Key on Campbell Live on GCSB

August 15th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Campbell Live have been running a week long jihad against the Bill. I’m actually fine with that. Media are allowed to take stands on issues, and I prefer media to be upfront about their leanings, than pretend they are neutral when they are not. It is no secret that ’s politics, and the show, lean far to the left of Labour.

As I said that’s fine, just as NBR leans to the right.

But considering Campbell Live is clearly crusading against the bill, it is was quite remarkable that the PM agreed to go on the show. But he did so last night, you can watch the video at this link.

I thought the PM did an excellent job of calmly explaining the bill, to fairly frenzied questions or statements from John Campbell. The PM is much better when he is the “explainer-in-chief” than when he is swiping at people who disagree on the bill.

As for John, I leave the commentary to his biggest fan:

Again, I recommend people take the time to watch the video. Here’s Wallace Chapman on it:

I agree with Wallace that the PM was superb. Cool, calm, collected, factual and reassuring.

If I was in the Labour Party, I’d be getting quite worried about next year’s election debates.

Tags: , ,

169 Responses to “Key on Campbell Live on GCSB”

  1. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    If I was in the Labour Party, I’d be getting quite worried about next year’s election debates.

    Many Labour members were already worried about a debate mismatch. And they’re expressing even more concern now.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RichieB (3 comments) says:

    Campbell got absolutely spanked. Instead of Campbell keeping Key on topic, the PM had to keep him on topic! If this is a sign of things to come I’m excited.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    A post like this always reminds me of New Zealand Cricket victories over Australia

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    When he was Opposition Finance spokesman, and then later Leader of the Opposition, Key gave an excellent account of himself against Michael Cullen, but the Left just scoffed. When he went head-to-head with Helen Clark in 2008, the Left was cock-a-hoop. “He’s a lightweight” they crowed. “He’ll be no match for Helen”. Remember the first debate between the two of them, where Helen Clark accused Key of shouting down his family? And then there was 2011, where John Key totally outclassed Phil Goff, including the immortal “Show me the money” moment in Christchurch. Yet still the Left scoffed.

    Last night they were bleating about all the PM’s media training. Did Helen Clark never have media training? We know she did; from Brian Edwards; Campbell’s biggest fan. And has John Campbell managed to stay in his role for all these years without a spot of media training? I doubt it.

    John Key was absolutely masterful last night. And any Labour MP watching that would have been quaking in his/her boots at the prospect of David Shearer coming up against the PM in the run-up to next year’s election.

    The Left’s biggest mistake and the one they keep repeating is to underestimate just how good John Key is in interviews and debates. Compare the two desks last night; Campbell had papers everywhere, but Key spoke completely without notes. In seventeen minutes he completely disarmed John Campbell, and completely undermined opposition to the GCSB Bill. It was a command performance from a PM on top of his game.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Could this be why the State let slip its claim to $22 million in tax in the receivership of TV3’s parent company?

    That is, come election time, the Goverment wanted to joust with that pushover of a Leftist, John Campbell, TV3’s Mr Gush, the Mazda man.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    As I said earlier today on GHD>>>>

    *** “I did not see the creep last evening, but I have now watched the full interview.

    You are both right and wrong – J Key did not hand his arse back on a plate.
    He gutted the snivelling twerp like a fish, and then fed his guts and the fillets down the garbage disposal unit.

    Good stuff …and long overdue…” ***

    I note Edwards compliment, and also that of Chapman. Even sour puss Young got it almost right. Her gratuitous nit pick (that Key did not feed Campbell to the fishes, so to speak), could not undo a devastating assessment of Campbell.

    As others have said, Shearer, Commissar red Melon, et al will noiw be wary. :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    I’m opposed to the GCSB bill and think that section 8A is much more than Key described yesterday, but that was an impressive performance from Key.

    I find his frequently petulant and condescending style infuriating (as with his initial dismissive answers to the questions on Monday) but that was not what we saw last night.

    Even disagreeing with Key’s policies on many things I would find him a much more tolerable leader if he was like that a lot more in the media and especially in the house. He behaved, for the most part, like a grown up.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Hopefully TV3 will proceed with the series in light of highly the successful nature of the pilot. There is no doubt that this put NZ’s track record of indifferent attempts at comedy (Jacquie Brown aside) into a deserved context. But they would need to move it to prime-time to give people a chance to tidy up after dinner and allow dinner to settle. I was fortunate to only see it on-line later, but if I’d seen it live I would have laughed dinner all over the couch.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 65 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    edit

    Is it time that OSH intervened in Campbell’s Thunderbirds puppet impression? This arm-flinging – it’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 62 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Actually ross69, he didn’t “fail” to answer any questions. He refused to answer questions regarding the tools employed and said so. That is not being evasive; it is being very up-front

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    DylanReeve – fair comment. When Key is good he can be very very good, no other New Zealand politician comes close. It’s a pity he has his petulant streak, he doesn’t need to do nasty, he ‘s far more effective when he’s well informed and forecful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Oh dear … I almost ended up feeling embarrassed on Campbell’s behalf. He really did end up coming out second best of an interview on his own turf that he was meant to be leading.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    You must have been watching a different channel. Otherwise you’re taking quality drugs

    Or didn’t have his Labour coloured glasses on.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Reminded me of the Jesse Ryder Vs Mark Watson boxing match.
    Watson was all talk then took a hell of thumping and looked bewildered while he was getting up bleeding.

    At least Watson had the good grace to apologise afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 46 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    I’m with Dylan on this. John Key is consistently a smug dick. But I’m a pretty calm dude, and if I had been in Key’s situation, I would have had serious trouble not telling John Campbell to shut the fuck up and let me answer his fucking questions. Bonus points for addressing issues in order, without notes, and answering simply “yes” to John Campbell’s, “Are you saying those guys are wrong?!”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    Interesting reactions. Those that don’t like John Key or National will see this as another example of the “lying/slimy/dead-fish-eye/” version of the Prime Minister. Others who are more sympathetic will see this as a commanding performance and further reason to vote National or prefer John Key as PM. 80% of the audience probably fall into either camp and thus have their world-view confirmed. But what about the uncommitted viewer, or at least those in the middle. In my view that would have seen the PM in control of the interview, and knowledgeable of the issues (no screeds of paper in front of him). They would have seen John Campbell looking flustered, angry, annoyed and somewhat lost. John Campbell made the classic mistake of making the story about him/TV3/CampbellLive. And of course the Labour Party would now have no doubt about what Shearer will be up against. They should be concerned at how any debates between him and John Key will look.

    In my view, biased not doubt (and not based on drugs as ross69 patronisingly said), John Key spanked John Campbell good and proper.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 46 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    TDM @12.27 That is funny :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Oh dear … I almost ended up feeling embarrassed on Campbell’s behalf

    Calm down graham; you’ll soon come right. It’s probably just the shock of seeing a decent show on TV3.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    Re-Ross 69 at various times!

    Give it away Ross, everyone else can see it even if you can’t!.

    Key’s masterly demolition of Yesterday’s Man on “Campbell Live” I mean.

    (Is it true that TV3 are going to change the name of the show to ‘Campbell Dead in the Water”?)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    This has more to do with tracking political dissent than it does keeping tabs on terrorists or criminals

    What evidence do you have of this claim?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Key was indeed superb. It was a master class in the art of the politician. I’m just not sure why anyone would think that’s a compliment.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    Some pretty radical misunderstandings of technology on John Key’s part, though.

    “If we read everyone’s text messages and listened to every phone call, it would take 130,000 people is the estimate they’ve given me.”

    That is a fucking weird thing to say, and a fucking weird thing to be told if he was told that. What’s he saying? “We’d love to, but it’s not possible”? Of course it’s possible. Voice-recognition and algorithmic analysis of phone calls and text messages would take a bunch of technology and a team of, say, 20 people to set up. Another 100 to listen/read in full to the conversations flagged by the algorithms.

    That’s still spying. And it’s far from impossible.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    Give it up rossie..
    You are as wrong and incoherent on this as you are on all other issues.

    ***

    TDM… yep agree with Colville. I missed it first up. Xcellent

    ***

    Yoza…
    As always, you live in a parallel universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Scott1 (549 comments) says:

    The GCSB bill is a tough thing to debate. Your audience cares about things that don’t matter in the bill and thinks things are in it that are not and thinks it will have no effect where it will.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    Yes, ross69, we get it. You don’t like John Key. Fair enough. I don’t like Russell Norman. But continually calling John Key a liar is just, well, childish. I understand that in the rough-and-tumble of blog comments many people say things they would never say to someone’s face, and think that the more personal and the more uglier the insult, the more intelligent and perceptive it makes them feel. But it doesn’t. It just makes them look foolish and childish. Let’s have a proper debate about the issues, which interestingly in the vast amount of comments from those that don’t like John Key, i.e. on The Standard, people very rarely do.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    When one of NZ’s most experienced interviewers and media operators (so experienced that he was hired for years by Helen Clark for her own media training) who also tilts reliably to the left and is no friend of John Key, tells John Campbell he got his clock cleaned, its hard to think of a put down more damning than what Edwards said about the Campbell Live interview.

