GCSB protest

Wow - Dairyflat. Didn't expect to see you here

Of course there are some benefits. The trouble is history shows us that governments that spy on their own people are generally not considered that heallthy. McCarthyism, The NKVD under Stalin, Himmler's SS, etc. Just because we are the "good guys" does not mean that we are.

I'm a bit meh about it all as I'd think that the level of scrutiny that people are protesting about is already happening and is probably much greater than we can imagine.

As the Great Daevid Allen sang in 1979

Big Brother IBM

Watching you in the nude again

Better put on a disguise my friend

Fore they catagorize your rise again

Also I always liked this:

I agree with Frankie.

All those people who worked in those regimes thought what they were doing was acceptable, it's like the Baddies sketch. We look back and are appalled at what they did. Whats the difference with whats happening today?

Ironically, more information. 

The question can be looked at another way:

Do you want some government agency collecting all your phone calls and emails, ready to be searched and re-read/re-played at a moment's notice?

I'd prefer that not to happen. 

Happy for them to track individuals suspected of something, as long as they have a warrant. But a dragnet on everyone? That's Stasi/Gestapo stuff which doesn't belong in a democracy.

There is no threat of terrorism; the last terrorist act in NZ was in 1985 (Rainbow Warrior). 

We should at least wait until Australia is attacked before we worry about ourselves being a target.

Do I want some government agency collecting all your phone calls and emails, ready to be searched and re-read/re-played at a moment's notice? More than fine for that to happen although I feel sorry for the person who has to trawl through all the spam and bollocks that I receive.  Emails about penis enhancements and illiterate texts from Greenie - go nuts chaps.

I am sure that Bali didn't think it was going to be a terrorist target in 2002 based on their recent history and what had been happening to the countries around it.  If there is a way to prevent incidents like this, or at least reduce the impact, then we need to look at it.

the voice of reason.

This thread captures the debate really well. Frankie at one end happy for some randoms to read his mail as long as he's safe, and Bevan/Dairyflat/me at the other end where I'd rather live with a bit more risk and not have some government flunky tracking my every thought.

What it highlights is that there is a genuine and healthy divergence of views. And there's nothing wrong with that. This has been a live issues for decades.

What Snowden did in the US is demonstrate to ordinary citizens that the government was watching them in ways they weren't supposed to, and weren't admitting to.

There must be rules, and there must be genuine oversight so that those rules are adhered to.

The rules used to be that the Police were responsible for what happened inside a country, and the GSCB and the Army were for international territories. Turns out the GCSB weren't playing by those rules, and there was no genuine oversight. THAT is what scares me. That these gung ho kiddies are just doing what they like.

They now want to change the law to make what they are already doing legal. That is a pretty gross abuse of process.

A chap I know recently went to work for the GCSB. Knowing someone there on a personal level makes me even more uncomfortable about their carte blanche spying practices.

All I want is to know what the rules are, and to know that someone is making sure these powerful agencies play by them.

actually wasn't me.  Not sure it was the actual Amanda Bynes though.

Can somebody please tell has anything been put down on paper yet by the government or are all the nay sayers talking out of a hole in their head.???????

Bill link

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL12122_1/government-communications-security-bureau-and-related-legislation

I guess the question we need to ask is how much risk is the public prepared to wear in order to guarantee their 'privacy' and 'freedom'?

Sorry for the two posts. Couldn't get it to quote two different posts in one reply.

This is exactly what I think needs to happen. While I am coming from a different angle to Bevan and others etc, I think in the end what we all want is confidence that out government and associated agencies are treating citizens with respect and privacy. The tricky bit is doing this in a way that does no hamstring the agencies from doing the job they are intended to do. Independent oversight is absolutely integral to doing so. Working in a similar area I realise this is a lot harder said than done.

I think it is awesome that we can discuss such an important issue in a open forum and many people have also actioned their displeasure with the bill. There are plenty of places around the world where that isn't possible.

I think it is awesome that we can discuss such an important issue in a open forum and many people have also actioned their displeasure with the bill. There are plenty of places around the world where that isn't possible.

This.

All it takes is one imbecile to be responsible for the analysis of the aggregated information and someone can be thrown to the wolves for nothing more than buying saltpetre for curing Bacon.

These are very noble words...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe you get the democracy you are prepared to stand up for.

