John Key – GCSB fool (or liar)

Written By: - Date published: 7:28 am, August 16th, 2013 - 142 comments
Categories: john key, law, Spying - Tags: , , ,

On Campbell Live, and on other occasions, John Key has claimed that critics of the GCSB spying bill were all wrong. The Human Rights Commission – wrong. The Law Society – wrong. The Privacy Commissioner – wrong. Dame Anne Salmond – wrong. Everyone else wrong – only he – John Key – and his secret advisors were right, and we the sheeple have nothing to fear.

It was obviously bullshit, and today Key had to admit it – via one of his favoured mouthpieces of course:

Key pledges to restrict spy agency’s probe rights

… In the course of the [Campbell Live] interview he said incorrectly that under the bill, the GCSB would not be allowed to look at the content of communications when conducting their cyber-security functions.

In fact, there is nothing that prevents it from doing so. But what Mr Key is now saying is that in exercising his power to impose any conditions he wants on a warrant, he will use his discretion to set the default position not looking at content in the cyber-security function.

Got that folks? Key has admitted he was wrong in a major claim about the GCSB Bill. He is either a complete fool for claiming the only true understanding and getting caught out in his error – or he was a complete and knowing liar on Campbell Live. John Key – fool or liar – you be the judge.

As to proposed new powers of the GCSB, which Key didn’t understand/admit, he is now trying to claim that it will be patched up in the warrant process (see the rest of the Young piece above). Not Good Enough. If the law doesn’t do what it should do then the law should be fixed! Key needs to listen to those real experts that he so despises.

142 comments on “John Key – GCSB fool (or liar) ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    16 August 2013 at 8:05 am

    clearly

    fool

    and

    liar

    • blue leopard 1.1
      16 August 2013 at 12:46 pm

      +1 VTO

    • Murray Olsen 1.2
      16 August 2013 at 5:37 pm

      I’d say liar who thinks Kiwis are fools. We’re so deep in the shit of his making that today I can only console myself by thinking that his legacy will be like Nixon’s.

  2. ak 2
    16 August 2013 at 8:21 am

    Bare-faced lies are the present-day equivalent of the dagger hidden in the cloak of the utterly ruthless “whatever it takes” wrestler. Winning on the night is all that matters, and the mob bays with glee as the referees are ignored and mocked. This article is his simpering [r0b: deleted – much as I understand the sentiment I think that was a bit over the top] lisping that the knife got there by mistake. Just another sickening day Bully State.

  3. geoff 3
    16 August 2013 at 8:26 am

    Wow.

    So let me get this straight, we have to trust John Key’s judgement!?

    Even though he clearly doesn’t even understand his own legislation.

    Fark.

    • blue leopard 3.1
      16 August 2013 at 1:57 pm

      @ Geoff

      +1
      Yes, although the word used was ‘discretion’.

      John Key and any future leader can now use their ‘discretion’ whether to abuse these powers or not.

      They might use their ‘discretion’ to support their mates interests. This, to them might be a fair use of their ‘discretion’ and it wouldn’t be illegal.

      Is there anywhere in our laws that requires personal responsibility from politicians to act in the interests of New Zealanders?

      I don’t think so.

      As I understand it, they are personally protected from this requirement because the law deems that it wouldn’t be fair for them to be held personally accountable due to the amount of decisions they are having to make in many different areas and that mistakes are bound to be made and therefore a great deal of forgiveness, in fact total forgiveness, is included for them in the laws.

      Because of this legal ‘forgiveness’ the rules that politicians work by must be formulated in a way where these people, who are making decisions for us, should not be given the opportunity to use much of their non-accountable ‘discretion’.

      If they want that type of ‘freedom’ of ‘discretion’, then at least change the laws so that they will be held personally responsible for the effects of their ‘discretion’ when it turns out to be damaging to our democratic principles and rights.

    • Dr Terry 3.2
      16 August 2013 at 5:10 pm

      geoff – you rightly raise the question of trust. Key is in effect inviting us all to trust him implicitly. It might be helpful to look up certain statements that prominent persons have made about “trust”:

      Shakespeare” “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none” (is there someone who fails on all three counts?)
      From others: “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.” “Trust not too much to appearance.” “Trust, but verify.” “You can’t trust anybody with power.” “How dishonorable some people can be, how dangerous to trust them.” “It is prudent never to trust wholly those who have deceived us even once.”

  4. mickysavage 4
    16 August 2013 at 8:30 am

    This is pure and utter BS. The reason why laws are drawn to restrict the executive’s powers is to make sure that the powers are not abused in the future. Relying on the PM to insert requirements into warrant applications shows that the law is drawn too widely.

    Otherwise you can bet that one day one PM will “forget” or “neglect” to put the protection in.

    This is clear evidence that the process has been rushed and the changes should be rethought.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      16 August 2013 at 8:45 am

      Quite right. NZ has had some damn nasty PMs in the past and no doubt we will have again. Imagine Muldoon with email, facebook and IM spying powers during the springbok tour.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2
      16 August 2013 at 8:46 am

      +1

    • wtl 4.3
      16 August 2013 at 10:11 am

      Otherwise you can bet that one day one PM will “forget” or “neglect” to put the protection in.

      It is very weird how the supporters of this bill seem to complete ignore this point. Every time somehow criticising it says that it gives too much power to the Prime Minister, their response seems to be that Key would never do that. I appreciate that they may strongly support and trust Key, but even so, this says nothing about a future Prime Minister.

    • Saarbo 4.4
      16 August 2013 at 2:58 pm

      I would have thought that this was a MAJOR cock up on Key’s part because this is the thing that scares people the most in this bill…”content”. When Key unequivocally said to Campbell “the GCSB would not be allowed to look at the content of communications when conducting their cyber-security functions” , well he effectively disarmed Campbell.

      I would have imagined that National shit themselves when they discovered this cock up, the media should have had a field day on this, imagine if Campbell picked this up while interviewing…this was potentially Campbell’s “show me the money” moment.

      But you have to admire National’s damage control, they have incredibly powerful allies in the media, which is scarey. Labour need to raise their game enormously. This brings me back to the this weeks Listener article on the Labour Party where Mike William’s says “for a party to be strong and credible, six key figures in the party need to be working in unison. They are the leader, the deputy leader, the chief of staff, the party president, the party general secretary and the campaign director.” Well I reckon he left two out. He needs to add in the caucus and members. Labour are going to have to make sure everything is aligned and heading in the same direction to beat this National Party. This National Party is a powerful party on top of their game, as Chris Trotter pointed out in a recent article, the Left is taking them too lightly. The way they have recovered from this cock up is case in point.

      • mickysavage 4.4.1
        16 August 2013 at 8:56 pm

        Right you are Saarbo. The response is really impressive. Key’s interview was superficially stunning then they discovered this deep dark problem with it.

        The limited release of the story needs further attention. Using the Herald to announce changes in Government policy is bad at so many levels.

      • Skinny 4.4.2
        16 August 2013 at 9:12 pm

        Sadly many in caucus and within the party fail to grasp the concept that the Greens are here to stay, & power concessions need to be made in order to win next years election. Or else its another 3 years of misery in opposition, and even worst for all but the bottom feeders of this Country. 

         And the Greens continued erosion of Labour’s party vote will only grow. So you would think a lesson was learnt, that treating the Greens like dirt just doesn’t work? Wrong nothing has changed amongst the old guard. Take the scraps and don’t go getting above your station is still alive and dead-ending the NZLP. So to whoever within the party the unanswered question still  remains… Who the fuck can broker a deal between Labour & the Greens so a coalition Government can be formed in 2014?  

      • felix 4.4.3
        16 August 2013 at 10:22 pm

        “for a party to be strong and credible, six key figures in the party need to be working in unison. They are the leader, the deputy leader, the chief of staff, the party president, the party general secretary and the campaign director.”

        Perhaps they just forgot to watch the interview. If so, that’s ok. There’ll be other issues. Plenty of time.

        Give them six months and I’m sure they’ll be ready and waiting.

  5. Ed 5
    16 August 2013 at 9:19 am

    The media have been remarkably silent on the requirement for the Attorney General to state whether legislation offends against Privacy and Human Rights laws – I presume that would have been issued for the second reading. Is it available on-line? Does anyone have a list of bills which the Attorney-General admitted did not meet privacy and human rights requirements?

  7. Blue 7
    16 August 2013 at 9:37 am

    Between this and Audrey Young’s piece pointing out another Key mistake yesterday:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10912495

    I think it’s safe to assume that John Key doesn’t actually know what’s in the legislation, and from his attitude to turning up during the committee stages, he doesn’t really care.

    Anything he says about the bill is suspect.

  8. Craig Glen viper 8
    16 August 2013 at 9:52 am

    The thing hear is the show is over Key/National have hit the target audience. He goes on Cambell live lies, but is reasuring and smiling, behaves like he is acting in NZers security interest protecting them from the nasty terrorists, job done. Two days latter he retracts apologies and only a few poeple see this certainly not the most of the folk in the street they hear/see from media John Key was commanding on the GCSB issue, therefore experts are wrong.