    Key was unflappable, in command of the facts, was unafraid to put the little twerp in his place and explained what the GCSB Bill REALLY does as opposed to all the whipped up Edward Snowden style hysteria over surveillance. Campbell has made this issue his cause celebre and would consider himself formidably armed to debate the PM. He had every lefty talking point distilled from hours of GCSB bashing on his show cloaking his criticism with the views of partisans like Geoffrey Palmer and retired bureaucrats like Fergusson upset that the old ways of appointing old Army senior officers to the GCSB were upended by the Fletcher appointment. And yet after all that he was quietly hung, drawn and quartered by Key. The money quote was when he compared the 125 GCSB submissions to the 30,000 about the snapper quota – pretty much sums up the sentiment in middle NZ.

    Ross69
    You got the exact same evasiveness from Helen Clark when she was questioned about the operational methods of the GCSB and SIS. Where’s your outrage over her evasive and deceitful behavior? Oh that’s right, when a PM of the left does it, they are wisely protecting NZ’s security. When a PM from the right does it, it is evasion and deceit.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Some pretty radical misunderstandings of technology on John Key’s part, though.

    Not really Ryan. I think the point he was making was that unless you say somethng like, “I’m going to make a bomb and blow up parliament!” your communication won’t be viewed by a human.

    (just like to say ‘hi there’ to the spy monitoring this post)

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    ross69 said

    You must have been watching a different channel. Otherwise you’re taking quality drugs. :)

    No drugs needed Ross; when the likes of Morgan Godfery, Russell Brown, Wallace Chapman and Brian Edwards praise the PM and rubbish Campbell, it’s patently obvious that Key was all over him. As for the questions he supposedly evaded, do the concepts of national security and the national interest strike a chord with you?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Anyways, I suspect freedom groups and terrorists alike will be busy masking key words or phrases by flooding the internet with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Let’s have a proper debate about the issues

    John Key doesn’t want a debate. He’s had since June 27 to answer a number of important questions. How much longer does he need to come up with some honest answers?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Key wants to spy on an unemployed nation!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9043209/Jobs-cut-at-Huntly-East-Mine

    Ninety three jobs are to go from Huntly East mine.

    Workers were told of the losses this morning in a meeting with Solid Energy bosses.

    Speaking outside the meeting miner Bill Baker, 61, said workers had been told 93 jobs were to go due to the higher cost of mining at Huntly compared to open cast, with the low price of coal and issues with supplying Glenbrook steel mill also factors.

    Baker said workers had been told there would be no more production at the mine for the next four weeks with miners sent home on full pay until the next steps were decided. Only maintenance work would continue in the meantime.

    Baker said he and other workers were surprised by the number of jobs lost.

    “We didn’t expect that much,” he said.

    While he would assess his options he felt sorry for workers with young families and strong ties in the area.

    Solid Energy has been undergoing cutbacks and restructuring since it was revealed $389 million of debt was racked up by the state-owned enterprise’s previous board and management.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Andrea Vance and Bradley Armbrose weren’t involved with bomb-making as far as I’m aware.

    Was Kim Dotcom involved in bomb-making?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    Campbell looked like the amateur Key looked like the professional.

    Campbell was beside himself most of the time with the PM batting away his inane ill informed questions and trying to brow beat and talk over the PM.

    Don’t watch Campbell only watched the link in DPFs post.

    Confirmed to me why I don’t watch Campbell although he did provide a clown show last night with him as Chuckles.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mavxp (483 comments) says:

    I missed the interview, so thanks to DPF for highlighting it.

    I have to agree, fantastic performance by John Key, and John Campbell will be re-evaluating his strategy to make mountains out of molehills in order to sell TV advertising.

    Key is right, though it is still important, most NZers care much more about simple things like their beloved recreation of fishing, rather than legislation designed to target a very small number of would-be terrorist nutbars they may have never seen or met but who do happen to live in NZ. As long as the checks and balances are in place we should not worry about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Who says “Little Twerp” represents Media ?

    Made a right arse of himself last evening.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    When one of NZ’s most experienced interviewers and media operators (so experienced that he was hired for years by Helen Clark for her own media training) who also tilts reliably to the left and is no friend of John Key, tells John Campbell he got his clock cleaned, its hard to think of a put down more damning than what Edwards said about the Campbell Live interview.

    Edwards has been in decline for years. The ramblings on his blog are evidence of that. It’s a shame really. He used to be one of the best things on TV back in the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    THought I’d watch 2 mins of that video and ended up watching the whole thing, great stuff.

    I’m with Dylan on this. John Key is consistently a smug dick.

    It’s interesting the divergence on how people view John Key but I imagine it has a lot to do on how you feel about issues important to you. The only time I see him being a “smug dick” is when he’s been consistently baited by media and the opposition looking to make something of nothing and when he is I generally support him on it.

    The thing that I think most people like about John Key is that he genuinely seems to just want to get on with the job of running the country to the best of his ability and that shows, to me at least, time and time again. Here he is, cleaning up another Labour mess, being upfront and in touch with the country about it and the bias of the media couldn’t be more apparent. Thanks for coming Campbell. That’ll probably be the only 20 mins I’ll see of you this year but it was great TV!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    From GD, and more relevant here:

    Agreed that JK did well in the interview from a politician’s point of view. He was patient and kept well to his talking points. Campbell missed several crucial points. The “antivirus” argument that Key was pushing is the essential flaw in the law as currently drafted. i.e. it’s section 15/16 where things are open to abuse.

    http://techliberty.org.nz/gcsb-spying-on-new-zealanders

    You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to be concerned about this: Consider if someone like Andrew Little (hopefully unlikely) were to one day be Prime Minister and thus have the power to grant the GSCB a warrant for blanket surveillance over NZers. It would be completely legal to do so under this law.

    Get past the “Key destroyed Campbell” mantra to “Is the bill actually good?”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    As a very right winger and Nat and Key supporter I have to concede that Im not 100% comfortable with the GCSB Bill. Sure there is the ‘Nothing to hide nothing to fear” thing but IMHO the “We are the government trust us we know what we are doing” is soooo 1970s/1980s.

    We are in a new paradigm where disclosure and transparency are the 2 single most important mantras. Just as in the private sector companies particularly those listed on NZX are required to make much more disclosure than they did even 10 years ago so Governments are under the pressure from the citizens to disclose and explain what they are doing and why they are doing it.

    So for me the CGSB Bill is still a work in progress because whilst I do trust Key English Joyce etc there is no way in hell I would trust any of the Left not to use the legislation to spy on me or any other person who publicly opposed them and their policies.

    I shudder to think what the likes of Little Norman Jones et al would get up to given the power and the legislation. They would run amuck with it.

    Shearer on the other hand I would be OK with. Hes about the only Leftie I would trust.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Key was indeed superb. It was a master class in the art of the politician. I’m just not sure why anyone would think that’s a compliment.

    I said much the same thing about the last one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Leftyliberal @ 1:39

    “….. thus have the power to grant the GSCB a warrant for blanket surveillance over NZers….”

    What a load of unmitigated bullshit!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Roflcopter (463 comments) says:

    LeftyLiberal – “Consider if someone like Andrew Little (hopefully unlikely) were to one day be Prime Minister and thus have the power to grant the GSCB a warrant for blanket surveillance over NZers. It would be completely legal to do so under this law.”

    Bollocks… there’s a whole level of scrutiny, and granting of the warrant as valid, by independent judiciary that has to happen before it even got to him to sign off on.

    FFS, you’re almost as bad as Campbell.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson at 1.36:

    …Edwards has been in decline for years. The ramblings on his blog are evidence of that…

    Tom, in this you read like one of Stalin’s boys smearing an Old Bolshevik at a 1930s show trial. In fact, Edwards is still lucid and functioning well.

    Tom and Ross69 (1.20 and 1.21 posts) just have to accept this: last night on the TV3, John Key thoroughly whipped John Campbell, TV3’s Mr Gush.

    This is the heaviest trouncing of Campbell since Chuck Yeager told him he didn’t have the Right Stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    TV3 will be looking at this as good ratings – lots of viewers.
    A grade Wankers

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    ross69 said

    Andrea Vance and Bradley Armbrose weren’t involved with bomb-making as far as I’m aware.

