into the GCSB when a NZ law may have being broken, he didnt to do that until asked to do that by the Govt a week or so ago, that could be neglect of myduty isnt it? Shouldnt he of being looking into it by himself earlier, he has the powers to do that. This came out in the high court over a month ago whats he being doing in the meantime? Surely he should of at least disclosed in the report when he became aware of this issue.
    There is where evidence of the conflict is affecting the impression of the reports quality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Manolo,

    Actually, if anyone, I am defending Neazor and the office of the I-G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Good on you Bhudson, stand up for who you want and hopefully you wont have an illegal wiretap put on you too, i dont wish that on anyone

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “If Neazor had reported that it was an exceedingly egregious travesty and it was all John Key’s fault, would you still claim he had a conflict of error and therefore we shouldn’t accept his report?”

    It couldn’t be all Key’s fault – he was in the US watching baseball at the time the certificate was signed. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    martinh,

    Looking for zebras refers to looking for something unusual instead of the more likely. It comes from the aphorism “”Don’t go looking for zebras, just cause you hear hoofbeats…It’s probably just a horse.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Thanks i like that Hudson, im going to use it at the Club

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Ross69
    What is the significance of that purchase? It means nothing in the context of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    martinh,

    They would die of boredom if they tried that. More fools them.

    Somewhat more difficult for them to find some presumptive basis that I am not an NZ citizen too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    I blame Double Dipton English for signing the certificate.
    Just ask Don Brash about the Deputy PM’s “loyalty”. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. RJL (145 comments) says:

    @bludson
    “There would have been no reason to instigate such an inquiry before the issue became known.”

    The point is that it is the I-G’s job to identify such issues that need an inquiry. This “issue became known” via the court case — so part of a proper inquiry should be why the I-G either did not identify himself that there was an issue, or why (if he did in fact identify there was an issue) he suppressed information about the issue.

    The I-G is perfectly competent to inquire as to the technical details of what occurred — which is what he has done. However, he is deeply conflicted in the deeper issue of how the issue remained undiscovered and uncorrected (or, alternatively, discovered and covered up).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security visited the Bureau during the reporting period to
    conduct routine inspections of GCSB warrants and authorisations.”

    http://www.gcsb.govt.nz/newsroom/annual-reports/ar-2010.pdf

    Kind of weird that Neazor didn’t disclose this in his report into the Dotcom illegal spying fiasco.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    ‘…to inquire, of the Inspector-General’s own motion or at the request of the Minister, into any matter that relates to the compliance by an intelligence and security agency with the law of New Zealand…’

    Surely that means that the IG can respond to a complaint other than a request from the Minister.

    But the point still seems to be, how the hell could Key know, if GCSB have known since February that Dotcom was a resident, when the Department itself didn’t immediately report the fact to him. Raising the question of what the Minister’s control over the department actually is. The control in that scenario looks completely ‘hands off’ because GCSB remained in a huddle with police and the Crown, but didn’t report to their own Minister or the Courts for a further 6 months. They operated illegally, so they were operating in a rogue state, an opinion which is confirmed by their not having reported to the Minister when the ‘mistake’ became evident. Meanwhile we have Bill English signing documents in JK’s absence but not reporting that to him???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > What is the significance of that purchase?

    Did you bother reading the article I linked to? Dotcom had residency at the time his mansion was raided and this was public knowledge and has been for a while. If I knew anything about Dotcom being spied on, I would have been inclined to tell the powers that be what I knew. But despite all the publicity about Dotcom and the purchase of this property – and his associated residency – the illegal spying remained a secret! Indeed, it would still be a secret had it not been disclosed in Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    If bhudson is right, then indeed the IG should be defended. A respectable person shouldn’t be smeared for mere political gain although given the numerous unlawful activities of our authorities in pursuing the case against Dotcom it does seem to me that some broader questions need to be answered.

    In any case, one point seems to need clearing up:

    bhudson (2,414) Says:
    September 28th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    …He would not be expected to review that the status of Dotcom as a non-qualifying NZ resident is accurate…

    There is no such thing as a “non-qualifying NZ resident” in terms of the GSCB Act and the prohibition on interception of NZ residents. There are two types of “residence class visas”, permanent (which are the equivalent of the former Indefinite returning residents visa) and resident visa (which expires if you leave New Zealand for too long). Both are considered “residence class” and both are considered “permanent residents” for the GCSB Act. This was true both before and after the revamp of the Immigration Act. The bottom line is NOTHING CHANGED, and residents have always been protected from interception.

    There simply is no excuse for confusion to exist at the GCSB and there is no justification for them to suddenly believe they had been given the power to intercept communications with regards to some residents. Such a law change would have been news and they fucking well know it.