    The problem in all of this is Labour need someone who is quick enough to see the lies when on TV/debates during an election call him on it and present the facts logically simply and in a way that is commanding.
    Shearer cant do this if Labour sticks with Shearer, NZ is screwed and so is the current Labour Caucus. No matter how much media training you give Shearer he will never beat Key in the media war, not a shit show in hell!

    • yeshe 8.1
      16 August 2013 at 9:59 am

      +100% Come in David Cunliffe, your time is up ! And quickly, please.

      • keith rosss 8.1.1
        16 August 2013 at 10:29 am

        for gods sake! the old guard in the caucus need to do the right thing, come on you have plenty of money and the gold plated perks and retirement goldmine to look forward to. Some of us have young families and need a labour greens govt. now not in four years. I am rushing to buy my first house before the new kiwisaver rules come in on the first of October as to save 10% before getting access to my own money keeps my family out of their own home for years. Shearer is not going to cut it and neither are you. The country needs Cunliffe now, not in four years.Please think of the children and do the right thing.

        • Akldnut 8.1.1.1
          16 August 2013 at 3:26 pm

          God no more of these clowns…. Pleeeease! Come in Dvaid Cunliffe this is your signal to start showing Shearer up for the timid little lamb he is. Right Now!

    • emergency mike 8.2
      16 August 2013 at 11:11 am

      “Two days latter he retracts apologies and only a few poeple see this certainly not the most of the folk in the street they hear/see from media John Key was commanding on the GCSB issue, therefore experts are wrong.”

      Yesterday I said this:

      “Plus they have another big advantage, they can always just lie or make something up. There is usually not time in an argument to go and check ‘facts’ that are thrown up. By the time someone subsequently does, the argument is long finished, and the observer is left with the impression that the psychopath made a point that the other couldn’t answer.”

      John Key said all Campbell’s experts were wrong, but he either doesn’t understand the legislation or lied for the Campbell live interview.

      But don’t worry says he, it doesn’t matter anyway because he’ll use his discretion about who gets spied on.

      Ah goodo then.

    • Hanswurst 8.3
      16 August 2013 at 11:40 am

      I’m not sure whether this is true. The interview was on Campbell Live and watched largely by Campbell Live’s audience. The rest of NZ will pick it up peripherally through articles like Young’s. Key may have made a blustering, war-dancing show in that single interview, but his problem now is that everything he has said in that interview is there in the archives and able to be attacked. Campbell can now use any errors or misjudgments by Key to expose further issues with Key’s handling of the bill, and will continue to reach his own audience and peripherally, through articles like Young’s, the rest of NZ as well. People are overestimating the direct influence of this televised showing by the PM, NZ’s favourite performing monkey.

    • Hami Shearlie 8.4
      16 August 2013 at 3:00 pm

      +1000 – David Cunliffe is the only one in Labour who could really beat John Key – “Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man”!

  9. ghostwhowalksnz 9
    16 August 2013 at 9:55 am

    The whole interview was a sham- obviously Key was well prepped for days, probably making a few mock inteview runs with his spin doctors. Then they spring a last minute acceptance on Campbell so he doesnt have time to prepare

    And now he runs away again , just giving out a prepared statement, and then slamming the door shut, no more questions unless its about snapper

    • Wayne 9.1
      16 August 2013 at 2:45 pm

      Ghostwhowalksnz,

      You are seriously wrong on this. John Key probably spent less than 2 hours on the prep (and I know more about this process than you).

      He needs no prep to be clam and considered. He does that every day. He also knows JC’s style, so therefore the importance of making sure he gets his point across.

      And what were the main points about the Bill he wanted to make:
      1. That all GCSB assistance in NZ needs a warrant – and referenced to s8 and 14
      2. That the process has checks and balances – retired Court of Appeal Judges etc
      3. That meta data surveillance needs warrants as well
      4. That it is pretty much the same process as Helen Clark, except with more checks and balances
      5. That there are real threats
      6. That cybersecurity is sensible – like Norton
      7. That he knows not to tell NZers the entire operating system of GCSB. A lot of NZers do actually want to be reassured that the PM can keep secret stuff secret.

      Now I know the PM will have worked out the main points he had to make pretty quickly when he decided to go on Campbell Live.

      The point I am making – the Left consistently underestimates the PM’s skill to work out a strategy and get his points across.

      And this business of calling the PM a psychopath is now out in the mainstream, but it is not going to go well for the Left, since middle NZ is going to see that as preposterous and desperate.

      • gobsmacked 9.1.1
        16 August 2013 at 3:03 pm

        I don’t underestimate his skill to work out a strategy. Not at all.

        The strategy was to lie. So he did.

        • miravox 9.1.1.1
          16 August 2013 at 3:07 pm

          Exactly

          – and obfuscate.

        • Wayne 9.1.1.2
          16 August 2013 at 3:36 pm

          Well, you and much of the Left blogosphere will say that. I guess it avoids you actually having to debate the issue.

          I recall that is what the Right blogosphere said the same about Helen Clark right through 2002 to 2008.

          It was unattractive from them, and it is unattractive from you.

          And it is the sort of thing that damages politics. If the partisans (or at least a large fraction of them) routinely call the other side liars and psycopaths, you can hardly be surprised if middle NZ is turned off politics.

          Even partisans have a duty to debate things civilly without immediate recourse to name calling. There are wider issues about the health of politics that requires that.

          Actually, I might note that Karol does not usually call the PM a liar. She might say he spins, gives half the story, etc, but that is OK in reasonable discourse.

          • gobsmacked 9.1.1.2.1
            16 August 2013 at 3:43 pm

            it avoids you actually having to debate the issue.

            Eh? The “left” (actually the wide-ranging opposition to the bill, well beyond the “left”) has been trying to debate the issue. Where have you been?

            Do you think the issue suddenly appeared on Wednesday?

            OK, so the “issue” now is what the Prime Minister said. Let’s debate it. I say he was wrong. You say …?

          • blue leopard 9.1.1.2.2
            16 August 2013 at 4:01 pm

            @ Wayne,

            Gobsmacked’s response really addresses the issue that you raise, however, your comments raises some pressing questions.

            Is calling people dishonest causing the ‘damage to politics’ or is it the dishonesty?

            If I shout out ‘thief’ when someone is trying to steal my car, is the problem that is occurring my calling out ‘thief or is it the theft itself?

            Can I have a rational and reasoned debate with someone whose arguments lacks a grasp on reality and is entirely illogical?

          • Murray Olsen 9.1.1.2.3
            16 August 2013 at 6:04 pm

            The biggest advantage that liars have in positions of trust and authority is that very few are prepared to call them on their lies. Police prosecutors rely on this all the time, with the results we see with Arthur Thomas and Teina Pora. Key is the first PM I can recall who has relied on it so heavily. The health of politics depends on politicians being honest, not on people ignoring their lies. Saying that it is unattractive from us is a way to avoid debating the issue. We have been debating it ever since it reared its ugly head.

            I will not take my political tactics from someone who spins so much on behalf of Key, excessive state power, and welfare cuts, thank you very much.

          • North 9.1.1.2.4
            17 August 2013 at 9:22 am

            Wayne@9.1.1.2 – thank you for the headmaster-like ticking off there……..care to publish, honestly and without edit, your own “unattractive” mouthings re Helen Clark during the period 2002-08 ?

            A case of poacher turned gamekeeper methinks.

            • Wayne 9.1.1.2.4.1
              17 August 2013 at 1:06 pm

              North,

              I can assure I never indulged in any personal abuse of Helen Clark, or any other MP’s for that matter. I had known her since University days and knew how focussed she could be. And that she was and is a person of integrity.

              If you don’t believe me, ask Labour or Green MP’s about my style as an MP.

              I might note I had been a member of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1982, so I knew many of the Labour MP’s from that time.

              • Anne …
                17 August 2013 at 3:11 pm

                Yes. I can vouch for Wayne. He was the MP in my electorate for umpteen years and at no time did I hear anything adverse about him. He was courteous and respectful at all times. The same cannot be said about his successor.

      • Puddleglum 9.1.2
        16 August 2013 at 4:03 pm

        Hi Wayne,

        I certainly wouldn’t underestimate John Key’s discursive and social skills.

        But I do think that many of those ‘points’ are simply incorrect, so it is a shame that he has used those skills to advance them.

        For example, there is little evidence that there are real threats (to New Zealand and New Zealand’s population). He did not provide such extensive evidence; nor has anyone else to my knowledge. The lack of such justification was a major concern expressed in the Law Society submission.

        Further, the revised Section 14 has expanded rather than reduced the operational remit of the GCSB, so the claim that there are “more checks and balances” than there were under the previous legislation seems incorrect. Once again, this also appears to be a concern of the Law Society.