    WTF do Bradley Ambrose and Andrea Vance have to do with the GCSB ross69? Ambrose was investigated by the NZ Police, and Vance was involved in an inquiry supported by Parliamentary Services. The GCSB was involved in neither case.

    Hell’s teeth; if you throw any more red herrings around, and we’ll have to reduce the quota for them too, as well as snapper! :D

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Not really Ryan. I think the point he was making was that unless you say somethng like, “I’m going to make a bomb and blow up parliament!” your communication won’t be viewed by a human.

    Intercepting those communications would be illegal currently and in the new law, whether viewed by a human or not. Or at least they should be.

    It’s the broadness, mainly, of section 8A that leads some to assume it’s been crafted to allow just this type of monitoring under the auspices of “securing communications” or whatever.

    He all have a right to privacy (where we’d reasonably expect), and that includes being protected from automated collection and analysis by non-human intelligence gathering systems.

    Would we, as a whole, be equally as happy to have full-time GPS tracking in our cars? The police won’t look at it unless we exceed the speed limit, or happen to be near the location of a crime at a given time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re ross69 and Andrea Vance:

    What has the incident of Vance got to do with this? Why are you raising the release of records from Parliament’s switch of calls by a reporter formerly with News of the World, infamous for its disregard for phone privacy? (If she had stuck to using only a Fairfucked Media NZ-provided cellphone there would have been no problem).

    The Vance stuff’s all old hat, compared with the whipping of John Gush Campbell on TV3 last night.

    Hurray for John Key! How stupid of Campbell to think he could foot it against a man so sharp he’s been one of the world’s top futures traders.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    Not really Ryan. I think the point he was making was that unless you say somethng like, “I’m going to make a bomb and blow up parliament!” your communication won’t be viewed by a human.

    (just like to say ‘hi there’ to the spy monitoring this post)

    Scott,

    Would you be similarly fine with video cameras in your house as long as you’re assured that no one will ever watch the footage unless you do something wrong? I don’t think it’s quite as clear-cut as you suggest.

    But that’s also besides my point. John Key intentionally gave the impression that it would take 130,000 GCSB staff to spy on everyone, therefore no one has to worry about their privacy being invaded. It’s misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Is it time that OSH intervened in Campbell’s Thunderbirds puppet impression?

    I thought the interview was FAB

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    All the bitching about potentially increased surveillance from street video, GPS, internet traffic monitoring, etc…

    Direct it towards those who are the cause of this: international terrorists, currently mainly Muslim extremists, plus international criminals, and the new electronic creeps – paedophiles, extreme porn merchants, password thieves, etc.

    Otherwise it’s like blaming the police for crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Campbell was a very rude host, ‘ You never come when you are asked” etc ‘Why are you here now?” WTF, how about thank you for coming. Why should the media think they can ‘command’ an appearance.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    And don’t forget the petulant little child behaviour of noisily picking up his screeds of paper while the PM was talking.

    It could only have been any more like a childish tantrum had he pulled a face at the PM and said “you’re a poo.”

    Putting the real John Campbell on display for New Zealand.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    It’s interesting the divergence on how people view John Key but I imagine it has a lot to do on how you feel about issues important to you. The only time I see him being a “smug dick” is when he’s been consistently baited by media and the opposition looking to make something of nothing and when he is I generally support him on it.

    He comes across as a smug dick to me when I agree with him on issues too.

    I dunno, maybe he subconsciously reminds me of a smug dick I used to know who grinned the same way or something.

    Actually, I just looked up the dictionary definition of “smug”, and I’m not sure I’m even using the right adjective. Pretty sure I’ve got the noun correct, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Would you be similarly fine with video cameras in your house as long as you’re assured that no one will ever watch the footage unless you do something wrong?

    No, primarily because the kind of surveillance you describe is intrusively active, not passive, and apart from anything else it is more likely to be casually abused. I’d be inclined to limit algorithmic monitoring to public networks only. (without a warrant)

    Thing is, I have no reason at this point in time to distrust the government in this country. Our system of open democracy combined with the inevitable existence of disaffected or principled whistle-blowers within that system lead me to believe that our liberty won’t be substantially impinged upon now, or in the near future.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Hugely embarassing performance for the crusader Campbell who has been peddling his BS on this issue for weeks. I thought Key was great but he should have also bought up the whole duplication of resources that would be required otherwise. In other words the spying would still happen but the SIS would have to get all the same systems in place (costing millions). Really it showed this whole issue for what it is – a complete non-event.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Would we, as a whole, be equally as happy to have full-time GPS tracking in our cars?

    The interesting thing with this is that the police aren’t too far from having similar abilities regardless. Your number plate, by law, is required to be shown at all times. The police have been “trialling” number plate reading cameras over the last two years in NZ at least. If they set up enough of them, they’d be able to track you fairly accurately regardless of GPS and perfectly legally. Not too mention they can put a GPS tracker on your car with a warrant. This technology is taking off in the States and the UK.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Hilarious interview – I saw it live. Campbell was firing off questions that he didn’t dare let Key finish answering, his answers were so devastating. Campbell looked like he was running for his life and couldn’t find a rescuer.

    Ross69, you need treatment for that myopia before you try to walk on water and have a nasty accident.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom and Ross69 (1.20 and 1.21 posts) just have to accept this: last night on the TV3, John Key thoroughly whipped John Campbell, TV3′s Mr Gush.

    You must have a high tolerance for sophistry. All show and no tell – but that’s politics I guess. There was very little content in the interview and hardly anything on the most important issue, which is the relation to the Snowden revelations. Given that the GCSB is in an information sharing agreement with the NSA that’s really what matters, but you wouldn’t know it due to the way TV works here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Direct it towards those who are the cause of this: international terrorists, currently mainly Muslim extremists, plus international criminals

    Yeah, direct it at those who facilitate the radicalisation of Islam with inane foreign policy and facilitate the proliferation of criminal gangs with asinine and ineffective drug laws.

    Not that I believe that the formulation of these inane policies is some kind of Machiavellian governmental plan to justify further intrusion into our lives in the same way that I don’t believe that AGW is a UN manufactured hoax.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    Word on the street is John Campbell did extremely well and John Key was afraid to even talk…..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Would you be similarly fine with video cameras in your house as long as you’re assured that no one will ever watch the footage unless you do something wrong? I don’t think it’s quite as clear-cut as you suggest.

    He doesn’t care because he thinks it will only be used to spy on people he doesn’t like. That might well be true. My nefarious plots will now be organised by carrier pigeon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    WTF do Bradley Ambrose and Andrea Vance have to do with the GCSB ross69?

    The fact you have to ask such a dumb question suggests that if you have all your marbles, your bag must have a bloody big hole in it. :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. OTGO (548 comments) says:

    You know what? I think John Campbell was irritated by the fact that when he really really thinks about it, he might actually vote for John Key next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. tvb (4,417 comments) says:

    This was a command performance from John Key who shows he is on top of his game. We are playing around with National Security here If we have a terrorist incident here the first thing that will be asked is why the SIS/Police did not know. I just hope it does not happen because the Legislation is not passed. Campbell and others need to examine themselves if it does happen. I was interested to learn that GSSB has not been providing assistance to Police/SIS until this legislation gets passed. This has been about a year so 9-10 people have been able to operate without any surveillance. That is the price we are paying.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    A despondant and dispirited Micky Savage writes in The sub-Standard:
    The confidence shown by Key was extreme and his simplification of the issues was really impressive.
    But misplaced. Key does not know what he is talking about. But many in the country will not believe this is the case.

    The poor comrade lives in a parallel world. Laughable.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This comes from the ever-articulate Key from last night’s interview:

    JC: Although, that was an incorrect reading, wasn’t it? It was illegal and in the Kim Dotcom case you came out and apologised.

    JK: no, no. Quite wrong. Actually, quite wrong. It was not illegal. What the lawyers did when they looked at , and some time ago.

    JC: Why, why did you apologise to Kim Dotcom?

    JK: OK let me come back to Kim Dotcom in a moment. So what the lawyers did, was they had a look some time ago, in fact actually the Inspector General, and said, “I’m just not quite sure about the way section 14, which is specific, works with Section 8, which is the general”

    JK: OK. So basically, when the lawyers went and looked at it, they came back and said, “We think it’s probably lawful, but it’s subject to difficulties of interpretation.” OK. So take Kim Dotcom. OK. Kim Dotcom was illegal under the old law, which is why I apologised and it’s illegal under the new law.

    So, within a few seconds, John Key has said that monitoring of Kim Dotcom was not illegal but then he admits that it was illegal! Yep, he sure won that debate…LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This was a command performance from John Key who shows he is on top of his game.