    Problem is, who can prove anything? It’s not like the agents write a report stating that “Yes we observe he’s a resident but are going to ignore it”. To them it’s a small technicality, probably won’t be picked up, hey who gives a shit as long as they satisfy themselves that the cause is just, to hell with the law. Only when it starts unraveling do they suddenly “discover” their mistake.

    Look at the comments on blogs and news sites. Inevitably you’ll get the usual idiots proclaiming that it doesn’t matter if the authorities break the law. If you’ve got nothing to hide then what are you worried about illegal spying for? They’re only out to protect us so no worry. If this mindset is present in such numbers in the general public then you know that it exists within our government departments as well. As long as they believe they are on the “right” side then the law is a mere technicality to be discarded for the greater good.

    The bottom line is the director of the GCSB needs to be dismissed immediately. When these people know that they will be accountable for the fuckups and deceit of their staff then they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that they are not on the chopping board when the shit hits the fan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Ross69

    The pope could have bought that property. It would not have proved residency. It would have proved nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. RJL (145 comments) says:

    @Weihana
    “Problem is, who can prove anything? It’s not like the agents write a report stating that “Yes we observe he’s a resident but are going to ignore it”. To them it’s a small technicality…”

    And that is part of the I-G’s normal role: to monitor and review the procedures and processes that GCSB are using to ensure that they comply with relevant legislation. Clearly, he has failed in such monitoring and reviews to identify this particular problem. Of course, there are all sorts of explanations for why that might be, for example:
    a) the I-G might not routinely look very hard,
    b) the GCSB might routinely hide information about what they are doing from the I-G,
    c) the I-G *did* discover that there was a problem and was complicit in actions to cover it up — after all that was the point the Ministerial Warrant that Bill English signed. That warrant was/is designed to prevent details being revealed of what the GCSB had been up to.

    To determine whether the truth is a), b), c) or something else is why a further inquiry is needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    The report makes clear that the Police and the GCSB were aware that Dotcom was the holder of a residence class visa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > The pope could have bought that property. It would not have proved residency. It would have proved nothing

    As usual, you deliberately miss the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > There simply is no excuse for confusion to exist at the GCSB

    Especially not when they employ legal advisors to look at the relevant legislation and also liaise closely with Immigration and the SIS over residency matters. GCSB would have known they weren’t permitted to spy on Dotcom – it seems they just didn’t care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    Ross69
    You don’t have a point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    A police complaint has been laid over the illegal spying. No doubt Nookin can’t understand Russel Norman’s point that GCSB failed to inform Neazor that the illegal spying took place….despite the fact that Dotcom has been a permanent resident since November 2010.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7741763/Greens-lay-police-complaint-over-Dotcom-spying

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    You are twisting the playing field Ross. You and I were debating the conflict of interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    We’ve debated a few things. As far as conflicts are concerned, Neazor conducts “routine inspections of GCSB warrants and authorisations”. Did he review any Dotcom warrant/authorisation? His report makes no mention of his role.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nookin (3,152 comments) says:

    His report is a review. He found that it was illegal. If a crime has been committed then appropriate repercussions will follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    It will be an interesting investigation, the police will need to go into the GCSB to ensure they get all the material wont they? What if they take computers with international secrets on it ? Will the GCSB let them in? I dont think the dotcom helicopter approach will work on that building
    The police could say its a vexatious complaint and decide not to investigate but then Dotcom could give a statement saying it is not vexatious at all
    I think the GCSB may come up with another way out of this but id be thinking Ian Fletcher will be the fall guy and Neazor will take early retirement and a payout. But who knows how long its being going on there, possibly prior to Fletchers rein

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    I just saw the advert for Q and A tomorrow. Jeffery Palmer is saying that there shouldnt be an inquiry into the GCSB as it will reveal the workings of the GCSB to the whole world. I dont know how finding out who knew what and when is revealing inner workings at all. Man his nose looked red

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. MH (674 comments) says:

    In summary after 150 0dd erstwhile comments ,some well thought out discussions,his (dotties) status as a resident NZer,his rights,the rights of Govt surveillance,the legitimacy of the warrants,comparison with surveillance on the Tuhoi manoeuvres and machinations,principles, ethics, freedoms,the influence of the US in a sovereign states affairs,the efficacy of his business and last,the effect on his extradition and the information gathered extra judicially,but I prefer the method of my father. This bloke Dotcom has a silly name,he’s overweight,and he’s a kraut. Therefore by applying the Duckworth Lewis formula combine that with his body mass index then he should be run out, of the country by the master of spin disembowelling,PM Key, even if the PM is still playing I spy with my little Eye and Neazor up Mother Braun with Deputy Double dipton English.
    And in a country where we have given Huawei access to all our spying capabilities. Bah and humbug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Unfortunately i have to agree with Palmer despite the fact that he is one of the deepest trough feeders in NZ history and our children and grandchildren will suffer for decades from the primitive and paranoid legislation that has come out of that pig stye he has presided over for far,far too long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    yeah i hear a lot about him (and mei chen) especially claiming on every single cent they can when they do government work. A labourite reminding me of animal farm again?-no chance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    The thing i am concentrating on is why did Neazor not have an inquiry started when Ian Fletcher knew all that time ago that there was a potential breach of NZ law.
    Neazor guilty of cover up?
    Ian Fletcher guilty of cover up?
    Or both?