        Again, the ‘point’ that ‘cybersecurity is sensible’ is suitably vague given the broad definition given for it in Section 8A – so, I suppose with this one I’d simply say it’s hard to know whether or not the point is ‘correct’. That could only be determined by knowing what ‘cybersecurity’ means when it comes to the ‘facts on the ground’ of the GCSB’s operations. Sadly – or conveniently – that is not possible, given the last ‘point’ you believe he was trying to make.

        Finally, the points about assuring New Zealanders that there are ‘checks and balances’ is trivial since the substantive issue is the question of whether or not there are sufficient checks and balances given the traditional, exceptionally light, oversight of the intelligence services as compared with other government agencies.

        John Key did not present an argument for why these checks and balances were sufficient in the context of the increased operational remit of the GCSB. In fact, the released statement to the Herald seems to highlight the fragile nature of one of the (now) claimed checks and balances – that it is down to a discretionary behaviour of the warrant signers as to whether or not content of New Zealanders’ communications is accessed, with or without their knowledge.

        I realise that you are simply arguing that John Key is clever at presenting his rhetorical position in an interview, but my concern is the end to which that cleverness is directed.

        • Wayne 9.1.2.1
          16 August 2013 at 4:50 pm

          I am sure that both Helen Clark and John Key think it is prudent to keep track of the people who got training in Yemen (and their communications).

          Now you may not care, but any PM who simply ignored such people would be considered reckless by their colleagues. That is one of the main reasons for SIS and GCSB warrants. You need to know who such a person is in contact with.

          And “no”, I do not think Dr Rodney Harrison QC is the best person to judge these risks.

          Hi skills lie in evaluating appropriate checks and balances and the grounds for warrants. For instance I think a warrant should be required wherever it is known that a NZer is involved, even if the person that is the target of the surveillance is an overseas person.

          • Puddleglum 9.1.2.1.1
            16 August 2013 at 5:59 pm

            Hi Wayne,

            Thanks for the response.

            I’m not sure why you mentioned Helen Clark’s and John Key’s prudential preferences here. Some people are worriers, some are fatalists. The characteristics and predispositions of individuals (even those who are Prime Ministers) are irrelevant. These issues have nothing to do with ‘personality’ or ‘personal judgment’. They are about impacts of legislation on the twin concerns of security and civil rights.

            Do I care about tracking people who had training in Yemen? Yes, although I wasn’t aware that 88 such people were in New Zealand and that the risk of Yemeni training had increased recently.

            Surely it does not represent a national security risk to explain fully the basis of the threat? What kinds of training were involved? Has there been a spike in such training? Are the police unable, using their own normal powers, to track and monitor the comings and goings of such people (with appropriate warrants)? Is the problem that their communications are with people inside New Zealand or beyond? How specific is the threat?

            None of these types of questions have been addressed and very little information on the risks we apparently face has been provided. Yes, I wish to avoid terrorist incidents that harm people in New Zealand, but there are many ‘risks’ in our society and I would like some sense of just how great this particular risk is. I don’t see how this represents some neglectful or ‘risky’ approach on my part. Quite prudent I would have thought.

            Relatedly, so far as I’m aware, John Key had no intention of updating the GCSB Act prior to Dotcom and the Kitteridge report, despite presumably being aware of any presumed escalation in risks. Was he being negligent during that period, in your reckoning?

            As well as Rodney Harrison QC, I assume that you also don’t think that the Law Society’s Rule of Law Committee and its chair Austin Forbes QC are well placed to realise that their concerns are over-ruled by these (increased but unspecified) security threats given that they confirmed on 6 August that:

            “The concerns the Law Society expressed in its submission on the bill have not been significantly mitigated by the proposed changes.”

            Who do you think is best placed to judge these risks? John Key? The head of the GCSB? A retired judge? And, why?

            Also, you don’t seem to realise that the Law Society submission was not claiming to judge the security risks. Its point was that very little explanation of those risks, and therefore justification for the legal changes, had been made. Are you saying that they are not in a position to judge whether or not justifications had been presented?

            More to the point, don’t you think that, in a democracy, it is up to the people – operating through institutions such as the unhurried processes for passing appropriate legislation – to make the value judgment of when risks justify particular measures such as the widening of the operational remit of an intelligence agency so that it can operate in relation to New Zealanders in New Zealand?

            Or do you believe that the general population of ordinary New Zealanders, like the Law Society, are similarly not well placed to make such judgments collectively? (please don’t say they voted in the government hence that’s the end of their right to make judgments).

            Perhaps you only champion ordinary New Zealanders’ rights to make judgments about shower-heads and lightbulbs?

            • Wayne 9.1.2.1.1.1
              16 August 2013 at 9:31 pm

              Well, unlike you I do believe PM’s should be trusted to make these decisions. Invariably those who get there will have thought through what it means to be PM and the national security questions that go with the role. They will have already been on the Intelligence Committee, and will have been briefed by the Directors of SIS and GCSB over the years. When I look at Parliament today I would trust any likely person on both sides of the House in Labour and National to do the job responsibly.

              As a general point, one of the fundamental differences between a Police warrant and a SIS warrant is that the police warrant has to relate to the commission of an actual crime, whereas a SIS warrant does not.

              So to take the case of people who got training in Yemen as an example (and it will not be made up as some here believe), they are almost certainly not committing a crime under NZ law. For that to be the case there would have to be evidence that they were actually planning an attack either here or elsewhere. Only then could the Police get a warrant.

              But SIS powers are wider in the sense the commission of a crime is not required. But there must be some issue of national or international security – I would suggest training in the Yemen triggers that threshold. The SIS will have an interest in their network of contacts, especially contact overseas. That is why SIS will seek a warrant from the PM, and apparently (Kitteridge Report) the GCSB were also involved in the surveillance of the persons of SIS interest 88 times.

              Most of these occurred when Helen Clark was PM, so she clearly thought the persons should be surveilled.

              As has been publically reported, the Director of SIS brings her a file about the relevant person, with enough supporting material, to justify the grant of a warrant. I imagine she went through the material pretty carefully before approving the warrant. It is worth noting the file would be based on open source material, or informants, or surveillance that does not need a warrant.

              A warrant is necessary to enter premises, tap phones, install microphones, install trackers, download emails, etc.

              Iprent, the QA programme will be the review by the retired Judges, the Inspector, and the annual reporting of numbers of warrants to the Intelligence Committee. It is somewhat beefed up from current requirements, which lets be honest have been rather limited with the Inspector having virtually no resources.

              • geoff …
                16 August 2013 at 10:03 pm

                If we can trust the PM to make the correct decisions in these circumstances then how is it possible that the Prime Minister himself had to apologise to Kim DotCom for failing to provide the correct oversight to the GCSB?

                It does seem very strange indeed that you believe it is a good idea to give additional responsibilities and trust to a minister who has already been caught asleep at the wheel.

                • blue leopard …
                  16 August 2013 at 11:05 pm

                  @ Geoff,

                  Some people go weak at the knees and will believe anything if it smells of money or power.

                  They will convince themselves that they are being told the truth and spend much time trying to convince others the same.

                  This is what both Wayne and our Pm are doing.

                  One would hope people learned from history not to be so impressionable and gullible. They must have no self respect.

                  • geoff …
                    16 August 2013 at 11:55 pm

                    So dotcom is our only hope?? ;P

                    • blue leopard …
                      17 August 2013 at 1:51 am

                      Actually Geoff, you’ve got a point there.
                      ….Smells of money and has a bone to pick with the PM and his dodgy mate. Pretty good circumstances to send the money-power-sniffers into a big confusion. “Heck, which one shall I choose, which one shall I choose??” and divide them.

                  • North …
                    17 August 2013 at 9:26 am

                    It’s called snobbery BL. There remains a class of people who’ll borrow a pair of boots to walk 20 miles to vote Tory. It’s uplifting for them.

                • Wayne …
                  17 August 2013 at 1:25 am

                  The Dotcom case did involve any decision by the PM. It is a Police matter, and they have full operational independence from politicians. They get their warrants from Judges. Which is what happened in the Dotcom case. The Dotcom raid took place under a judicial warrant.

                  Now on big issues, especially with an international dimension, the Police do brief Ministers so they won’t be caught off guard by media. That is why the Police briefed the PM the day before the raid, but the Police had already made the decision to go. And that decision would have been made independent of any politician.

                  In contrast, SIS warrants are the domain of the PM because they involve questions of national security (broadly defined in the SIS legislation). Which I might note is not directly part of the current GCSB issues. However it is to the extent that the assistance that GCSB will provide to SIS is under the general SIS powers.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 August 2013 at 1:36 am

                    The Dotcom case did involve any decision by the PM.

                    Did it involve forewarning the PM? Yes, I think that very likely, given the international interest (read US Government and Entertainment Industry) in the enforcement action against Dotcom.

                    The Dotcom raid took place under a judicial warrant.

                    Luckily the specifics of the warrant were correct and the police and the prosecutors acted on the details of that warrant correctly.