    Keep taking those drugs, it must be good shit.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Another perspective

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9046477/What-did-Snowden-get-wrong-Everything

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    @Ross69. Good try. It’s always difficult to rely on pieces of transcript, but reads to me like JK was answering the question of whether it was illegal in general. So he said “it’s not illegal” then he said “let me come back to Kim DotCom”.

    You can make a case that sometimes the guy could do with elocution lessons, but not that he was lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    ross69, the point Key made eventually through all Campbell’s interruptions was that the police incorrectly told GCSB that Dotcom was not a NZ resident. That was why he apologised.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    All the bitching about potentially increased surveillance from street video, GPS, internet traffic monitoring, etc…

    Direct it towards those who are the cause of this: international terrorists, currently mainly Muslim extremists, plus international criminals, and the new electronic creeps – paedophiles, extreme porn merchants, password thieves, etc.

    Otherwise it’s like blaming the police for crime.

    That’s absurd. Crime has always taken place, and we’ve always guarded our privacy. Should the police be able to stop any car they want and search for drugs – if you don’t like it you should blame people who keep drugs in their cars?

    There are literally thousands of crimes that go unnoticed every day, should the police be able to monitor everything to detect those crimes? It’s the same thing. Monitoring all internet traffic is treating us all as suspects.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    SCS: “Word on the street is John Campbell did extremely well and John Key was afraid to even talk…..”

    Are you in Pyongyang Sir CS? What are the Streets like there?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Ross69 @ 3:35: WHAT? I understood from your earlier comments that you can’t remember what you heard. Now I see you can’t understand what you read either (or willfully quote out of context which is tantamount to lying).

    John Key did not contradict himself over Dotcom. He did not say the monitoring of Kim Dotcom was “not illegal”. Look at the comment before your quote:

    JK: OK so what happened was, Helen Clark passed that law with section 14. But she did everything that is being proposed She’s been doing. She did that. By the time she was Prime Minister, and I followed on. And had been done prior to that, because under section 8. A reading of Section 8, allowed the GCSB to provide assistance.

    JC: Although, that was an incorrect reading, wasn’t it? It was illegal and in the Kim Dotcom case you came out and apologised.

    JK: no, no. Quite wrong. Actually, quite wrong. It was not illegal. What the lawyers did when they looked at , and some time ago.

    Key is talking about the use of the GCSB and monitoring NZ citizens (not illegal due to the interpretation of Section 8) – i.e. it is NOT illegal.

    The Kim Dotcom case – as Key pointed out – has nothing to do with this – Campbell showed his ignorance by throwing it into the question here (which is of something quite different).

    Key corrects Campbell as so:

    Let me finish. So what happened under Kim Dotcom was nothing to do with getting it, whether it was section 14 or section 8. The police went to GCSB. They said to GCSB, “Kim Dotcom is a foreigner. Under your foreign intelligence powers. Which sit there – which are the ones you’re talking about under Section 14 – we want you to undertake this work.” They said, “He’s a foreigner.” But actually, he was a resident class visa holder and they were totally wrong. They were wrong.[JC: “absolutely, OK” trying to interrupt] They were wrong then and they’d be wrong now.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Thing is, I have no reason at this point in time to distrust the government in this country.

    It’s hardly unheard of for agencies like to this be put to use in a political way, either directly or indirectly (consider the Police’s actions in the case with Bradley Ambrose – accessing his text messages).

    But besides that, this is information that gets collected and therefore has the potential to be misused. Is it hard to imagine data being leaked or sold? Once the data is collected it then exists and how it’s used becomes an issue. I also don’t, generally, distrust government, but that doesn’t mean I’m okay with a government agency having legal powers to collect private communications in secret with very limited oversight and share that data with anyone the minister approves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Suppose in an alternate reality that the drafting deficiencies in the 2003 law had been found while Labour were still in charge. What would they have done differently? I think there are three choices:

    1. Leave the law as is. Charge Helen Clark with multiple violations of human rights. Condemn themselves as evil people who “spy” on NZers. Stop the GCSB providing assistance to the Police and SIS, who purchase their own telecommunications intercept equipment.

    2. Make minor changes to the law to fix the drafting errors.

    3. Fix the drafting errors, but also tighten up the oversight controls so there are better protections for privacy.

    National went with option 3. From what they’ve been saying, I think Shearer and Norman would like us to think they would have gone with option 1. I suspect Helen Clark would have gone with either options 2 or 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Oops. The 4th paragraph of my blockquote @ 3:46 shouldn’t be in the blockquote – that’s my comment.

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

    “Bollocks… there’s a whole level of scrutiny, and granting of the warrant as valid, by independent judiciary that has to happen before it even got to him to sign off on.”

    Incorrect. Read the legislation. Section 15A (1)(b) allows for the director of the GSCB to request for access authorisation to infrastructure (Section 8A) that they wouldn’t otherwise have under the law for the purposes of cybersecurity. The only person required for signing it off is the Minister. Notice that this section also applies regardless of anything else in any other acts (e.g. BORA). Intelligence collected under the purpose of cybersecurity is then available for other purposes (Section 25) giving quite a nice loophole around the warrant issue.

    Further, interception warrants for a class of NZers are available for the GSCB (not to help Police or SIS, i.e. Section 8B), through the additional sign-off of the (Minister-appointed) Commissioner of Security Warrants (Section 15B).

    http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM5177756

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    No, primarily because the kind of surveillance you describe is intrusively active, not passive, and apart from anything else it is more likely to be casually abused. I’d be inclined to limit algorithmic monitoring to public networks only. (without a warrant)

    Oh, come now, if EVERYONE’s house was being surveilled, you’d have as little likelihood as anyone else of being casually abused.

    And limiting algorithmic monitoring to public networks only is kind of at the heart of this current debate.

    Thing is, I have no reason at this point in time to distrust the government in this country. Our system of open democracy combined with the inevitable existence of disaffected or principled whistle-blowers within that system lead me to believe that our liberty won’t be substantially impinged upon now, or in the near future.

    I can understand your position, Scott, even if I don’t currently share it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    The interesting thing with this is that the police aren’t too far from having similar abilities regardless. Your number plate, by law, is required to be shown at all times. The police have been “trialling” number plate reading cameras over the last two years in NZ at least. If they set up enough of them, they’d be able to track you fairly accurately regardless of GPS and perfectly legally.

    I’m torn about ANPR to some extent – we don’t have a right to privacy in a public place. Anyone could legally setup ANPR cameras (there’s open-source software to do it) and track vehicle movements legally. But there are certainly troubling implications in terms of the presumption of innocence etc when it’s used in policing.

    Here’s a couple of OIA requests relevant to ANPR also:
    Do the new red light and speed cameras support ANPR?
    Automatic Number-Plate Recognition (ANPR) trials

    Not too mention they can put a GPS tracker on your car with a warrant. This technology is taking off in the States and the UK.

    That’s with a warrant – in general I have no problem with that (although I worry about the ease with which warrants can be granted in some cases). Fundamentally I like better oversight on some of the issues – and a genuinely independent body to oversee the police. The same goes for the GCSB.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    ross69, the point Key made eventually through all Campbell’s interruptions was that the police incorrectly told GCSB that Dotcom was not a NZ resident. That was why he apologised.

    Which of course means that Dotcom was spied on illegally. So why did Key say it wasn’t illegal but soon after admit that it was? The PM doesn’t seem to know whether he’s Arthur or Martha. Yet this is the same person who will be giving the OK to spy on NZers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Which of course means that Dotcom was spied on illegally

    No, that is incorrect Ross69 (at least you are consistent) and your confusion (or ignorance – I’ll let you decide) demonstrates exactly why the Govt should move swiftly to fix Labour’s current law.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Ross69: in simple English, then, since you can’t understand:

    Key did NOT say the Dotcom incident wasn’t illegal. He was answering Campbell’s first question.

    Your confusion arises because Campbell was an ignorant (or lying) idiot, interrupted Key, and threw Dotcom’s name into the discussion at an utterly irrelevant point. Key corrected him, and went on to a) complete the discussion on section 8 vs. 14 and then b) explain what was illegal about Dotcom’s surveillance.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Evadne

    Thank you for supplying the previous statements from the transcript.

    It is apparent on any reading of the sequence published by Ross69 that he has taken sections out of context in order to create the appearance of a contradiction. The concern obviously is whether he did so deliberately and knowingly.

    Anybody with any integrity or, as Ross puts it, with a full bag of marbles, would have included the passage that you have included.

    There are two issues here. The first is the interpretation of the legislation and whether, as was intended, GCSB was authorised to assist other agencies.

