Daily Review 20/04/2016

54 comments on “Daily Review 20/04/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nick 1

   20 April 2016 at 6:56 pm

   Can’t figure out which one will be worse if either win…… The one who doesn’t know what they are doing….or the one who does….. Sad
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     20 April 2016 at 11:25 pm

      A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America
   • Ant 1.2

     21 April 2016 at 4:54 pm

     Michael Moore offers some encouragement.
     Bernie got 43% of the 1.6M allowed to vote. The 3.2M independents though, couldn’t vote. Bernie usually gets 65 – 70% of them.
2. Dot 2

   20 April 2016 at 7:41 pm

   Sad comment Nick , sexism still exists.
   I have faith that enough good American voters
   will vote for an experienced woman to make a contribution.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     20 April 2016 at 8:05 pm

     I composed a thoroughly cynical remark in answer to that. It assumed Clinton is utterly compromised and corrupt. Instead, I’ll be charitable: President Clinton has no chance of reforming a USA with a centre-right congress: they work for money, and you can’t afford it.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       20 April 2016 at 11:25 pm

       +1
   • Nick 2.2

     21 April 2016 at 8:00 am

     http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00278/why-is-the-us-tppa-implementation-team-meddling-in-nz.htm
3. woodpecker 3

   20 April 2016 at 7:53 pm

   Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents
   Dot I don’t know how to link, but you should look that up on youtube.
   • Macro 3.1

     20 April 2016 at 8:33 pm

     Here you go
     
     • Kiwiri 3.1.1

       20 April 2016 at 8:57 pm

       Apologies. Got to almost halfway and could not stomach that anymore.
       So stopped the streaming and will need to step away for a few minutes break.
     • woodpecker 3.1.2

       20 April 2016 at 9:29 pm

       Cheers Macro
       • Macro 3.1.2.1

         20 April 2016 at 9:38 pm

         No problem – Just highlight the url (thats the bit at with the web name and all the other stuff at the top of ur browser) copy it and paste in the comment box. 🙂
4. weka 4

   20 April 2016 at 8:06 pm

   National want to data share personal and private information between government agencies. To do this they will need to repeal parts of the Privacy Act. Obvious targets are people on benefits. This is another step of protofascism and the creation a pariah class.

   NRT’s take http://bit.ly/23YsQRp
   • weka 4.1

     20 April 2016 at 8:10 pm

     “We’re not looking at reducing privacy or confidentiality,” [English] says. “We’re looking at sharing it.”

     https://mobile.twitter.com/Carolyn_nth/status/722595437610344448
     • Anne 4.1.1

       20 April 2016 at 8:55 pm

       Unbelievable.
       • Macro 4.1.1.1

         20 April 2016 at 9:42 pm

         No Anne perfectly believable for this crowd of “panty sniffers”.
         Just another way to attack the poor and divert attention away from the shoveling of wealth into his own pocket.
         • Anne 4.1.1.1.1

           21 April 2016 at 8:24 am

           Unbelievable that English believes we will fall for that piece of contradictory tripe.
     • joe90 4.1.2

       20 April 2016 at 10:26 pm

       My SO says someone always knows – nearly every child killed in NZ is unknown to agencies tasked with their protection, but well known to others.
       • weka 4.1.2.1

         21 April 2016 at 10:54 am

         by ‘others’ do you mean other agencies or other people in general?
         • joe90 4.1.2.1.1

           21 April 2016 at 1:25 pm

           Agencies.
           • weka 4.1.2.1.1.1

             21 April 2016 at 1:30 pm

             Is that an argument for data sharing?
             • joe90 …

               21 April 2016 at 1:46 pm

               To protect vulnerable members of our society, yes.
               • weka …

                 21 April 2016 at 5:10 pm

                 Do you support the kind of data sharing that English is talking about? Or would you agree that the existing agencies could just be more functional and that would solve the problem?
                 • joe90 …

                   21 April 2016 at 5:30 pm

                   More functionality won’t solve the problem of agencies tasked with protection losing contact with kids being dragged from pillar to post around the country by supposed carers with several identities. Sometimes kids are handed around like a piece of luggage leaving agencies with absolutely no idea about where they are or who they’re actually with.