                    NOT.

                    Here’s some fun new input:

                    US FISA Court ability to hold NSA/US Government to account effectively minimal

                    Looks like the fig leaves are dropping away fast.

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-ability-to-police-us-spying-program-limited/2013/08/15/4a8c8c44-05cd-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html?hpid=z1

                  • geoff …
                    17 August 2013 at 9:51 am

                    The Dotcom case did involve any decision by the PM

                    Freudian slip there, Wayne? I presume you intended to say it did NOT involve the PM?

                    How can you be so sure that it did not involve the PM? Because he said so? John Key has had to revise a number of his statements on a number of issues, including of course statements related to the DotCom case which suggests either a memory problem or a willing deceitfulness. In either case this is not a person whose word can be trusted.

                    At the same time, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that suggests John Key did know about the impending raid and that he knew who DotCom was, as has been documented by Campbell Live.

                    And then of course there is the perspective that, if John Key didn’t know about the raid then he was negligent in his duties and that if he was doing the job properly he should have known about it and stepped in before the illegality occurred.

                    So, at best, he has been negligent, asleep at the wheel and completely unworthy of the trust of New Zealanders.

              • emergency mike …
                16 August 2013 at 10:55 pm

                “Well, unlike you I do believe PM’s should be trusted to make these decisions”

                You lost me there Wayne.

              • Skinny …
                16 August 2013 at 11:34 pm

                There is that saying “you can trust a thief but you can’t trust a lair.”
                In John Keys case that saying rings oh so true. I trusted he would steal our assets and flog them off to oversea interests in Nationals 2nd term of office, and he did.

                And I knew he was lying after over 40,000 kiwi’s hit the streets in Auckland protesting over intentions to mine our national parks. He got rattled & said that he had ‘listened to the people’ and would not mine our parks. I guess it was a half lie because he allowed an Australian mining company do it down south on the Dennison.

                Your courteous stance is admirable, however your backing the wrong pony, as John Key is a rouge.

              • Puddleglum …
                16 August 2013 at 11:35 pm

                Wayne, I neither trust nor distrust ‘PMs’ to make these decisions. My first point was that their personality (or character) are irrelevant to having a robust process (and legislation). Robustness in these processes should not depend on the personality or character of individuals.

                I’m not sure how I can put that point more clearly. I have no idea where, in my comments above, you got the sense that my concern was based on a lack of trust in Helen Clark and John Key. You were the only one expressing a lack of trust in someone to make a judgment correctly – Rodney Harrison QC.

                Once again, I don’t know why you keep talking about individuals and their capacities or trustworthiness. This is a discussion about characteristics of proposed legislation and the reasons for introducing it. Isn’t it?

                Nevertheless, thank you very much for your clarification about the differences between Police and SIS warrants. Unfortunately, this is not at all reassuring. Let me explain why.

                You suggest that those people training in the Yemen “are almost certainly not committing a crime under NZ law” and that’s because “there would have to be evidence that they were actually planning an attack either here or elsewhere“. That means that the Police cannot get a warrant. The SIS can because they believe there’s an issue of national security or international security.

                Now, I won’t argue with your suggestion that training in the Yemen is a sufficient trigger for the SIS to be interested. It does, however, raise the broader issue of what might trigger the SIS’s concerns under the heading of national or international security. But I’ll leave that.

                The main problem is the next step, which you glossed. So far, the SIS approach Helen Clark or John Key with a request for a warrant. They do or don’t sign off on that request. Now, for some reason the GCSB become involved, on the back of the SIS warrant. Why?

                Everyone knows that the SIS spies on New Zealanders. That’s not at issue. The point is that the GCSB became involved in that process.

                The only defence I have ever heard for that is that the GCSB have a capacity that the Police and the SIS do not have for tracking communications. Presumably, that ability comes from their involvement with overseas intelligence agencies. Perhaps you can clarify further?

                Given that the ‘In case of doubt’ subsection (2) in Section 8C limits the advice and assistance to both the purpose of the entities to which the GCSB is giving advice and assistance and the various existing limitations on those entities, just what is the GCSB adding that makes it so desirable that they be involved?

                My only guess is that they have, and presumably have always had, the ability to track New Zealanders’ communications in quite a comprehensive way. An ability that can now be called upon. I realise you may not have the technical background to answer this, but how come they have the technical ‘infrastructure’ that can do this in New Zealand given that they were always meant to be an ‘outward looking’ agency? Was this just a lucky bonus of the technology they were given?

                To put it another way, are New Zealanders’ communications already being caught in a ‘sweep’ but – because of the lack of specific warrants – are not being looked at (even in terms of metadata)? Or, does the GCSB have the technical ability, currently, only to ‘look outwards’ and could not, even if it wanted to, look inwards? If the latter, how on earth could it add to the SIS’s capabilities?

                Thank you once again for your reply – I’m learning things.

                • Wayne …
                  17 August 2013 at 1:34 am

                  Briefly, as you note the GCSB has a whole range of technology that the SIS does not have. And the technology has to cover communications that are not just international, in the sense it has to be able to intercept communications to and from NZ, of international persons (persons who are not citizens or permanent representatives).

                  • Puddleglum …
                    17 August 2013 at 2:16 pm

                    Thanks Wayne – pretty much what I assumed.

                    There’s still the question of the mode of that technology – which is where the wall of secrecy descends. If the technology is only such that it operates through specific targeting on a case-by-case basis then it would be possible to regulate its use. Data would only be generated on the basis of a warrant.

                    If, alternatively, it involves a ‘broad sweep’ technology that can then be mined for individual cases, then that is more worrying and harder to regulate.

                    The concerns over Section 8A capabilities (cybersecurity) are no doubt linked to the question of whether this cybersecurity technology is the basis for the case-by-case ‘advice and assistance’ function in Section 8C of the Bill. If so, that would mean that ‘case-by-case’ data are already available, in some form, on all New Zealanders.

                    It’s the technological difference between having to fit a tracking device to a car on a case-by-case basis and using, for example, the GPS data already available via the cellphone network.

            • MrSmith 9.1.2.1.1.2
              17 August 2013 at 6:45 pm

              “Perhaps you only champion ordinary New Zealanders’ rights to make judgments about shower-heads and lightbulbs?”
              Perfect Puddleglum.

              And here we have the issue to polarize the National voters, don’t think for a moment they have less to hide than anyone else. Once this bill is passed into law National will be hoping it will drop off the radar, but with the looming Kim@com extradition and with a little help from Peters, Norman and god help up Shearer this could be the issue that starts the doubt amongst the swing voters.

          • lprent 9.1.2.1.2
            16 August 2013 at 6:26 pm

            The applications for search warrants could do with a good quality assurance program. The grounds appear to be “we, the police, are suspicious” rather than having any grounds.

            • McFlock 9.1.2.1.2.1
              16 August 2013 at 11:30 pm

              I suspect that they have focussed on a quality assurance program that ensures the most effective wording is used to describe the thinnest suspicions while falling short (at least in legal practicality) of “fabrication”.

              And in a Kafkaesque twist, even if the warrant is bunk, if they find evidence of anything else then it still results in a successful prosecution. I seem to recall that when that cop several years back faked his own assault and tied himself up (eventually charged and convicted for the traffic accident he’d turned his life into), the investigation executed search warrants on a grab-bag of “usual suspects” (and, because the case seemed weird, weirdos like BDSM or pagans), and got convictions because of it. I would have thought that any warrant based on reasonable assumptions would fall down if the crime didn’t actually exist, but go figure.

              “Results based policing” rather than actual “policing”.

        • Christine 9.1.2.2
          16 August 2013 at 5:00 pm

          One of the arguments against the changes to GCSB Act is ‘why do it, NZ isn’t likely to be the centre of an international crime such as a terrorist attack or have a NZer being a contributor to an attack’ so why should we all be subject to the risk of surveillance. How about instead, think about the likelihood of such a scenario as well as its impact to put it into perspective. Remember that the measure of the severity of any risk is its impact multiplied by its likelihood.
          Look at the Fonterra botulism issue, the likelihood of that occurring is very low because of the volume of milk processed every day, the impact has been huge. Likewise the impact of NZ being a contributor or the centre of a terrorism event is massive.
          Contrast that with the behaviour that parents dont let their children walk to school because they may be picked up and molested. In that situation, people have voted to avoid the impact and ignored the low likelihood.

          • Pascal's bookie 9.1.2.2.1
            16 August 2013 at 5:24 pm

            Even accepting this for the sake of argument, there is a gap in your balancing of the trade offs.

            There is also a risk that powers given to the government will be abused at some point in the future. This risk is increased when the powers are used in secret of course, and it doesn’t take long to find multiple examples of intelligence agencies abusing their powers.

            So we have a high chance that the powers will be abused, balanced by an unspecified reduction in the risk of an already unlikely event. At least, that’s how I see the calculation.