    The second issue, and this is a very isolated issue, is whether the surveillance of Dot.com was legal. The two are wholly unrelated.

    There has been surveillance of 88 people based on the interpretation taken by the former labour government and which, even now, has not been held to be unlawful. It has been held to lack clarity albeit not in a court. The government is introducing clarity.

    The Dot.com saga arose because of a misunderstanding of the transitional provisions of the new Immigration Act . Under the previous legislation, Dot.com was not a permanent resident. For him to have become a permanent resident under the old legislation, he would have to have secured his right of entry while overseas, moved to New Zealand and then applied for permanent residency while in New Zealand. He did the first two but he did not apply for permanent residency. As it turns out, he did not have to because, as a quirk of fate, the transitional provisions of the new Act conferred permanent residency – probably an unintended result having regard to the fact that there would have only been a relatively few number of people in his category (i.e. they had the appropriate permit, arrived in New Zealand but had not yet applied for permanent residency.

    In the additional passage provided by Evadne it is clear that Campbell and Ross are clearly trying to conflate GCSB’s legitimate jurisdiction to intercept communications by foreigners on the one hand and the now dubious jurisdiction to provide assistance to other agencies.

    It has always been evident that when GCSB took an interest in Dot.com, it did so in the belief that he was a foreigner, it did not at any stage purport to be assisting another agency and therefore maintained that it was acting in its own right. As Key has pointed out on many occasions, it was wrong and what it did was illegal.

    I do not know where to find the link to the transcript. If Ross 69 is going to re-establish any semblance of credibility (rather than be seen as somebody who cherry picks sections in order to make a preconceived point), I think he will have to explain where he got his transcript from and why he omitted the full section.

    John Campbell, equally, needs to explain why he cannot tell the difference between the two sets of circumstances and why he tried to discredit the Prime Minister on a demonstrably spurious point.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    No, that is incorrect Ross69

    You’re a very poor troll.

    Mr Key said the GCSB has relied on information provided to it by the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand, which he described as “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.”

    The GCSB’s actions fell outside the law (which might explain why John Key apologised to Dotcom). Only you could interpret that as acting legally. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    No, that is incorrect Ross69 (at least you are consistent) and your confusion (or ignorance – I’ll let you decide) demonstrates exactly why the Govt should move swiftly to fix Labour’s current law.

    The spying on Dotcom was illegal. The police requested the GCSB use their powers to intercept Dotcom’s communications as a foreign national. They either lied or were mistaken about his residency.

    That is part of the reason for the law change, and that part is good (at least the intention is) in that it clarifies both how the GCSB can help other agencies and the terms of reference for their doing so.

    What happened with Dotcom would still be illegal unless the police sought a warrant.

    However it’s also plausible that under the new law they could argue that Dotcom posed a threat to the communications security of the country and request authorisation under section 8A to intercept all his communications. They would also then be free to share that information with any agency they wanted to, subject to the approval of the minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    DavidP

    Helen Clark is on record as saying that option three is the only logical option available. She said that as far as she was concerned everything that had been done while she was Prime Minister was lawful and if there is any doubt, it needs to be removed by all parties adopting a unified approach. She made it clear that the powers were necessary and it was also evident from her comments that she was taking a swipe at Labour and The Greens because of their attitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Nookin –

    Thanks for your comments. I risked life and limb to obtain the transcript.

    Google took me here: http://thestandard.org.nz/key-vs-campbell-the-transcript/

    Evadne: Venturing onto the Standard so you don’t have to.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Nookin: I agree that amending the legislastion was the only option available, but I don’t think anyone is arguing against the legislation being amended.

    Rather, the argument is against:
    1. The process.
    2. The amendments themselves.

    The second of these is the most important thing to fix now. My post above details some of the reasons the amendments include things we don’t want.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    @ Evadne – make sure you have a hot, long shower tonight to rid you of any impurities. Your taking one for the team is most sincerely appreciated :D

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    I don’t watch TV so uhh… what did I miss?

    I did watch Oz great and powerful, last night though.A movie about a sideshow charlatan using carnival tricks to delude a population of dumbasses.

    Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis played characters seduced by power. They looked damn fine too!

    Until the green monster of jealousy possessed one…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Maybe Campbell should try is luck interviewing the Google guys

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/10243612/Google-email-users-should-not-expect-privacy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    ross69 said

    The fact you have to ask such a dumb question suggests that if you have all your marbles, your bag must have a bloody big hole in it. :)

    I beg to differ Ross, whether I am marbleless or not. The NZ Police handled the investigation of Bradley Ambrose’s allegedly unlawful recording of John Key and John Banks, not the GCSB. And there has never been any suggestion that the GCSB was in any way, shape or form in Brian Henry’s inquiry into Andrea Vance’s premature release of the Kitteridge Report, and the source from whence it came.

    That you are even suggesting GCSB collusion indicates just how bereft of ideas the anti-GCSB lobby has become. At the risk of repeating myself, Ambrose and Vance had NOTHING to do with the GCSB; nil, nada. The only link is an accident of timing, but of course those who see spooks behind every tree are quick to try and join the dots. But two plus two does not equal 22 Ross. Take your daft conspiracy theories somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The way of the future? :)

    http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Thanks Evadne

    Although it is a minor point the distinction between the two issues (the general jurisdiction of GCSB to assist other agencies on the one hand and GCSB’s belief that Dot.com was a foreigner on the other) are so clearly different that one really does have to question Campbell’s ability or willingness to see the distinction.

    I have come to the conclusion that Ross69 must be Clayton Cosgrove. He also deliberately quotes half of an extract to give a false impression.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (5,193 comments) says:

    I read KS comment on this at the beginning of the day and was sceptical because KS is nothing if not a ‘flag waver for Key and National.’ Later in the morning someone brought the interview up in some detail, a person previously ‘opposed.’ He was very positive both about the skills of Key during the interview but more so because of the greater clarity it achieved for him in understanding the new bill. I watched it a couple of hours ago, bloody good stuff. I seldom if ever watch Campbell but he came across as petulant and I didn’t follow the point that Key having not gone on the show earlier as having any meaning. The supporting experts he replayed interviews from didn’t really make any ground. Have to give him a ‘d’ for dumb, not just for his poor interview, but also for his ‘parade’ this week about what he was going to achieve in terms of the ‘bill,’ and finally a ‘d’ for not being smart enough to change tack when it became plain that JK was dining out on him, controlling the interview and largely taking it over.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    The spying on Dotcom was illegal.

    No, that is incorrect – it has not yet been determined either way. This is ross69’s error / deliberate falsehood (I’m waiting to hear which).

    The police requested the GCSB use their powers to intercept Dotcom’s communications as a foreign national. They either lied or were mistaken about his residency.

    Correct. ANd this is where the apology was due. If the GCSB were NOT acting in support of the police with a proper warrant (and there are separate problems there – I think “clusterfuck” is appropriate for the whole situation) then they probably would have been acting unlawfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    Look, what all this Campbell crap shows is that there is neither honesty nor accountability in NZ TV news/current affairs.

    Rupert Murdoch’s Fox CEO ( Hailes (?)…. forget name for the moment) would have had his arse out the door this morning following last evening’s debacle.

    If was the MD of Mazda I would be pulling my sponsorship. Korda Mentha has announced that TV3 has been sold. If I were Campbell I would not be banking on a long term contract. Live by the sword dickhead, die by … you know what.

    Campbell is a disgrace to his craft.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Another perspective

    He’s essentially saying, “Trust me. I know what I’m doing”. Now where have I heard that before?

    In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Ross69 I actually feel sorry for you. You come across as desperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    What’s interesting is Key’s mantra that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. That of course is bullshit and he knows it.

    Remember the Kitteridge Report found 88 NZers had been spied on. Not one of these people was arrested or prosecuted as a result of the information supplied to NZSIS by the GCSB. In other words, each of the 88 enjoys the presumption of innocence.

    Getting the truth out of Key is like getting blood out of a stone.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Ross69 I actually feel sorry for you. You come across as desperate.

    You come across as braindead.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Just watching interview now.

    Not a Key fan but my god he is giving the toff-voiced commie cunt a spanking. What an inept retard. If this fucking moron is the face of TV3 no wonder its owner is in receivership.

    Completely uninformed, unprepared, underwhelming, words don’t explain how incredibly inept this fucktard is.

    “appointed by you, appointed by you” as if John Key directs judges’ decisions..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    ross69, you are wrong yet again.

    No arrest or prosecution was based on any information provided by GCSB. But of course this is not entirely surprising, as the Police remain the prosecuting entity and have all of their own evidence. So you are, as usual, quite wrong to claim “ In other words, each of the 88 enjoys the presumption of innocence.