                   In a year some kids will shift a dozen times or more and have interactions with agencies all over the shop, WINZ, the law, schools, Kohanga Reo, hospitals, general practices, and other than chipping them, real and proper data sharing is the only way to keep track of them.
                   • weka …

                     21 April 2016 at 6:09 pm

                     Are you talking about children in care or children at home or both?
                   • joe90 …

                     21 April 2016 at 10:51 pm

                     Both, I think.

                     btw: the big fucking elephant – transient adults, often with unmet mental health needs/substance abuse/difficulty looking after themselves, can go wherever they like
     • seeker 4.1.3

       20 April 2016 at 11:29 pm

       Lyndon Hood captures Bill English’s hubris perfectly in his satirical “Information Shearing” on Scoop:

       http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1604/S00062/lyndon-hood-satire-information-shearing.htm
   • Incognito 4.2

     20 April 2016 at 8:58 pm

     He told the hui that the Government planned to have a system in place for sharing data with NGOs by the end of the year.
     …
     Creating a data-sharing system, which Mr English described as a “data supermarket”, would require careful decisions about privacy and security.
     …
     “We are talking about getting really clear about the rules and enabling a range of organisations to use the data when it’s safe.”

     [bold emphasis is mine]

     From the article by Isaac Davison in the NZ Herald Finance Minister Bill English promotes data supermarket to help at-risk New Zealanders.

     When I read the word “supermarket” I immediately thought what an odd word to use in this context.

     The other issue the sharing outside government’s reach, which could (and will) easily include private organisations and companies with or without a profit motive (e.g. charter schools).
   • Draco T Bastard 4.3

     20 April 2016 at 11:38 pm

     The way that I would do it is to make the data that the government has on a person a single file (I’m simplifying for convenience) and then give each government agency access to the parts of the file that they need access to.

     The police and other protection agencies would need to have a warrant to get access that isn’t volunteered. All other access would need written permission from the person that the file relates to.
     • Molly 4.3.1

       21 April 2016 at 9:55 am

       Or alternatively, leave the existing systems in place – with stringent requirements for access, and create an index for NZers that links all relevant identifiers.

       ie. birth certificate number, citizenship number, with National Health number, IRD number/s, associated trusts, companies, driver’s licences etc.

       This ensures that each set of data remains separate, and cannot be accessed by internal security failures from one department, and privacy rights and restrictions remain intact.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1

         21 April 2016 at 11:12 am

         Or alternatively, leave the existing systems in place – with stringent requirements for access, and create an index for NZers that links all relevant identifiers.

         That works but isn’t the most efficient method or the most secure as the added complexity would likely leave holes in the security.

         This ensures that each set of data remains separate, and cannot be accessed by internal security failures from one department, and privacy rights and restrictions remain intact.

         That’s what you’d like to believe but what we’d have is massive data duplication requiring an increase in hardware required and a probable increase in security vulnerabilities.
         • McFlock 4.3.1.1.1

           21 April 2016 at 1:09 pm

           One system is great, right up until you lose 15 million personal files, sony emails, credit card numbers, whatever.

           And that’s before you get into the problems (expensive, expensive problems) of integrating the different information systems into one behemoth.

           My approach would be to have one organisation to manage access privileges and maintain a distinct tool that can expand to interrogate the different databases as they’re added incrementally. It will also audit the access protocols regularly, actively asking X number of users a day why they accessed a particular file – particularly anomalous access.

           This distributes load across different organisations and minimises disruption to those organisations, because the tool is built to fit the data and not the other way around. Then each organisation has levels of data classification, so that not just court orders but also things like getting manual signoff from the department concerned that the user is authorised to have and needs the information.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.1.1

             21 April 2016 at 4:12 pm

             One system is great, right up until you lose 15 million personal files, sony emails, credit card numbers, whatever.