          • Puddleglum 9.1.2.2.2
            16 August 2013 at 6:52 pm

            Hi Christine,

            As well as Pascal’s Bookie’s points, I’d add that there’s a problem of how risk calculations and resulting policy and law changes, impact differently upon, and are perceived (in terms of risk) differently by, different groups of citizens.

            What I mean is that many New Zealanders may well think to themselves ‘I’d never be involved in anything like that so, yeah, go ahead with those changes’. Others, by contrast, may think that if any abuse of such powers were to happen they are likely to be one of the first types of person affected (not because they are doing anything illegal). The risk of the consequences of an abuse of power is, for them, higher than for others.

            The whole point of civil rights is to protect, in the first instance, just such (groups of) people, or people in particular situations. The right of free speech is, for example, only manifest when someone wants to speak out. People who don’t see themselves speaking out strongly in public anytime soon will not be so fussed about limitations put on free speech. Similarly, the rights related to search and seizure are not perceived as salient by many people who cannot imagine that they may need such rights.

            As I mentioned in my response to Wayne, above, one of my concerns is that the public has not been given the chance (or information) to come to any sensible estimation of risks or impacts from possible terrorism events in New Zealand.

            Nobody wants a tragedy to happen, so we can rely on people to come to a robust arrangement here if we put effort into doing this properly rather than by the seat of our pants, as seems to be happening.

            Your example of parents is a good one. What it shows, above all else, is that fear is the enemy of freedom. It’s a perennial dilemma, which is why I’m so interested in this GCSB being fully discussed and debated.

      • Anne 9.1.3
        16 August 2013 at 7:01 pm

        And this business of calling the PM a psychopath is now out in the mainstream, but it is not going to go well for the Left, since middle NZ is going to see that as preposterous and desperate.

        You are correct Wayne he’s not a psychopath. However he does exhibit a few psychopathic tendencies – quite a common occurrence. Recognise the following?

        Superficial Charm
        Psychopaths can be highly charming and persuasive, and smooth talkers. Many come across as confident, dominant personalities, even leaders (history is littered with psychopathic dictators).

        Their charm can be very effective in attracting people initially, and this includes romantic and sexual attraction. Most psychopaths are men, and those who become romantically involved with them, primarily women, frequently become their victims.

        Grandiose sense of self-worth
        Psychopaths tend to have very high opinions of themselves, and think themselves better than others. This further allows them to feel justified in using and manipulating people. Their inflated self-worth is coupled with a strong sense of entitlement to money, status symbols, or whatever they feel is owing to them.

        http://www.health24.com/Mental-Health/Disorders/How-to-recognise-a-psychopath-20120721

        NB. At the end of the article the author points out that true psychopaths are rare but many people have some psychopathic tendencies. John Key is, in my view, one of them.

        • geoff 9.1.3.1
          16 August 2013 at 10:06 pm

          I personally think that people often say things like ‘psychopath’ when perhaps what they more accurately mean is that John Key is a loathsome, self-serving, untrustworthy bully.

        • emergency mike 9.1.3.2
          16 August 2013 at 11:16 pm

          I have a degree in psychology and I spent two years reviewing the literature on psychopaths.

          Some people have antisocal personality disorder, some are sociopaths, and some are psychopaths, (some people even talk about a 4th class of ‘pure psychopaths’). In my own speculative opinion, John is is at least an antisocial, probably a sociopath, and probably not a psychopath. But where (if at all) one draws the line between these types is murky to put it kindly.

          Btw Anne, Dr Robert Hare who is probably the world’s foremost expert on psychopaths estimates that they make up 1% of the general population. Not so rare as you might think. He also believes tham to be over-represented in prisons, commerce, and politics.

          The modern concept and understanding of psychopaths in society is changing rapidly right now.

          • Anne 9.1.3.2.1
            17 August 2013 at 3:25 pm

            Interesting. Thanks for that emergency mike.

          • blue leopard 9.1.3.2.2
            17 August 2013 at 3:45 pm

            @Emergency Mike,

            This is similar to what I ‘conversed’ with you on another thread, (This is/is not Democracy) however this time I wish to pose a direct question rather than a statement:

            Is there any acknowledgement that psychopathic qualities can be developed?

            I am of the opinion that the culture we have today, is encouraging psychopathic qualities. I target the neo-liberalist economic theory as being one of the prime causes; where self-interest being seen as the pivot by which a society can organize itself is leading to the increased rewarding of acts of self-interest; the greater and narrower this self interest, the more financial reward our system appears to be endowing on people. I acknowledge that this is a warping of the basic theory of self-interest; which was never meant to be ‘narrow’ self interest, however this is the way I see things occurring.

            I suspect this is leading to more psychopathic/sociopathic qualities being displayed than perhaps that 1% estimate accounts for.

            I am interested to know whether this culturally “nurturing” aspect was acknowledged in the psychology literature you studied.

            • Anne 9.1.3.2.2.1
              17 August 2013 at 4:16 pm

              What you say makes a lot of sense blue leopard and goes back to my contention that many people exhibit certain psychopathic tendencies without being regarded as clinical psychopaths. This is the category John Key falls into – in my humble opinion.

              I remember reading years ago that the professions where people with psychopathic tendencies are most prevalent are those where there is a high degree of control over what can often be described as vulnerable citizens. The examples given were the education and health sectors and the police were also mentioned. I would certainly add politicians – both local and national – as another area where they can exist in higher than normal numbers.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.3.2.2.2
              17 August 2013 at 4:20 pm

              Just watch “The Century of The Self”.

              Humans have different aspects to their character and nature. The ones you feed will grow stronger and the ones you don’t will not. The work of Freud and of the early Madison Avenue crowd helped to begin rewriting American psychology and mass culture over several generations.

              They have basically succeeded, at this point.

              • Puddleglum …
                17 August 2013 at 4:35 pm

                And read Stuart Ewen’s classic book “All Consuming Images” (Ewen was interviewed in Century of the Self).

                Edward Bernays – Freud’s cousin, author of the book “Propaganda”, founder of PR: A life devoted to the reconstitution of people as separate, fractured pieces of flotsam bobbing along unsupported by the vessel of a stable social world, all ready to be washed up on the shores of capitalism.

                It’s surprising how deliberate it all was.

              • RedLogix …
                17 August 2013 at 4:36 pm

                The ones you feed will grow stronger and the ones you don’t will not.

                With age you get to realise how absolutely true this is.

                Sometime in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War and the opening up of the Soviet Union a very highly placed figure in the Soviet regime was quoted as saying something along the lines, “the reason why the USA won and we did not, was that the Americans had Madison Avenue … and your propaganda was believed, while no-one believed ours”.

              • emergency mike …
                19 August 2013 at 2:44 pm

                What CV said.

            • blue leopard 9.1.3.2.2.3
              17 August 2013 at 5:14 pm

              Ah! Clearly that comment struck a chord.

              Thanks very interesting responses Anne, Leftbutnotdeluded, CV, Puddleglum & RedLogix

              I guess we’ve all read The Independent’s Beware of Corportate Psychopaths article.

              I sincerely hope that Wayne does too. Things have changed since his time in parliament and it is starting to get past ‘gullible’ to continue to ignore the cultural change in values that have occurred amongst our ‘superiors’.

              CV, I have been wanting to watch that “The Century of the Self” since watching “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” and looking up the director, Adam Curtis. Must get onto it!

              Leftbutnotdeluded, that was funny!

              Puddleglum, will look up that book, thanks, the recommendation is most appreciated.

            • emergency mike 9.1.3.2.2.4
              19 August 2013 at 2:42 pm

              Sorry for the late reply.

              “I am of the opinion that the culture we have today, is encouraging psychopathic qualities.”

              I think so too. The relentless focus on materialism, commercialism, celebrity worship, ‘greed is good’, win at all costs, the end always justifies the means, and the US style division of people into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ doesn’t exactly encourage community spirit.

              “I suspect this is leading to more psychopathic/sociopathic qualities being displayed than perhaps that 1% estimate accounts for.”

              People display such qualities regularly. There are few saints about who’ve never done anything deceitful, spiteful, hateful, hurtful or devious. Just because someone does doesn’t make them a psychopath, so be careful throwing that dangerous and loaded word about. But yes broadly I agree. When the world becomes more dog-eat-dog, you get yourself a knife and fork.

              “I am interested to know whether this culturally “nurturing” aspect was acknowledged in the psychology literature you studied.”

              No, but only because it’s outside the scope of scientific psychology. That’s more down the sociology, anthropology, cultural studies road. But personally, I think that a fish rots from the head down. The leader sets the example that the next layer of leadership follows. Once the true nutters get in power, Hitler, Stalin etc, it’s like they refashion the entire society in their own image.

              • blue leopard …
                19 August 2013 at 4:05 pm

                Thanks Emergency Mike, it is helpful to know the ‘technical’ aspects of the definitions for a psychopath. Based on what you say I shall adjust my terminology/thinking to say, we appear to have a lot of pretend psychopaths, or wannabe-psychopaths, on display, rather than saying we have more psychopaths around!