    You need to wise up.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    rangitoto (80) Says:
    August 15th, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    SCS: “Word on the street is John Campbell did extremely well and John Key was afraid to even talk…..”

    Are you in Pyongyang Sir CS? What are the Streets like there?

    I live in Planet Labour….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    ross69, you are wrong yet again.

    “The details of the individuals and cases have been passed to the IG. Police have already determined that there have been no arrests or prosecutions.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8524181/Key-denies-any-arrests-from-illegal-spying

    You really need to improve your comprehension skills.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    LOL There is a G**

    If you didn’t think he was a mind-bogglingly bullshitting little fuckwit of the first order last night, there is no excuse to not think it now after that feeble self-serving and petulant little fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Fuck me!

    I just watched the clip from Campbell live. It was a slaughter.

    Key is not my favourite pollie, he is far too left wing for me but he absolutely eviscerated Campbell last night.

    Campbell knew he had taken a hammering, he was desperate to get off the screen such was the beating he took.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. ex-golfer (161 comments) says:

    So some idiot says on Campbells Lives bullshit roadshow “We don’t have terrorism in NZ” – maybe he didn’t remember state sponsored terrorism……Rainbow Warrior ???

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Lots of blind key heroes on here..I thought he was dreadful If it had been a properly marked debate , he would not have won.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Wiki,
    Did you hear on the news tonight that one reason for the demise of Solid Energy is that two main NZ customers , Huntley power and ???…..have both bought cheap coal from Indonesia..Key and co were greasing in Indonesia recently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    joana at 7:33 pm
    “Lots of blind key heroes on here..I thought he was dreadful If it had been a properly marked debate , he would not have won.”

    It was an interview. You’re dreadful.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    Campbell Live tonight. Who are the two macho guys in the gay vehicle, trying to sing ‘free falling’ like girls.

    I swear I have watched that shithouse program twice, last night and tonight.

    Never again.
    The trolls running continuous interference here all day should be ignored, you know who you are

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    Edit my 7.52.
    I include mean the religious shit stirrers, they get the scroll as well

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    “Campbell is a disgrace to his craft.”

    He always was.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    Joana – 7:36 – That John Key must be the best. He even has time to look after buying coal. Does he have some rich mates there?

    FFS – You lefties are now clutching at straws aren’t you. Throwing any shit everywhere in the hope that even a drop will stick. Sad really.

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

    “Campbell is a disgrace to his craft.”

    As opposed to John Key who is simply a disgrace. He’ll never be a statesman so long as his arse points downwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    maybe he didn’t remember state sponsored terrorism……Rainbow Warrior ???

    Yeah you mightn’t recall it but the French were behind it…you know, one of our allies. So, how is spying on NZers going to prevent a foreign terrorist attack?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    ross69

    You can have as much of a tantrum as you like. However the fact remains that Key is already a statesman. In the words of Chris Trotter “Key is the best PM that the Nat’s have ever had”.

    Key’s greatest asset is that he has the common touch. Nobody else in the house has it, nobody from the left or the right, people still do not see John Key as a politician, they see him as a man who has done well, is honest with them (despite the raving and out right lies of the left) and a man who obviously does not need the job.

    As I have said before, I would prefer a more right wing PM but even I have to admit that Key is a bloke that most people (save the most rabid brain dead lefties) cannot help but like.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Oh dear ross69, you are totally striking out aren’t you?

    You really need to improve your comprehension skills.

    No, you misread what I said. Your error (which you obviously don’t grasp, and I don’t expect you ever will) was to bizarrely confuse the statement that no GCSB evidence had been used, with a presumption of innocence.

    Yours is part of the John Campbell meme, and it is discredited.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. atihana (4 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t call the session John Campbell’s finest hour but most comments have focused on the respective combatants rather than the proposed GCSB. My view of it remains unchanged in spite of the PM’s less than honest explanation. The damned things wrong. I do not agree that some fart should spy on me by accessing my phones, computers, etc; nor access any of mine without my knowledge let alone my permission. Neither should the same spy be allowed to take videos, photos etc. It does seem that where the US goes we should. Since they are turning into the most trouble making country in the world we should beware. Frankly we should be very fearful of their rampart imperialism. John, if you are against the GCSB bill then you won the TV debate against the PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Atihana: It was an interview, not a debate.

    But that sums up the problem with the media in general, and John Campbell in particular: setting themselves up in opposition to the government, rather than the reporters and commentators they are.

    It’s like Grant Nisbett and Keith Quinn abandoning the commentary box, donning Gold jerseys and running onto the field during a Bledisloe Cup game. (And getting suitably trounced, of course.)

    Unfortunately, governing a country is not a game. Having journalists prancing round trying to stymie everything the government attempts is neither news, entertainment, nor clever. The government is supposed to govern and make decisions – that’s what we elected them for. We have opposition parties to hold them to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    OMG, I’ve just realised. That can’t have been John Campbell who was behaving like an odious bullshitting loser last night.

    It was an actor!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Yeah you mightn’t recall it but the French were behind it…you know, one of our allies. So, how is spying on NZers going to prevent a foreign terrorist attack?

    Ross69 – are you really that naive? Or do you live in some alternative universe where every New Zealander (born or resident) is a happy, well-adjusted, moral, upstanding person who would never think of committing any act which might threaten our national security (or that of our allies); and where every foreigner, attempting to threaten said national security, would never dream of talking to a New Zealander?

    New Zealand might not be on many international terrorists' number one hit list – but you can be sure it'll be a tempting target, or easy conduit to our allies if we drop our security efforts in favour of the pretty unicorns and fluffy bunny approach.

    Our state is not intrusive; the GCSB bill does not allow any agency to become more intrusive. Storm in a tea cup.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. duggledog (1,555 comments) says:

    My favourite bit: ‘John, you’re frightening people’

    John (Campbell) ‘No I’m not’

    John: ‘Yes you are!’

    Another priceless bit was at the start when JC tried to extract some sort of apology or explanation from the PM for not giving the dreadful shrieking young traveller Rebecca Wright his full attention! FFS these guys are taking themselves far too seriously. Embarrassing.

    I don’t know whether I agree with Mr Edwards’ comments entirely; Campbell operates in a far less genteel arena than Brian did. These days the name of the game is to badger, harass, harrumph and fidget. The best way to deal with it is exactly as Key did – patiently as if speaking to a child. It works.

    The overall impression I got was of a churl throwing stones at a Norman fortress.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    If people are so outraged by this bill why aren’t they already outraged about the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004?
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0019/latest/DLM242336.html

    In the Bill, interception includes the ability to hear, listen, record, monitor, acquire or receive a telecommunication. The network operator must ensure that its system is able to, and that it assists with, obtaining call associated data and the content of telecommunications in a form that is able to be used by the surveillance agency.

    The network operator is also required to decrypt encrypted communications, if it provided that encryption. The Law and Order Committee has recommended that this obligation be clarified, carving out the network operators’ responsibility to decrypt where the network operator simply provided an “off the shelf” encryption product to a customer, to which the network operator does not have the private key.

    In carrying out any interception on behalf of the surveillance agencies, the network operator is under an obligation to ensure that such interception is unobtrusive, does not unduly interfere with telecommunications and protects the privacy of telecommunications that are not authorised to be intercepted by the warrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Nostalgia-NZ (5,193 comments) says:

    The man I referred in my above post who was enthused about Key’s explanation, made another telling point. That the critics of Key’s argument on this bill would be the first to demand explanations of as to why did ‘Key let it happen’ in the event of some sort of attack or incident – that’s where Key won it. Contrary to claims here that he didn’t allay fears, or make a clear argument of what was intended to be done, as opposed to what some critics claimed – he precisely, and accurately made his points clear.

    Although the debate here to some extent is Key v Campbell, the bigger debate was the bill, Key won on that hands down. Campbell had a chance to inquire sharply into Key’s comments, but he showed he didn’t have the ability to do that, nor the ammo as it transpires. Who ever key has appointed to administer the role of control over the warrants isn’t a telling point in any way that Campbell tried to demonstrate – he was implying corruption, but his only proof of that was his exhibition of a possible conspiracy at the time of his birth where he missed out on a brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    @RightNow: This is reasonable, as it requires an interception warrant, as granted by a judge. There’s several proposed changes to the TIC act which are not reasonable, but it’s mostly technicalities (e.g. the proviso that telcos can decrypt, which is not possible if the customer has the keys and the telcos do not).

