You could (and did) fool me. It had all of the provisions of one under section 24(2) listed below.
I’d say that if it waddles and quacks like a duck – then I and any reasonable person would suspect that it is a frigging duck and take steps to reduce the shit problem.
If fact, it only lacked the information required under s24(3), the absence of which is what my post complained about.
Quite simply, as the authorised agent of the act, if they didn’t want it to be mistaken as a “notice of complaint”, then they needed to explicitly state that it was or was not a notice of complaint. Since they did not, as anyone with any even minimal legal training would have done, you have to assume the worst case.
Netsafe has also asserted that the email was private and shouldn’t have been published. In which case my question; is where did they request that in their email? For that matter they didn’t request that in their letter yesterday afternoon. In that latter instance, I’m going to be generous and not publish it.
But I consider that evaluating the performance of a tax paid organisation newly charged with assisting people on the net is pretty important in both political and net terms. Exposing the information that they appear to be using their position (even inadvertently) to try to censor information on a political blog site would have to be considered to be in the public interest, and a suitable topic for political debate.
It would be hard to be transparent in a public debate if you don’t publish the source documents. In this case I looked to see if there was anything that needed redacting, and found nothing. So what exactly is the ‘harm’ that Netsafe alleges could come to the unnamed and unknown complainant from releasing the email?
FFS: Netsafe is a statutory body under Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. From memory the budget for getting that all set up in 2016/17 was $16.4 million dollars of taxpayer funds. So far all they have managed to do in this instance for their complainant or for me as a taxpayer and user of the internet so far is to waste both their and my time and resources.
That is because they aren’t dealing directly with either the case or the issues. What they are managing to do is to look like an organisation being used as a political cats paw in an election year. If they do this with the main opposition website, where exactly are they planning to stop interfering with the public discourse so essential to a working democracy?
I’m getting somewhat irritated with them. When exactly are they going to get off their arses and provide the information that we need to make a decision?
If Netsafe doesn’t like having their performance reviewed by the net and political debates, then all I can suggest that they lift their game to the point that they don’t irritate me. For their information, I really only seem to write posts when I am irritated. It causes me to make time for doing them.