                There is something of a debate going on in my mind re your last paragraph; there has to be a case considered for ‘us’ choosing our leaders. (Or perhaps there is a interdependent mechanism; its a bit that the leaders take control, yet also that we choose our leaders.)

                There has to be some accuracy to the view that if we have shit values then it is likely people with shit values get acclaimed and rise to the top of the shit-heap. The leaders then progress us further along the road of even worse values.

                Please excuse bad language, yet these words provide the most accurate reflection of the way I am starting to view current events (and values).

                I guess I am addressing the question of how responsible are we (collectively) for this state of affairs or is it that we are victims of it all?

                • Anne …
                  19 August 2013 at 4:46 pm

                  … if we have shit values then it is likely people with shit values get acclaimed and rise to the top of the shit-heap.

                  Succinct and correct blue leopard – earthy language n’all. 🙂

                  I take emergency mike’s point that not all people who, at some point in their life, behave in a devious, hateful or spiteful way are psychopaths. However, I have known a few people who, after long term observation and knowledge of their behaviour, fulfill the criteria as having at least some psychopathic tendencies. In one case definitely more than just tendencies… I might add that person is a woman too which is quite unusual.

                • Anne …
                  19 August 2013 at 5:33 pm

                  I guess I am addressing the question of how responsible are we (collectively) for this state of affairs or is it that we are victims of it all?

                  Many of us are victims – either directly or indirectly due to the “shit values” of so many people these days. On the other hand there are many very good people and they cover all walks of life. The problem is, every now and then the balance gets out of kilter and I believe we are seeing precisely this happening today.

                  • blue leopard …
                    19 August 2013 at 5:53 pm

                    @ Anne,

                    Ah! earthy language! Yes, thats a nice way to put it!

                    Appreciate your reflections, it sometimes really is a great relief to have someone understand and agree with one’s comments, thank you.

                    Your point re viewing current ‘phenomenon’ with regard to balance, balanced/out of balance, is a helpful way to see things.

                • emergency mike …
                  19 August 2013 at 5:57 pm

                  Yes I also recommend Century of the Self, it covers a lot of what your are talking about BL.

                  How responsible are we? That’s a tough one, we like to think we make our own objective choices in life, but we are born into a world where myths govern our world view, and manipulation (advertisers, politicians, journalists, Simon Lusk) is a daily reality. You might also want to talk to Draco T Bastard about representative vs direct democracy, though I’m not convinced that direct d is a simple answer to psychopaths in power.

                  When a psychopath fools someone, they are called a ‘victim’. But the psychopath would say they deserved it because of their stupidity. I do wonder how different human history would be look if we stopped following and electing psychopaths, and how different our society and concept of ‘human nature’ and ‘human failings’ would be without them.

                  Awareness is key, and it’s happening. But how to tweek or replace the system to get rid of them I do not know.

                  • blue leopard …
                    19 August 2013 at 6:36 pm

                    @ E. Mike

                    I also, am not convinced re direct democracy. Perhaps its becoming more possible with computers and the internet, (security would still be a massive problem), however I think it is hard to avoid someone, or a group of people somewhere, having some sort of pivotal role in organizing a system, including one of direct democracy, and with such a pivotal role, comes the opportunity to corrupt and take over the system. Therefore it may not actually address the issue.

                    I also really don’t think everyone ‘has the head for’ or wants to be actively involved in politics and don’t know whether it is a great thing to force such people into active engagement (actually this is a real debatable point!).

                    I do think some requirement for more active involvement from citizens would create more interest in politics, and would most likely lead to a more thoughtful society, however, direct democracy seems possibly a tad too much involvement for many and certainly extremely hard to achieve when there are millions of people in each country and (as mentioned in my first paragraph); potentially doesn’t address the issue of corruption anyway.

                    Re objective choices: I tend to think choices are not always as self-propelled as people like to think they are. Where I do think we can actively choice is in the realms of values: We can actively consider ways of behaving; see where a certain behaviour leads and after thinking about this, choose which type of behaviour we value. I don’t think many are doing this type of thinking these days and believe this is being reflected in the values ‘our societies’ are rewarding.

                    As sacrilegious as it is to suggest that people ‘think about things’ ; such contemplation might be the best, if not only, inoculation to corruption in society/leadership that we have.

                  • Anne …
                    19 August 2013 at 6:50 pm

                    When a psychopath fools someone, they are called a ‘victim’. But the psychopath would say they deserved it because of their stupidity.

                    That is exactly what the woman I was referring to earlier used to do (perhaps still does) emergency mike. She got her kicks out of life conducting (or organising others on her behalf) hoaxes on individuals and years later would boast about her crimes and laugh and jeer because they had fallen for it. It was way too late to do anything about it which I found distressing and frustrating. Some of her victims were high profile people too and included at least one prime minister.

  10. BM 10
    16 August 2013 at 10:26 am

    Key can easily spin this to his advantage.

    Had a quick read and basically what I got out of the article was that Key had concerns that some people were still concerned about certain data gathering aspects so is adding another layer of protection for peoples privacy.

    This may be completely incorrect but that’s what I took away from the article.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1
      16 August 2013 at 10:41 am

      Yes, you are completely incorrect. He’s not proposing to change the wording of the legislation at all, and his assurances (which cannot be believed) will not apply to future Prime Ministers even if Key keeps his word.

      Glad I could clear that up for you.

    • emergency mike 10.2
      16 August 2013 at 11:14 am

      Yep incorrect. Key is saying he will use his discretion about who gets spied on. Which is the opposite of another layer of protection for peoples privacy.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1
      16 August 2013 at 10:47 am

      Other than the fact that Key has admitted today that his forceful winning assertions were all bullshit, that is.

    • emergency mike 11.2
      16 August 2013 at 11:01 am

      So you agree that the snapper issue is just a bullshit distraction from the GCSB bill?

      • Winston Smith 11.2.1
        16 August 2013 at 12:09 pm

        I agree that John Key administered a well-deserved spanking to John Campbell

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.2.1.1
          16 August 2013 at 12:45 pm

          That analysis relies far more on style than substance (not to mention obscene power-worship). On the substantive issue, Key has now been forced to admit that Campbell was right and he was wrong.

          Do you suppose the matter will just lie there now?

    • bad12 11.3
      16 August 2013 at 11:17 am

      Ha ha ha, i have to admit that that cartoon is amusing, doubly so when you consider Slippery the Prime Ministers ‘fit’ of panic after He watched Campbell Live last night,

      Removed from the disguise of Mr cool, calm and collected we have now been shown ‘The shyster’ absolutely dumping in His pants over the Campbell Live program showing that New Zealand is Definitely Not singularly concerned over one simple issue of catch limits for fish,

      Surprise surprise for Slippery, Captain Panic pants and the other flotsom and jetsom that occupy the 9th floor of the Beehive, us Kiwis can be concerned about complex multiple issues especially when those issues impinge upon what little freedoms we as citizens possess,

      An act of abject panic for the unconcerned Prime Minister sending nighttime statements to it’s main organ of Stassi misinformation, panicking to the maximum over one simple TV program…

  12. tracey 12
    16 August 2013 at 11:25 am

    Campbell needs to highlight it big time on his show

  13. BLiP 13
    16 August 2013 at 11:30 am

    ‘

    John Key’s statement that content cannot be examined is just another lie to go with the other lies he has told about the whole affair . . .

    Iain Rennie came to me and recommended Fletcher for the GCSB job

    I told Cabinet that I knew Ian Fletcher

    I forgot that after I scrapped the shortlist for GCSB job I phoned a life-long friend to tell him to apply for the position

    I told Iain Rennie I would contact Fletcher

    I haven’t seen Ian Fletcher in a long time.

    I did not mislead the House (14)

    I have no reason to doubt at this stage that Peter Dunne did not leak the GCSB report

    I called directory service to get Ian Fletcher’s number

    the new legislation narrows the scope of the GCSB

    the GCSB has been prevented from carrying out its functions because of the law governing its functions

    because the opposition is opposed the GCSB law ammendments, parliamentary urgency is required

    the increasing number of cyber intrusions which I can’t detail or discuss prove that the GCSB laws need to be extended to protect prive enterprise

    it was always the intent of the GCSB Act to be able to spy on New Zealanders on behalf of the SIS and police

    National Ltd™ is not explanding the activities of the GCSB with this new law

    cyber terrorists have attempted to gain access to information about weapons of mass destruction held on New Zealand computers

    the law which says the GCSB cannot spy on New Zealanders is not clear

    the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was an isolated incident

    The advice I have had in 4 years as a Minister is that in no way ever has there been an indication of unlawful spying

    first I heard I heard about Kim Dotcom was on 19 January 2012

    first I heard about the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was in September

    I did not mislead the House (6)

    I won’t be discussing Kim Dotcom during my Hollywood visit.