    The GSCB bill does not, however, require a warrant granted by a judge before they collect intelligence. For cyber security purposes (Section 8A) it doesn’t require anything other than the OK of the Minister. For spying on foreigners the Minister suffices as well. For spying on NZers (not assisting SIS or Police) they in addition require the (Minister appointed) Commissioner of Security Warrants. Further, any intelligence collected for that purpose can be used for other purposes (e.g. under 8B or 8C, either GSCB spying directly, or by way of them assisting the SIS or Police) as incidental intelligence is fair game (Section 25).

    There’s real problems with the bill. It’s not just that folk don’t like the colour blue, Key, National or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Atihana

    Specifically, which of Key’s statements was less than honest?
    Specifically, which provision of the Bill would authorise someone to “spy” on you without good reason (and a properly issued warrant)?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    I don’t know whether I agree with Mr Edwards’ comments entirely; Campbell operates in a far less genteel arena than Brian did. These days the name of the game is to badger, harass, harrumph and fidget.

    Yes that’s correct dd it is the name of the game since all the journos do it but the point is they don’t have to do it that way they can do it other ways, like they used to in real style like say, when Ian Fraser did his famous Muldoon interview.

    But they chose not to and I don’t really care why, I just think it’s condescending since everyone with a 3-digit IQ sees straight through their idiotic spin and bluster and learns zero that they didn’t already about the issue. It’s as if one day twenty years ago some giant vacuum descended on the entire media and sucked all their brains out, leaving only childish, immature, vain and arrogant egos with mouths attached but absolutely no thinking capacity whatsoever apart from the simple superficial perspective that they know precisely how the public do or should think about any given thing and it’s their job to explain it to we, the less advanced thinkers.

    If only all the interviewees always did exactly what Key did, they’d soon get tired of looking like a sad bunch of utter tossers and start getting back to real interviews, eliciting valuable insights and angles rather than trite vapour that is their current specialty.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Well Campbell achieved one thing. He got a bunch of righties to watch some of his shithouse show!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    @leftyliberal – so what you’re saying is the GCSB Bill is bad because the warrant has to be signed by the Commissioner of Security Warrants, while the TIC Act is reasonable because the warrant has to be signed by a judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    No, it’s bad because it doesn’t require a warrant at all for surveillance under 8A, just the OK of the Minister (see 15A (1) b).

    Read the bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Oh I see, it’s because the Director has to apply to the Minister. Who has to check with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
    And then the Minister issues a warrant (or authorisation).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Curious that the Minister has to check with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Probably because 15B is the bit where they’re actually talking about intercepting communications of NZ citizens or residents.
    Perhaps you stopped reading after 15A?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Seen this Kiwibloggers?

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/lost-opportunity-make-gcsb-bill-better-internet-users-no-open-ck-144483

    How about this?

    2nd July 2013 – Penny Bright submission (directly to John Key ) on GCSB Bill –

    http://vimeo.com/69539620
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Letter from Mike Flahive, Assistant Commissioner, Investigations, Privacy Commission, dated 30 July 2013:

    “Dear Ms Bright

    Privacy Act Complaint: Penny Bright and Government Communications Security Bureau
    (our Ref: C/25391)

    We have received a significant number of complaints regarding access request responses made by the Government Communications Security Bureau in recent times. I am aware that you may be impatient to acquire an outcome to your complaint.

    Upon receiving a complaint about an access review our responsibility is to review the reasons that an agency gives for withholding information and either agree or disagree with the agency in its use of the withholding grounds. The intelligence community provides a significant challenge in terms of the way information is managed and held.

    Scrutiny of the reasons an intelligence agency withholds information and viewing of the information can only be handled by individuals with the appropriate levels of clearances.

    Our Office has an overall small resource and that resource is even smaller in terms of those who have sufficient security clearances to manage these complaints.

    Our practice is to meet with the agency, understand their policies and reasons for making decisions under the Privacy Act and if appropriate review information withheld. These activities take a significant amount of time. Added to our current burden is the significant number of complaints that we have received.

    Please rest assured that we are actively investigating your complaint and for all the reasons I have mentioned earlier in this letter the resolution of your complaint will take time. As soon as I have some issue to report to you, you will receive a telephone call or correspondence from me.

    In the meantime I thank you in advance for your patience.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mike Flahive
    Assistant Commissioner, Investigations
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    It is now 15 August 2013, and I am still none the wiser, as presumably are none of the many other New Zealanders who have similarly made such Privacy Act requests.

    How can National Party MPs, John Banks (ACT) and Peter Dunne (United Future) be prepared to continue to vote for the passage of this GCSB Bill, whilst the Privacy Commission is still investigating complaints made by people like myself, trying to discover and uncover how, why and upon whose instructions this unlawful spying upon 88 New Zealanders took place?

    How can this GCSB Bill possibly ‘improve’ the current legislation, when nobody yet knows the ‘systems faults’ that caused this unlawful spying upon New Zealanders, because the Privacy Commission has not yet completed their investigations?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “unlawful spying upon 88 New Zealanders”

    You make it sound like they’re poor victims. Frankly most of that spying took place under Helen Clark and even I’m not going to accuse her government of spying on people without just cause.
    I’m only amazed that the number is so low. Statistics would suggest there’s way more than 1 in every 500,000 people who may be extremists (or some other that should be kept an eye on).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The “antivirus” argument that Key was pushing is the essential flaw in the law as currently drafted. i.e. it’s section 15/16 where things are open to abuse.

    Section 15A(1)(b) relates to: “the accessing of 1 or more specified information infrastructures or classes of information infrastructures”

    The only thing that limits what information can be obtained by accessing an information infrastructure is the nature of the infrastructure, which can change over time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Statistics would suggest there’s way more than 1 in every 500,000 people who may be extremists (or some other that should be kept an eye on).

    1 in 50,000 – but that’s still a low number over ten years.

    Many people are genuinely worried that what they do online will be monitored, as they use Google, GMail, Facebook….which monitor what you do far more than any security agency could, and actively use the information on you that they gather.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Tv3 should take a strong look at the Labour influence on their channel. We have now dumped Mazdas from our company fleet and I have told staff to never buy anything of value if advertised on this channel. We have also done similar with Fairfax publications . . . take a look at their Straight Furrow publication, would not even be 20/80, and full of left-wing drivel, including regular articles by Sleeze O’Connor.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    For anyone who has nit seen Emerson this morning in the NZ Herald, take a peek.

    It is a “must see”. Campbell gets spanked….As he did yesterday evening by N-NZ…

    ***Nostalgia-NZ (3,889) Says:

    August 15th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
    “……. the critics of Key’s argument on this bill would be the first to demand explanations of as to why did ‘Key let it happen’ in the event of some sort of attack or incident – that’s where Key won it. Contrary to claims here that he didn’t allay fears, or make a clear argument of what was intended to be done, as opposed to what some critics claimed – he precisely, and accurately made his points clear.

    “…. the bigger debate was the bill, Key won on that hands down. Campbell had a chance to inquire sharply into Key’s comments, but he showed he didn’t have the ability to do that, nor the ammo as it transpires. Who ever Key has appointed to administer the role of control over the warrants isn’t a telling point in any way that Campbell tried to demonstrate – he was implying corruption, but his only proof of that was his exhibition of a possible conspiracy at the time of his birth where he missed out on a brain. ” ***

    Brilliant N-NZ :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    “I agree with Wallace that the PM was superb. Cool, calm, collected, factual and reassuring.”
    Except for the bit where he lied:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10913063&ref=mobile

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    So let me get this right…..

    Over the past decade, we have had (on average) 8 people a year ‘investigated’ by NZ Government agencies. Yup – 88 over a decade.

    And Penny Not-so thinks she is one of them? She actually fires off a complaint asking if her name is on the list of 88? She would have us believe her activities as a narcissistic, placard waving dissident / squatter / rates bludger / career protester / wannabe politician etc, would somehow combine to make her worthy of inclusion as one of the 8 persons investigated?

    Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…… That’s funny. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “…unlawful spying upon 88 New Zealanders took place?”