    I cant see how its not one of the above, maybe Jeffery Palmer can explain why we shouldnt be allowed to know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    Sir Geoff’s comment surprises me, there would be no need for any inquiry to reveal to the public sensitive operational procedures or identities. For the same reason I’m unsure how police can action the Green’s complaint both from the security point of view and also because of their apparent involvement in the request for GSCB’s help. JK is taking the line that it was a ‘problem’ in the lower ranks. I thought the administration was always responsible for what happened below them – especially in the area of National interest. The whole thing is drifting with poor leadership in abundance. One thing I would have expected to have been learnt by now – the Dotcom saga continues with new twists just when it is considered to have finally been put to bed.

    Why not a pragmatic solution with Crown Law admitting they’ve compromised the case and therefore the extradition. Thereby handing the ball back to the Americans. I think we have enough problems now, many of which have been exposed by this operation. Palmer is probably on the mark when he says that NZ should be expecting a massive legal suit – so now might be the time for pragmatism rather than further entrenchment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. niggly (812 comments) says:

    Gawd this issue is so fucking boring, let’s see we have a businessman (dot com) who has a past history of hacking, fraud, has changed names many times, set up different companies over the years (sometimes to escape his dubious past incarnations), is a fantasist, managed to piss off his neighbours prior to his arrest with his arrogance and dangerous driving and for some reason likes guns.

    Then we have a herd of squarking Labour and Green politicians as well as civil liberty types, who just can’t shut up for days and for “some reason” are getting in behind a businessman. Who would have thought?

    Then we have Wussel Norman laying a complaint with the police and using John Key’s complaint to Police over the teapot tapes recording as a justification (note to Wussel, John Key is the PM, he is entitled to some privacy, dot com is a bit of a dodgy businessman, I can’t imagine Wussel defending other dodgy businessmen). What an odd thing to do.

    So we have a businessman with a very dodgy past and the Police acted after information was supplied from US authorities (granted I don’t like the way that Hollywood has picked on Megaupload when other file sharing and cloud computing sites are just as liable for dodgy user file sharing) and people get all upset because the “big bad” Americans and spies are in the background.

    And that is exactly what the big fuss from the Greens, Nicky Hager et al, is about. They don’t really give a shit about Kim Dot Com as such, they are using him to attack the credibility of the spy services and put doubt in the public minds about “cosing up to the Americans”. It’s just another form of their attack on the Western system, that for the most protects us.

    Frankly I don’t care if the spy services were spying on Dot Com (simply to find out where he will be at a certain point of time), the point is if citizens don’t break the law then they have nothing to fear and this is not a Police state despite The Greens and others trying to conflate spying on Dot com as being an attack on democracy. Geoffery Palmer has it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    This comment by Sir Jeffery on the matter just shows how important it is that we need an inquiry and Jeffery needs to explain what hemeans by his statement:

    “Incompetence is MORE USUALLY the explanation than anything insidious, but this was certainly incompetent by any standard.”

    Sir Jeffery Palmer 28/09/2012

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    Pity you didn’t read the thread niggly. Many commentators are not defending Dotcom, on the other hand there are a number like you that seek to justify law breaking – the very area of much concern across the board.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Exactly niggly but since you’re not senile you said it better than geoff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. MH (674 comments) says:

    to top it off how about The US send a naval ship to pick Dot com up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. niggly (812 comments) says:

    Jesus NNZ the law is an ass at times, the law isn’t perfect (after all look at how laws are drafted) so in this case I don’t have an issue. I mean really, whatever laws the Police break, a judge or jury or appeal court is bound to throw the case out. We’ve had many examples. So we don’t live in a Police State, do we now.

    By the way, ever driven over 50km/h in 50km/h zones throughout your life? If you have and you’ve never turned yourself in then you are justifying breaking the law.

    Again Geoff Palmer can see where the Greenies are trying to take this all to ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yeah then NZ will see them Yankee imperialists for what they really are. Now you see the violence inherent in the system when they send a nuke down here to deal to kdc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    I thought it was going to be US Marshal Tommy Lee Jones

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    Niggly.