Here in New Zealand we often take our democratic freedoms for granted. We think they will always be there. We have a Bill of Rights which is supposed to protect our right to freedom of expression. What on Earth could go wrong?

I have a different view. I believe what Thomas Jefferson said – that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We cannot and we must not take democratic freedoms for granted.

Because, in reality, it is not a Bill of Rights that protects our rights. It is not up to a solicitor in the Crown Law Office or an official in the Ministry of Justice. In the end, it is not up to the government at all.

The protection of rights lies with us, the citizens of New Zealand. There are times when we have to stand up for our rights, and the rights of our neighbours and friends, and indeed the rights of people we totally disagree with, or else these rights will begin to erode away.

And this, I say to you, is one of those times. Because this bill is an assault on what it means to be a New Zealander, and this bill is an abuse of the trust we have in the government to protect the institutions that make us proud to call this country home.

It is not the government's freedom of expression that will be curtailed by this bill, but your freedom of expression, and the freedom of expression of every New Zealander who is not a politician or a newspaper editor.

We should count ourselves lucky that standing up for democracy in this country doesn't involve marching through tear gas, or printing leaflets in a hidden cellar, or standing in front of a tank.

But little battles can be as important as big ones. And, though it is not as glamorous or as terrifying, you are just as much fighting for democracy by putting a submission [snip].

You don't have to agree with my analysis of what should change. You should make up your own mind and you should express it with the courage of your convictions.

That is what living in a democracy is all about".

Guess who said that?

John Key, 2007, talking about the Electoral Finance Bill.

The widespread control necessary for capitalism to function is achieved largely not through violent display and explicit threat, but through "the disciplinary power of surveillance". (Anthony Giddens 1987)  Hmm....

I think this whole debate has become unnecesarily politicised and both sides are using extreme examples to justify opposing arguments.

My personal view is that any monitoring of NZ citizens needs to be proportionate, justified and subject to robust and transparent oversight.  At the same time, that shouldn't be confused with a position stating that no monitoring over  NZ citizens is acceptable - clearly as a society we have accepted that some monitoring by police and security services is justifiable to aid in crime prevention.  In many cases the objection to this legislation does not seem to acknowledge that fact and manifests itself as an objection to any monitoring at all - that to me doesn't tally with the level of security that we expect in New Zealand and the current position regarding the police and military monitoring internally which has never been controversial.  Despite the relative safety of New Zealand we should never underestimate that  there are threats that exist from time to time.  The question really shouldn't be whether the GSCB can or cannot monitor NZ citizens - if it's not that agency then another agency will.  The GCSB was not deliberately proceeding outside of the law, there was a misunderstanding as to the scope of their remit and a lack of oversight meant they proceeded unchecked while working on a small number of cases over a number of years. 

What is far more important is to discuss what level of active or passive monitoring we as a society consider acceptable, balancing personal freedom vs security, specifically taking into account whether we consider metadata sensitive information over which we have a right to privacy. Framing the debate as "would you let someone read your email" or "would you give someone your credit card details" is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.  Personally I find the collection and storage of metadata without a warrant to be objectionable, but I don't object to the security services having the ability to access that information in certain circumstances in order to investigate or prevent crime.

Finally, on Snowden, for those who consider him a hero do you think that it is the job of an individual to be an arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable within society (based on their own views and standards) or whether that should be left to elected officials and organs of the state to test against the laws of a country?  I think whistleblowers have an enormous part to play in a functioning democracy but I'm not convinced that the way he acted at the time and since marks him out as someone who is solely concerned with the welfare of citizens in the US.  In the end we rely on those having access to confidential data to respect that confidentiality - without that trust how can we have any confidence in public organisations or private companies to deal with the vast amounts of data they receive on a daily basis?

My understanding is that they had a legal opinion that pretty much said that what they were doing was ok, hence the 80 odd cases and the working in silos definitely didn't help either. It wasn't until it was looked at again did anyone decide something unlawful was happening.

This has topped Amanda Bynes' post for the greatest contribution to the thread.

After the Tuhoe terror raids in our area, I wouldn't trust the NZ spy agencies or the people who decide on follow up action to get much right at all.

Might be sharing offices/staff with NZ Football

I have said it before, and I will say it again - I stopped watching movies after She's the Man was made, as there is no point in watching perfection trying to be bettered.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454945/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1