    Penny
    Read the report. The answer is in there. If you have not got the gumption to do that, do not expect other people to run around at your beck and call

    “The Director was concerned to ensure that no other errors had occurred that were similar to that concerning Mr Dotcom. The Director’s concern led to a number of other instances, in which GCSB had assisted domestic law enforcement agencies between 1 January 2009 and 26 September 2012, being referred to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for review. Those cases were subsequently found to be lawful.
    5. The review of activities that had stopped (involving assistance to other domestic agencies) led the Bureau to seek legal advice from the Crown Law Office on a number of issues. In relation to some assistance that GCSB has provided to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and (more rarely) the Police since before the enactment of the GCSB Act 2003, the Solicitor-General confirmed the difficulties in interpreting the GCSB Act and the risk of an adverse outcome if a Court were to consider
    6
    the basis of that assistance. All relevant instances of assistance (concerning 88 individuals in total), dating between 1 April 2003 and 26 September 2012, have been identified and a report has been provided to the Minister Responsible for the GCSB, in parallel with this report, so that he can determine the appropriate action to be taken.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Oh — one other thing Penny. It has never been established that the activity was unlawful, only that there are issues with interpretation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    @ Elaycee – I understand that Penny plans to sue the GCSB if they confess that they did NOT spy on her, because such a revelation would be injurious to her already-dodgy reputation :D

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. balletgirl68 (19 comments) says:

    And now TV3 are trying to make out that JK has mislead the public in the interview with Campbell live the other night. Give me a break! TV3 are probably smarting because they realise they were smacked down and got their noses bloodied!!! Trying to dig up more dirt will be the only the start…. wait till the election campaign!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Penny: “It is now 15 August 2013, and I am still none the wiser, as presumably are none of the many other New Zealanders who have similarly made such Privacy Act requests.”

    You’ve had to wait a whole 2 weeks? Poor petal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @KS 12.37pm: Haha – very good. :D

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

    It has never been established that the activity was unlawful

    My goodness, you really are that dense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Then help me Ross. Give me a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    Look here ross69; we all know that getting drawn the short straw to defend the indefensible is a tough gig, and you’ve given it your best shot. But you have failed, and by some margin.

    Mate; it’s time for a tactical retreat whilst you can still preserve a modicum of self-esteem :D

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @ross69 – why don’t you just quit whilst you’re behind? 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Then help me Ross.

    I fear you might be beyond help.

    The illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was…illegal. That is why the PM apologised to him. Just in case we’re unsure if that is correct, this is what the PM said the other night:

    “So take Kim Dotcom. OK. Kim Dotcom was illegal under the old law, which is why I apologised and it’s illegal under the new law.”

    That’s pretty unequivocal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Thank you Ross. I was rather hoping that you would say that. It simply illustrates your deceit and your propensity to move the goalposts to whatever position that happens to suit your particular argument at any one time.

    The activity to which I was referring, and to which Penny was referring, is the activity of GCSB as an assistant to other agencies. 88 of those instances were identified over a prolonged period of time. In fact, if one reads the Kitteridge report, it does seem that virtually all of the suspect ones may have occurred during the previous regime.

    The 88 instances involve cases where other agencies have invoked the relevant provisions of their own governing legislation in order to request the assistance of the GCSB. As an example, the Security Intelligence Service Act contains a specific provision which authorises the issue of a warrant naming another person to assist the Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties. It has been the practice to nominate somebody from GCSB.

    In these circumstances, GCSB provides surveillance assistance. This is the questionable activity. The issue is whether the authorising provisions of the Security Intelligence Service Act override the prohibiting provisions of the GCSB legislation.

    The Security Intelligence Service Act states that the person so named in the warrant is acting under the control of the Security Intelligence Service and so it has always been assumed that GCSB is performing the duties of SIS and not performing its only duties when so acting.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with your German friend. The whole Dot.com saga arose because GCSB decided that, in pursuance of its own legislated authority, it would undertake surveillance on Mister Dot.com. It did not do so by way of assistance to other agencies. There were no warrants. GCSB thought that it had jurisdiction under its own legislation but got its facts wrong. The fact that GCSB fail to identify the subject’s immigration status correctly has no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the legislative matrix involving the various agencies and their abilities to call upon the assistance of GCSB.

    GCSB acted unlawfully because they thought he was a foreigner. They did not think that any of the other 88 suspects were foreigners. They thought they could undertake surveillance based on the long-standing interpretation of the Act

    If you read the Kitteridge report, you will see that this instance is entirely different to the 88 other incidents in respect of which there are interpretive problems.

    If you read the explanatory note to the GCSB Bill, you will see that there is a reference to interpretive issues – not that activities have been found to be unlawful.

    John Campbell failed to recognise this distinction (or, at least, he very deliberately overlooked it) when he was questioning the Prime Minister.

    You also fail to recognise the distinction (or very deliberately overlook it) when you copied and pasted some of the transcript posted on the Standard yesterday. You omitted a passage which clearly showed that the Prime Minister was talking about one subject and Campbell was talking about another subject altogether.

    You are either being deliberately obtuse or so blind in your bigotry that you cannot possibly see a distinction which has been spelt out succinctly on so many occasions.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Ross69.

    Despite repeated attempts by many here to correct you, you are still conflating two completely different things.

    1. Spying on New Zealanders. There is provision in the old Helen Clark-created act to spy on NZers. 88 NZers have been spied on under this legislation, in 10 years. Lawyers indicated that there MIGHT be room for misinterpretation of section 8 and 14 – so the new bill is to clarify those matters so it says clearly WHAT WAS INTENDED by the first bill, plus add a few more safeguards. The spying on NZers is not “unlawful”.

    2. Kim Dotcom was spied on using a COMPLETELY different part of the act, in the belief he was not a New Zealand resident. This mistake was made due to his residency visa application beginning under one immigration act, and completing under another. John Key has apologised for this technical error, and made clear that the bill changes HAVE NOTHING to do with the Dotcom case. The part of the act Dotcom was (mistakenly) spied under HAS NOT CHANGED.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Nookin, @1.49

    I am inclined to think it is the later rather than the former although only by a nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. beerguts (21 comments) says:

    The most convincing GCSB protest so far:

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

    http://www.3news.co.nz/John-Key-defends-the-GCSB-bill/tabid/817/articleID/309018/Default.aspx
    John Campbell is an asset to the New Zealand media. He is smart, confident and he isn’t afraid to ask the controversial questions. We humble Kiwi’s need more mass media figures like Campbell who are willing to be the voice of the people. We need more reporters like John Campbell to confront people in power such as John Key about issues that affect New Zealander’s such as the GCSB bill.
    The media in New Zealand play a significant role in the democratic culture we pride ourselves on. The mass media has a responsibility to report on politics in New Zealand and to inform citizens of issues affecting them and to act as a watchdog to those in power. It is the job of the media to act on behalf of the people and provide a window into the world of politics as people rarely get an opportunity to communicate their thoughts in political arenas or have their voices heard and broadcast to a mass audience.
    Clearly the media play an important role when it comes to our knowledge and opinions on politics, so it is important that they use their status to speak on behalf of those who don’t have the same status and power.
    Reporters like John Campbell use their influential status and mass communication powers to put important issues in the spotlight and to confront those in power who have influence on these issues.
    When the GCSB bill was terrifying and upsetting many New Zealanders…Campbell confronted John Key and interviewed him about various aspects of the bill. This interview has gained nationwide recognition and Campbell has been praised for his direct and assertive interviewing skills.

    When it comes to politics, we all know that politicians use manipulation and confusion tactics to avoid answering questions. When Key attempted to do this during this interview, Campbell was persistent and really hounded him for answers. Answers that are important to all New Zealanders. Answers that he had refused to give in the past. Answers that he, as Prime Minister should be providing.
    As we everyday New Zealanders don’t have the power to sit down with John Key and discuss important issues, it is important that we have representatives like Campbell to support our needs and seek out the truth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. sarahparker (1 comment) says:

    Krystina- you say that John Campbell is an asset to New Zealand???
    I would say otherwise… he was rude and all he did was interrupt John Key and hardly let him speak and answer important questions!

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

    Sarah Parker- This is my point, we actually need more aggressive journalists in this country to actually keep probing the answers out of people like John Key. Yes, he was a little pushy but this is also due to time constraints on his show… but seriously, if you pay attention to Key, you can tell he is trying his best to avoid answering certain questions and it is Campbell’s job to actually keep hounding him and interrupting when he tries to change the subject and keep at him for the answers. The medias role is to act as a watchdog of people in power…. Campbell is great at this. and he will get the answers we need… like I said…he is an asset to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Thanks for those opinions Krystina.

    Opinions are like arseholes, every one has one. Except maybe John Campbell, who’s so full of shit one has to suspect he wasn’t allocated one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Krystina (4 comments) says:

    Redbaiter- yes, you are right, everyone has an opinion. Obviously ours differ…. I’m interested…what is it about Campbell that makes you think he is full of shit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Campbell has often confessed to being a supporter of far left causes. He was an outspoken Alliance supporter when that party existed. If he says he is a public watch dog, then why was he so active in sweeping political matters under the rug when Helen Clark was in power? Her sexuality. her husband’s real status. What happened in LA. The Glenn “donations”. He only ever criticised Clark from a left wing viewpoint.

    In fact most of NZ’s media is left wing and TV3 and Campbell and his program and not in any way an exception. Most criticism of politicians is by far made from a left wing standpoint only.

    We need more political balance in the NZ media and John Campbell is never going to help in that requirement.

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