             Why would you have it connected to the internet?

             Far better to have it on it’s own WAN. Sure, somewhat more expensive but worth it for the increased security. The actual internet portals which give out information to the public would be seriously fire-walled.

             And that’s before you get into the problems (expensive, expensive problems) of integrating the different information systems into one behemoth.

             That’s going to have to happen anyway. Might as well get it over and done with.

             My approach would be to have one organisation to manage access privileges and maintain a distinct tool that can expand to interrogate the different databases as they’re added incrementally.

             I’ve been advocating for a government IT department that did all of governments IT for some time.
             • McFlock …

               21 April 2016 at 4:28 pm

               No, I didn’t mean that the organisation does all the government’s IT. Just one unit to manage the access and sharing between systems.

               And of course you’ll need some manner of internet access, otherwise all your plunket nurses, cops, and social workers will have to come into the office during their rounds, rather than working largely from their cars during the day.

               But if the people overseeing Novopay and winz/justice kiosks ensure it’s all “seriously firewalled”, that’s alright then…
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 21 April 2016 at 6:44 pm

                 No, I didn’t mean that the organisation does all the government’s IT. Just one unit to manage the access and sharing between systems.

                 Waste of time. Bring it all inhouse so that the fuckups such as Novapay and the

                 And of course you’ll need some manner of internet access, otherwise all your plunket nurses, cops, and social workers will have to come into the office during their rounds, rather than working largely from their cars during the day.

                 I pointed out that there would be internet but not of the main server/systems. They would be on their own network with only limited portals to the internet. Each government office would be on that WAN so the information is securely available.

                 But if the people overseeing Novopay and winz/justice kiosks ensure it’s all “seriously firewalled”, that’s alright then…

                 That was the private enterprise hired to do the job. The problem was a) the people in the office not knowing anything and b) outsourcing to people who would only do as they’re told. A government department dedicated to to government IT would ensure that that type of bollocks wouldn’t happen again.
                 • McFlock …

                   21 April 2016 at 7:10 pm

                   Yeah Nah.
                   Separation of functions is never a waste of time. And departments work to spec rather than need just as much as the private sector.
     • weka 4.3.2

       21 April 2016 at 10:47 am

       “and then give each government agency access to the parts of the file that they need access to.”

       The way privacy laws work at the moment is that any individual has the right to control who gets to see information about them. It’s not about what information a govt agency needs access to, it’s about whether they have permission. The kind of data sharing that English is talking about will remove those rights, especially for vulnerable groups like beneficiaries.

       I haven’t seen a list yet of the ten departments English is planning this for, but am betting a bit part of the underlying ethos is targetting the underclass.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.3.2.1

         21 April 2016 at 11:02 am

         It’s not about what information a govt agency needs access to, it’s about whether they have permission.

         This is incorrect. There’s two aspects to it, not just one.

         1. The government needs to have information about you so that they can provide services to you
         2. They need to be able to detect and prosecute crime

         The first they get your permission to look, the second they get the judges permission to look. In both of these they also get limits to what they can look at. I’m looking to strengthen peoples rights in regards to government access to data.

         The kind of data sharing that English is talking about will remove those rights, especially for vulnerable groups like beneficiaries.

         I’m not supportive of the data sharing model. It’s inefficient and susceptible to poor programming which in turn makes it more insecure.
         • weka 4.3.2.1.1

           21 April 2016 at 11:22 am

           Of course. Leaving aside the rights of the govt to access anything they want if it’s an issue of crime or safety, the rest of the rights aren’t govt rights, they’re citizen rights.

           Yes the govt needs information to provide services, but historically they don’t have automatic access (that’s why we have the Privacy Act), and service provisions is not what English is talking about at all. We were quite capable of providing all the things covered by those depts before the advent of computers. What he is doing is removing privacy rights in order to give more power the govt to control what people do. This is nothing to do with service. It’s a very direct and bold move whereby the rights of people are subsumed under the government’s need to exist. It shifts use further away from the core principle that the govt serves the people, and positions the govt as an end to itself and the people are there as a subset of that. Very very dangerous.