    The Human Rights Commission couldn’t get its submission on the GCSB legislation in on time.

    it would cost too much to for the police and SIS to carry out the spying on New Zealanders that this new legislation will permit

    critics of the GCSB legislation, including the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Commission, are all uninformed

    no, I did not mislead the House (?)

    I do not know how Mr Henry is conducting the Enquiry

    no, I did not mislead the House (??)

    we do not spy on journalists

    the passing of phone records to the Henry Enquiry was an error on the part of a contractor

    I wasn’t aware that my own Chief of Staff was instructing Parliamentary Services to hand over information concerning journalist Andrea Vance

    National Ltd™ has never tried to impinge on the role of the media

    I had nothing to do with information on a journalist being handed over to the inquiry into the leaking of the GCSB report

    I was not opposed to the NZ Defence Force, Police and SIS making a presentation at the public submissions on the GCSB legislation

    the terms of the enquiry made it clear to everyone that it was only the phone records of parliamentary staff and ministers that were to be provided

    I have the utmost respect for the media and the role it plays in New Zealand’s democracy

    the Henry Enquiry did not access a journalist’s building-access records

    the Henry Enquiry did not ask for phone and email records

    no, I did not mislead the House (??)

    the Greens are opposed to the GCSB and the SIS even existing

    the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because there are al-Qaeda terrorists in New Zealand

    John Minto is in the Green Party

    the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because of the terrorist threat, even though official reports released over my signature say there is no risk and the SIS has the matter in hand

    the GCSB Bill does not give the GCSB the power to look at the content of communications as part of its cyber-security functions

    . . . thanks John, I’m lovin’ it.

    • bad12 13.1
      16 August 2013 at 11:46 am

      Yes, the lies of the Slippery little Shyster become more glaringly apparent by the day, add fool to the epithets as well as on a level of lowered intellectual dissection the Prime Minister could have been said to have ‘got away with’ the blathering bulls**t He fed to New Zealand via His appearance on Campbell Live,

      However, the abject panic involved in the Prime Minister sending after-hours statements to it’s main organ of friendly disinformation, the Herald, after having His cover blown by that same TV program the night after His appearance the previous night came down to a simple matter of who blinked first,

      He did, Fool, issuing such a statement claiming to be changing the rules is simply an admission that everything He said previously about such spying being as harmless as a ‘Norton anti-virus’ was total bulls**t…

    • Poem 13.2
      16 August 2013 at 12:06 pm

      Thanks BliP, brilliant post !! And if anyone is a terrorist, its john key.

  14. Tom 14
    16 August 2013 at 11:54 am

    In comparing GCSB to Norton AntiVirus Key is raising a lot of red flags …

    Developed and distributed by Symantec, it *only* runs on MS Windows and Mac OS X.
    It has involved FBI cooperation in developing a keylogger [Magic Lantern], an update disabling legitimate software, slow and indifferent service on bugs, a faulty update for Norton AntiVirus 2006 users, criticisms for refusing to uninstall completely – leaving unnecessary files behind, incompatibilities with ZoneAlarm, a firewall warning stating that a Norton-associated file – “PIFTS.exe” – was trying to connect to the net, and consumers complaints for perceived ethical violations .. and that is just what is the public domain.

    • bad12 14.1
      16 August 2013 at 12:07 pm

      Slippery’s advisers, obviously having not researched the particular anti-virus have obviously primed Him to ‘dumb down’ the issue of GCSB spying upon Kiwis email accounts by having Him connect the actions of the GCSB as no different than an antivirus software in action,

      It was all conspired to show a picture of the GCSB legislation being for the protection of the average Kiwi and the dullards on the 9th floor of the Beehive went so far as to insult the intelligence of the average Kiwi by linking spying upon them and antivirus software in the same vein,

      That’s twice in a week the Slippery little Shyster has insulted our intelligence, the first being the ludicrous ”Kiwis are more concerned over snapper quota” red herring dragged across the GCSB issue to try and form a distraction as if we cannot comprehend more than one complex issue at once, both of which impinge upon the freedom of the average Kiwi,

      More FOOL the Prime Minister, busily digging the hole in which His election hopes will be buried…

    • Sable 14.2
      16 August 2013 at 12:10 pm

      Yep its ugly bloatware and a pain in the ass to expunge from a system. Annoyingly every new laptop comes with a sample load of this shitty thing. Give me Avast anyday…

      • Hami Shearlie 14.2.1
        16 August 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Or Sophos for Mac – it’s great, it works, it’s free, and most importantly in comparison with John Key’s “Nortons” it’s OPTIONAL!!!

        • blue leopard 14.2.1.1
          16 August 2013 at 3:39 pm

          @ Hami Shearlie

          Yes, its optional, interesting, and just like Sophos for mac being optional because it is not actually needed, neither should overarching spying on citizens be needed either.

          Historically Microsoft has been targeted due to Microsoft’s underhand business behaviours. If we are ‘requiring’ extra security perhaps it is more important to look at the reasons for this and move toward a system that is more secure from the outset.

          I know there is a weakness in this analogy; mac haven’t been perfect, yet am drawing a parallel here as to the causes for system insecurity and the best way of proceeding. Insecurity doesn’t ‘magically’ appear from nowhere.

          • infused 14.2.1.1.1
            16 August 2013 at 8:36 pm

            Most stupid thing I have ever read.

            Microsoft are targeted because of their overall market share. It’s that simple. Way target mac with such a small market share.

            Macs are no more secure than Windows. The effort / reward for targeting mac just isn’t there.

            No system is secure because it’s programmed by Humans.

            • blue leopard 14.2.1.1.1.1
              16 August 2013 at 10:46 pm

              @ Infused,

              Yes perhaps not the best analogy, yet you miss the point I am making, so much so that you provide examples that support it.

              Monopolies are notoriously for their negative effects and to achieve them usually requires aggressive and underhand behaviour.

              This behaviour can create enemies and also, as you say, once the monopoly is achieved, creates vulnerability. Microsoft is a desirable target for both these reasons.

              Monopolies go against many of our basic economic principles for [many] good reasons; not that anyone would believe it the way monopolistic behaviour is being quietly condoned these days.

              Monopolies are unhealthy and need to be avoided, yet the advantages are so great for some that they spend a lot of time and money in order to perpetuate them, pursuing activities such as influencing laws or even invading other countries under dubious reasoning and against international agreements.

              Anyone objecting to, or uncovering this dubious behaviour are called names such as Terrorist or Traitor for example.

              Microsoft platform does have weaknesses (note the word diversity in the quote.)

              “The vast majority of viruses target systems running Microsoft Windows. This is due both to Microsoft’s large market share of desktop users (over 95%), and to design choices in Windows that make it much easier for viruses to infect hosts running Windows. Also, the diversity of software systems on a network limits the destructive potential of viruses and malware…..
              ……Theoretically, other operating systems are also susceptible to viruses, but in practice these are extremely rare or non-existent, due to much more robust security architectures in Unix-like systems (including Linux and Mac OS X) and to the diversity of the applications running on them. There are no known viruses that have spread “in the wild” for Mac OS X

              Wikipedia – Computer Viruses

              However, why bother addressing the cause of vulnerability when you can get the general public to ‘pay’ for the protection.

              Any of this sound familiar to you?

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 14.2.1.1.1.2
              17 August 2013 at 7:35 am

              I’ve never had a virus on my C64 – ever.

              • karol …
                17 August 2013 at 7:45 am

                I’ve always used microsoft computers and, in 18 years, I’m not aware of ever having had a virus.

      • risildowgtn 14.2.2
        16 August 2013 at 9:15 pm

        Revo Pro Uninstaller is what I had to use on my new Laptop to get rid of Nortons. (It came with it)

        Then had to do Registry leftovers by hand,,, Revo didnt get ALL of them…………

        I did a search on them all…….

        SPYING

  15. Poem 15
    16 August 2013 at 11:59 am

    Unless John key backs up that assurance with action and puts it in the legislation, it means absolutely nothing. John key is a liar and a contemptuous fool to treat NZers like they are mindless hicks. John key is an insult to one’s intelligence.

  16. Sable 16
    16 August 2013 at 12:04 pm

    This is not stupidity, its actually quite clever. Claim the original message was made with integrity and then amend it when informed “otherwise”. It makes Keys look conscientious in the eyes of the public. He really “cares” about getting this right as its soooooo important.

    This is the kind if A grade spin lots of money can buy you.

  17. tracey 17
    16 August 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Tv3 running it on midday news

  18. Ennui 18
    16 August 2013 at 12:15 pm

    The next person who says to me, “If you have got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear”, is going to find out that I don’t hide my metaphorical fists. That wont prevent the damage that said metaphorical fists do.

  19. tsmithfield 19
    16 August 2013 at 12:22 pm

    The phrase “would not be” is forward looking. It appears that Key was foreshadowing the change he intended to make.

    • felix 19.1
      16 August 2013 at 1:21 pm

      Lolwut??