    ‘I mean really, whatever laws the Police break, a judge or jury or appeal court is bound to throw the case out.’

    Sure, throw the case out and throw out the dim-twats so that that we have accountability and people know and understand that.

    The Americans already have a stake in the ground, it is of no moment to them that the case drags on here, it’s an effective side-lining by well thought out incompetence they could not have possibly known they could have relied upon. That’s not a good look for the public or the country.

    In the meantime Key gets blind sided from all directions as Russell Norman makes the lucid arguments Key can’t answer. Norman should be loving this because he can justifiably tune in to public concern. He looks slick and Key looks sick while the Americans yawn at length.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. niggly (812 comments) says:

    Sure, throw the case out and throw out the dim-twats so that that we have accountability and people know and understand that.

    Actually that was a bit of (real life) irony & humour mixed together, but you are serious in your reply, which I suppose highlights how much the social justice agenda or ideals being advocated by the lobby groups and enshrined by sympathetic politicians, try to outflank the “old guard” by implementing creeping changes to the law, under various guises etc. You seem to be relishing abit of social justice utu all going well?

    The Americans already have a stake in the ground, it is of no moment to them that the case drags on here, it’s an effective side-lining by well thought out incompetence they could not have possibly known they could have relied upon. That’s not a good look for the public or the country.

    They do, these so called “Americans”? Be specific, don’t you mean “Hollywood”, whom’s case I would have expected to have become unstuck and so in their own incompetence (because related to this “law” angle you advocate as the “truth”, the law around these digital revolution’s are yet to catch up or should I say be shaped depending on which lobby cause wins the ear of the politicans).

    It’s media (and activist) spin that the big bad “American” Govt is plotting all this. The so called “American” govt have thousands of more important issues to deal with than kdc. But it suits the activist narrative and the media are too shallow and love controversy, check out Radio NZ’s obsession – all week previous day’s event’s lead Morning Report news and items the very next day, check out the main MSM papers and their reporters getting ahead of themselves by spinning their views into the story, instead of reporting the story.

    In the meantime Key gets blind sided from all directions as Russell Norman makes the lucid arguments Key can’t answer. Norman should be loving this because he can justifiably tune in to public concern. He looks slick and Key looks sick while the Americans yawn at length.

    LOL, are you serious? Talk about comedy gold, you should write the Green Part press releases!

    As for Public Concern, I suspect people in the heartlands don’t give a damn, it’s a beltway/political/blogger/MSM issue. Remember Wussel has put his Watermelon hat back on, nothing more and nothing less, and it is people like him that are attempting to shape public concern, which again is irrelevant outside of the beltway/politics/blogosphere and MSM world, but it gives him great press, (it’s great that KDC can be manipulated by Wussel – wonder if KDC will start to figure that out – like I say Wussel doesn’t give a stuff about a German businesman it’s more the chance to take on the authorities and get one over John Key).

    Well I do believe in ethics, over slipperly laws, and frankly being lectured by the likes of Wussel and Trevor Mallard of all people, just takes the cake (hence my posts)! Anyway it’s Friday night, time for rock n roll so catch up tomorrow NNZ!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Key said it was just a mistake by one person but it is now being called apparently a stuff up by the legal department. It also shows that the GCSB knew back in February about it which means Neazor should of known then so should of conducted an enquiry back then. This has further shown how Neazor is implicit in the problem and why Key got him to investigate himself on his behalf.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7745445/Police-had-queried-if-spying-was-illegal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Nostalgia-NZ (4,989 comments) says:

    niggly

    I trust you didn’t go out rock and rolling with the white wash brush still in your hands.

    I’m unaffected by any of the lobby groups and don’t judge them anyway by any affiliations they might have. Just basic questions that haven’t been answered and an attempt to sell the ‘trust me’ we have it back in control in was a mistake. Or the equally popular dissection of Dotcom’s past or personality used to justify what seems to be the clear fact that the GCSB sat on their ‘mistake.’ There’s a golden rule in the military at least, and in most commercial situations, ‘own’ or report your ‘mistakes’ of blunders or else we have, as it seems in this case, an agency operating outside the Law and with no apparent concern, or worse a deliberate, accepted function of claiming the right to act outside the Law and outside the control of its Minister.

    As martinh has posted immediately above the depth of the ‘admissions’ are now undermined. Niggly I don’t suppose you accepted that it was 1 or 2 operatives that made a error unknown to their administrators – but it sure looks like you did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Viking2 (11,220 comments) says:

    Palmer. Hmm well of course the Labour hacks want it finished. Too many skeletons in the cupboard.
    do airports and strange men and ex proime Ministers and ex cabinet Ministers ring any bells.

    A decent opening of the books aka Labour style might well be so enlightening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.