           I get the attraction of efficent and competent ICT services. But at this stage of the game I think information should be firewalled until we are sufficiently ethical and respectful to design systems that don’t entrench power in the hands of the few. We are a very long way from being that ethical or competent around rights and information sharing.
           • McFlock 4.3.2.1.1.1

             21 April 2016 at 1:14 pm

             I just noticed the bit saying that they want to be sharing with NGOs by the end of the year… that sort of timeline is a recipe for failure, IMO.
             • weka …

               21 April 2016 at 1:29 pm

               Yep. But even sharing between departments is hugely problematic. NRT,

               
               English says this is about helping people by “sharing” their confidential, private data – but we all know that it will really be about shitting on them, cutting their benefits, throwing them out of state houses, making it more difficult to access government services. Because National sees everything as a way of cutting costs and reducing government services. So, they’ll give ACC access to your medical records, WINZ access to your police file, Housing NZ access to your kid’s school reports, your kid’s school teacher access to your sexual history, and the SIS and their foreign “allies” access to everything, all in the hope that someone, somewhere, will find a reason to cut your funding or jail you (or, in the SIS’s case, finally find the “terrorists” their budget is predicated on).
               
           • Draco T Bastard 4.3.2.1.1.2

             21 April 2016 at 4:17 pm

             Yes the govt needs information to provide services, but historically they don’t have automatic access

             I’m not talking about giving them automatic access.

             We were quite capable of providing all the things covered by those depts before the advent of computers.

             No we weren’t.

             What he is doing is removing privacy rights in order to give more power the govt to control what people do.

             Possibly. If he was truly about doing it right then there would be no way that rich people would continue to avoid paying the taxes that they should. But there’s no way he’s going to touch that rort.
             • weka …

               21 April 2016 at 5:12 pm

               “I’m not talking about giving them automatic access.”

               But Bill English and this thread are.

               “No we weren’t.”

               Yes we were.

               “If he was truly about doing it right”

               Just to clarify, are you saying that you support removal of citizen’s privacy rights so long as it’s done properly from a tech perspective?
               • Sabine …

                 21 April 2016 at 6:07 pm

                 there are quite a few that would.
                 • weka …

                   21 April 2016 at 6:39 pm

                   QFT.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 21 April 2016 at 6:34 pm

                 But Bill English and this thread are.

                 Bill English maybe but I’m not. That was fairly obvious from my first comment – the one that you responded to that made this thread.

                 Yes we were.

                 No we weren’t. Much information was missed due to not having the capability of processing it.

                 Just to clarify, are you saying that you support removal of citizen’s privacy rights so long as it’s done properly from a tech perspective?

                 No. If Blinglish did it right the IRD would easily pick up the tax avoidance. That’s not a citizens right but a crime and a crime would necessitate a warrant.
                 • weka …

                   21 April 2016 at 6:38 pm

                   “Much information was missed due to not having the capability of processing it.”

                   Can you give some examples?

                   “No. If Blinglish did it right the IRD would easily pick up the tax avoidance. That’s not a citizens right but a crime and a crime would necessitate a warrant.”

                   Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about. This conversation is about privacy rights and how English is wanting to introduce data sharing in a way that will remove those rights. If you want to make a case for the kind of data sharing that English is talking about in order to catch tax dodgers, please do, I’d be interested to see what you would sacrifice.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     21 April 2016 at 6:54 pm

                     Can you give some examples?

                     Taxes. Did you know the reason why the IRD stopped asking for tax returns from everyone every year? It’s because they couldn’t process them all. So now we’re in the position of thousands of people, usually poor people, paying too much tax.

                     Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about.

                     Really? Amazing, I’ve been very clear about my position all along.

                     This conversation is about privacy rights and how English is wanting to introduce data sharing in a way that will remove those rights.

                     No, this conversation is about how I would set up government servers to consolidate the information that the government needs while giving limited access to different government departments according to what they needed of the information.