      You mean he contradicted himself on purpose?

    • bad12 19.2
      16 August 2013 at 2:07 pm

      Aaah the muted squeaking of one of the few diehard defenders of the Slippery faith at the Standard today, dancing upon the head of a pin in an effort to ‘define’ what Slippery the Prime Minister ‘meant’ when the only thing He meant was to ‘sell’ the people a piece of Legislation they neither want nor find necessary,

      You just know that the Prime Minister has blown it big time when the ‘faithful’ are reduced to a whine,(perhaps you would like more cheese with your whine sir)…

    • BLiP 19.3
      16 August 2013 at 2:14 pm

      ‘

      It must soothe the cognitive dissonance to admit John Key is a fool rather than a liar by overlooking the fact that, at this stage, the GCSB legislation is a “Bill” not an “Act”, hence John Key’s use of the future tense.

    • Puddleglum 19.4
      16 August 2013 at 2:22 pm

      Hi tsmithfield,

      So when Key was being interviewed about the GCSB Amendment Bill and was busily citing various sections of the Bill he slipped in a comment presaging an hitherto unmentioned proposed alteration?

      He then failed – or chose not – to mention that this suggestion would be a “change“, perhaps assuming that John Campbell and all viewers could understand that anything he might say that was not actually in the legislation as it stood would be included?

      There are a few problems with your interpretation of what Key’s comment ‘appear’ to have intended to convey to the viewers.

      First, no such alteration of the wording of the legislation will occur (so it seems from the Herald piece). There is to be no ‘change’.

      Second, Key’s comments make it clear that this is part of how John Campbell and Campbell Live had got wrong” its reporting on this issue. Yet, if they ‘got it wrong’ how on earth did he expect them to read his mind or the future or both?

      Third, remember that the discussion was over Section 8A as drafted in the Bill. Campbell claimed that this section was ‘meaningless’ and ‘so broad”. Key said it was clear to the lawyers – they “absolutely understand it”. This is the relevant section of the interview (thanks karol!):

      “JK: OK, we’ll come back to the Law Society in a moment. So what happens [present tense] under that provision [Section 8A] is, if the GCSB wanted to provide cyber security support to an agency – let’s take IRD and its facility – OK? So that’s the provision again [i.e., Section 8A, again], they’d have to go through that process of getting a warrant by the inspector or by the Commission, by me, subject oversight of the commissioner – OK, the inspector – OK. Fine. So, that’s the first thing. You have to get a warrant. Do you know what happens under that? They cannot look at the content of

      JC: OK.

      JK: anything in there. All they can do, is protect you [This is incorrect; as the legislation is written they can do much more if any Prime Minister allows it.]. So it’s against malware, or against a vrus. So you have on your computer”

      Notice that Key’s question to Campbell – “Do you know what happens under that?” – if your speculation is correct, is essentially John Key asking Campbell to do the impossible: Read Key’s mind. What he says next has no basis in the proposed legislation, as written.

      Fourth, even in the statement that Key released to the Herald it is stated that there are, indeed, circumstances in which Key would happily allow content to be accessed:

      “If a serious cyber intrusion was detected against a New Zealander, the Prime Minister would require the GCSB to return and make the case to apply for a new warrant to access content, only where the content is relevant to a significant threat.

      “In that warrant application, the Prime Minister would also expect the GCSB to seek the consent of the New Zealander involved, unless there were very good reasons not to do so.”

      That released statement implicitly confirms that (a) no change to the Bill was being foreshadowed by Key’s comments on Campbell Live, and (b) Key’s comment that “They cannot look at the content of anything in there” was, at best, incomplete and at worst still incorrect (even given what was in his mind, presuming everything in the release to the Herald was part of what was ‘in his mind’) since they could access content under some circumstances.

      It stretches credibility to breaking point to assume that (a) Key realised that the Bill as currently written did not include a constraint over accessing content, but (b) knew that in the warranting process he intended to prevent such access and, so, (c) answered on that basis while, (d) failing to clarify that he was not answering on the basis of how the Bill was written but, rather, on the basis of how he intended to administer warrants (which means that his mission of clarifying the issues concerning the Bill as written was undermined by his own unclear comments).

      Far simpler – and reasonable – explanations for his comment include that he was either not familiar enough with the content of his own Bill, or that he was familiar enough with it but chose to obfuscate the point.

    • emergency mike 19.5
      16 August 2013 at 2:53 pm

      What change is that exactly?

  20. tracey 20
    16 August 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Puddlegum. Sadly the truth appears irrelevant… what matters is that key beat campbell. I mean thats good for the country right?

    • Puddleglum 20.1
      16 August 2013 at 3:01 pm

      I know what you mean, tracey, but it happens to be impossible for the truth to be irrelevant; though it often bides its time.

      When I’m feeling a bit dispirited over how muddled and wrong everything can sometimes seem I console myself with the old saying: ‘Good’ has one enemy; ‘Evil’. ‘Evil’ has two enemies – ‘Good’ … and ‘Evil’.

      It’s an unfair contest, really – so best to be on the winning side 🙂

  21. tracey 21
    16 August 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Eventually the truth about this pm will become relevant. I fear for many aspects of nz society until then.

    r norman was pithy and pointed today.

    key misled and then said but trust me.

    well done greens.

  22. MrSmith 22
    16 August 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Keys appearance on Campbell live may back fire on the Nats, apart from the embarrassment of him having to explain himself in public Keys spin machine have strategically keep him off the radio and off shows like this for the last 5 years for a reason.

    • Sable 22.1
      16 August 2013 at 8:40 pm

      Very true, its the same tactic they used with Bolger due to his unfortunate tendency to come off as an arrogant ass. I think in this case there is an element of that quality in Keys but I think too its hard to justify many of this governments policies so the potential to fall into logical traps is more marked too so Keys has been kept under wraps.

  23. MrSmith 23
    16 August 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Any idea why my comment at 3.53 went to moderation?

    [lprent: Nope. The auto-moderation has been a bit quirky today. I suspect it is busy at wordpress. ]

  24. BrucetheMoose 24
    16 August 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Never trust anybody that says trust me. Especially where money is involved.
    But hey, who cares, because apparently we are only interested in fish, so –

    Baked Snapper Fillet

    Ingredients:
    •1snapper fillet
    •1/2 red onion thinly sliced
    •1 bay leaf
    •1 tsp olive oil
    •1/2 lemon
    •a little butter
    •Dash of dried oregano
    •Pinch sea salt, black pepper taste

    Directions:
    1. Place fillets (pat dry) on parchment paper. Rub salt and pepper on the fillets
    2. Rub some butter on the aluminum foil, and place some onions on the foil. Then place fish on top of the onions
    3. Cover with remaining onion, herbs and bay leaves
    4. Drizzle olive oil, lemon juice over the fish and add remaining butter. Fold and seal fish with aluminum foil
    5. Place on tray and bake in a preheated 375F(190C) oven for approximately 8-10mins (~8 minutes per pound). Remove from the oven and allow to stand for 3-4mins without opening the bag.
    Simple, but it’s delicious. Trust me.

  25. Paul 25
    16 August 2013 at 6:21 pm

    TV3 news shows up Key’s lies. Norman very coherent.

  26. Murray Olsen 26
    16 August 2013 at 6:48 pm

    The increased number of trolls and NActoids posting here and on TDB in defence of Key and this Bill says to me that they are worried. They know Kiwis don’t like it, despite what they say about snapper. Tellingly, they haven’t released the hounds to comment all over any posts about fishing.

    At a guess, I’d say Key is personally very worried about keeping a promise he’s made to Washington. That’s who this rubbish is for, and that is so obviously where his allegiances lie.

  27. pollywog 27
    16 August 2013 at 7:36 pm

    How could the new proposed spying laws stop a Kiwi styled Anders Brievik?

    Chances are some nutjob terrorist like that would be so distrusting of cyber communication as to never even use it.

    Now If you wanted to catch a Kiwi styled cabal of high financiers capable of taking down a Building 7 type of terrorist act…that would be a much easier proposal.

    These new powers seem to be more about getting a heads up on the watchers watching the watchmen!

  28. Tanz 28
    17 August 2013 at 2:02 am

    that photo says it all. Smug, arrogant and self-satisfied. This merchant banker is selling us out, he cares not what kiwis think or want. Dangerous or just hollow?

  29. richard 29
    17 August 2013 at 8:00 am

    More fuel from Rodney Harrison:

    In a nutshell, the reason why Mr Key is wrong as a matter of law in claiming that New Zealanders have nothing to fear from the GCSB bill is that his limited analysis of the three new functions to be conferred on the GCSB totally overlooks the point that the statutory intelligence-gathering powers of the GCSB are also being considerably expanded, at the same time as its functions are. When the totality of the changes is considered, we have a major increase in the overall role and powers of the GCSB. That, in some instances, the Prime Minister’s authority is required for the GCSB to proceed cannot alter this.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10913479

Links to post