                     If you want to make a case for the kind of data sharing that English is talking about in order to catch tax dodgers, please do, I’d be interested to see what you would sacrifice.

                     I already have and the sacrifice was nothing.

                     Try reading LPrent’s Secrecy Uprising again.
                   • weka …

                     21 April 2016 at 7:21 pm

                     “Taxes. Did you know the reason why the IRD stopped asking for tax returns from everyone every year? It’s because they couldn’t process them all. So now we’re in the position of thousands of people, usually poor people, paying too much tax.”

                     How does that relate to English’s data sharing plan?
5. weka 5

   20 April 2016 at 8:23 pm

   Protest outside Dunedin hospital on 29th regarding the ongoing problems with the meals contract,

   http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/380399/food-worries-prompt-protest#pq=ylodH9
6. Tautoko Mangō Mata 6

   20 April 2016 at 9:03 pm

   TPP Jane Kelsey
   Why is the US TPPA ‘Implementation Team’ Meddling in NZ?

   The US Trade Representative Michael Froman has revealed his office is sending teams of officials to the other the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) countries, including New Zealand, to vet their implementation of the intellectual property chapter and other parts of the agreement.[1]

   ‘ “Implementation” is code for the US making sure it gets what it wants, backed by its power to veto the TPPA’s entry into force if it doesn’t’, said Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey.

   ‘This is an outrageous assault on the sovereign right of nations to decide their own laws without interference from other states.’

   ‘The US is notorious for rewriting the script after negotiations are ‘concluded’ to secure their version of the text when other countries insist they have done what is required.[2]

   ‘This will come in two stages’, Professor Kelsey explained. ‘The first we are seeing now. The US says “we can’t possibly get this to the floor of Congress without these changes to what you are doing”.’

   ‘If Congress votes in favour of its implementing legislation – which at present can’t be assumed – the US comes back again and says “we won’t certify you have complied with your obligations until you do these additional things”.’ The TPPA can’t come into force without US certification.

   The USTR is currently trying to ‘fix’ problems that mean the TPPA doesn’t have support in Congress. Froman cites intellectual property as a major point of discussion with other governments, making particular mention of New Zealand’s proposed legislation on patent term extensions.

   Ominously, Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch, who decides if and when implementing legislation proceeds, has hardened his stance on monopoly rights for biologics medicines. He announced today that 8 years’ is not enough. He requires 12.[3] But the New Zealand government says the TPPA lets us keep our current 5 years plus some process delays.

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00278/why-is-the-us-tppa-implementation-team-meddling-in-nz.htm
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 6.1

     20 April 2016 at 9:38 pm

     Hui told govt ignored NZers on TPP

     Several speakers from Ngāpuhi have told a hui on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that they are worried the deal could nullify New Zealand’s sovereignty.
     About 70 people attended the event, and 30 protesters lined the roadside outside the venue.

     The iwi speakers also expressed their concern about the Crown’s ability to resolve outstanding treaty issues under the TPP.

     Mr Finlayson said at the meeting the TPP would not impinge on New Zealand’s sovereignty.

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/301970/hui-told-govt-ignored-nzers-on-tpp

     I am so sick of the BS excreted by this Government! Having sovereignty means having the “right to regulate” without the threat of being sued by a foreign investor.
     A threat to sue would impinge on our sovereignty Mr Finlayson, because we would have to check our pockets to see if we had the $5.5million to cover the average legal costs for the respondent in front of an unaccountable, extrajudicial tribunal!
     impinge :Have an effect, especially a negative one:

     No of corporations that have lodged ISDS cases

     United States of America 138
     Canada 39

     No risk for NZ??????
     • Repateet 6.1.1

       20 April 2016 at 9:57 pm

       If you are suggesting that Mr Finlayson is just another lying prick you will get no argument from me.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     20 April 2016 at 11:40 pm

     This is the US government taking full control of our laws – just as Jane Kelsey said they would. We are no longer an independent state but a subject state of the US.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS