Freedom and security

30 comments on “Freedom and security ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Oligarkey 1

   25 August 2011 at 9:42 am

   National is pushing young people in to crime with their careless attitude to youth unemployment, then they’re whacking them when they try to seek escape from their miserable lives with drugs and the money it takes to get them. National has created this sadistic meat grinder that chews up our youths, and spits them out into jails.

   At the financial end of things it costs $100,000 per year to keep them in prison. Why not spend that money on four jobs for at-risk youths instead? Then we can avoid crime, substance abuse, depression and suicide.

   Now to add further insult to the whole injustice of the situation, they want to be able to stick their noses in to all our lives so they can punish the unfortunates who don’t fit in to their sadistic system. It’s all very creepy.

   When are our representatives going to get a soul?
2. queenstfarmer 2

   25 August 2011 at 10:05 am

   You think organised crime / gang problem in NZ is just a “bogyman”? Well there’s the problem – belittling the issue. In reality it’s a major problem (which contrary to some people’s views, no doubt, didn’t suddenly materialise on 19 November 2008).

   Allowing a few state agencies to (lawfully) run cross-database queries is hardly draconian and as part of tackling the real problem is a low-cost, low impact and sensible step to take.
   • Colonial Viper 2.1

     25 August 2011 at 10:33 am

     There’s got to be careful and stronger oversight qstf, there are plenty of cases where police officers or civilian workers have accessed data that they where not authorised to, for personal use.
   • aerobubble 2.2

     25 August 2011 at 11:11 am

     Gangs are a presense in NZ society because of parliament lazy indifference to the
     consequences of a range of policies, from CGT, to GST off food, to deposit guarentees,
     all are policies that help broaden the economy and remove inequality.

     The reality is if government does not engage with its own citizens economic needs
     then gangs will.

     The very presense of so many gangs means open information becomes easier
     to obtain by gangs and gangs have far fewer limits on their activities than Police
     and law abiding people.

     I view the changes as stupid, ill considered, and another own goal. Its like
     fighting a blazing inferno by throwing open the doors (as falsely think the fire
     has gone out).

     Its just more deck chair revisionism, moving the deck chairs to block the
     access to the lifeboats.
     • queenstfarmer 2.2.1

       25 August 2011 at 11:46 am

       The very presense of so many gangs means open information becomes easier to obtain by gangs

       You lost me there. The specific proposal isn’t to make information publicly available to gangs, it’s to allow state agencies to join the dots more effectively – let the left hand know what the right hand’s doing.
       • Ianupnorth 2.2.1.1

         25 August 2011 at 11:49 am

         criminology 101 – the more police spend on new technology, the less effective basic policing becomes – fact, but don’t let fact get in the way of Tories running amok with ideology.
         • queenstfarmer 2.2.1.1.1

           25 August 2011 at 11:55 am

           It would be a mistake to assume this is all about new technology. As I understand it (and having talked recently with someone working at Customs who gave a good example) it’s often just a case of agencies being able to co-ordinate, to pick up the phone and check simple facts about a particular situation / individual.

           No doubt this already happens to a limited extent at an informal level.
           • aerobubble 2.2.1.1.1.1

             25 August 2011 at 12:06 pm

             Putting the dots together means several foobars come into being.

             One data is found to be in error and costs to reckify it, or downstream costs
             when errors are made at the coal face.

             Second, informality is good, it implies immediate integrity born from
             professionalism. Data houses have no such filter protections.

             Third, information is power, my point is that more people who have access
             to data (say WINZ staff to other more secure data say held by Police)
             then the more avenue for a lowly paid, maybe annoyed frsutrated
             staff member in a moment of unprofessionalism passes data to a gang.

             Then add to that the whole problem of who has access to what.
             Its a dumb plan by an inept government who think they are masters
             of the universe, who have been propelled by policies that are now
             openly described as stupid and reprehensible. Neo-liberal.

             The world ain’t perfect, data will not be either, the people who
             access it aren’t saints, and so the more open doors, the more
             clueless the potential outcomes.

             And all for what exactly, what’s the pay off. Bigger brother controls
             on the citizenry to try to make welfare work instead of just sacking
             the whole of WINZ and providing citizens with a basic income
             guarentee, a tax free threshold and let them get on with unseating
             the monopolistic NZ economy run by woefully poor public and
             private managers. Who like the government come up with new
             schemes to distract from their inability, that are rushed into law
             without a upper chamber to cry fowl and we’re all stuck with
             yet another fundamental breach of our basic rights to dignity.
             • queenstfarmer …

               25 August 2011 at 12:57 pm

               rushed into law without a upper chamber to cry [foul]

               Agreed – there should be an upper house. Strangely, the idea was attacked by some here the other week as some sort of right-wing plot.

               we’re all stuck with yet another fundamental breach of our basic rights to dignity

               Since when has there been a “fundament” right not to have the state engage in data matching? The answer is never – this is an example of rights inflation.
               • Campbell Larsen …

                 25 August 2011 at 6:56 pm

                 Qsf:” there should be an upper house. Strangely, the idea was attacked by some here the other week as some sort of right-wing plot”

                 It seems clear that the Nacts are trying to push through as much damaging policy in the time they are in power and have two strategies for enabling them to continue their sacking of NZ.

                 The first is the anti MMP bullshit which will make it easier for the Rats to get re-elected in the unlikey event that people are stupid enough to vote for a return to the old system (or something that resembles it).

                 The second is the introduction of an upper house which they obviously hope to control – if they manage to pull this coup this will enable them to veto any repeals of the horrors they are unleashing, and will hobble any left leaning government that is voted in to repair the damage.

                 When your democracy is sick you don’t take it to a cosmetic surgen, or ask it to donate a kidney. You nurture it by encouraging participation from the electorate, and transparency, accountability and results from our politicians.
                 • aerobubble …

                   26 August 2011 at 11:57 am

                   By removing the upper house, the parliament has a much easier time
                   picking up its mistakes and pasting over them with more mistakes,
                   while failing tot address the fundamental flaw in the system.
                   That parliament stopped governing efficiently.
   • lprent 2.3

     25 August 2011 at 11:19 am

     qtf: Perhaps you should define where you think the limits will be?

     It’d be more than what this authoritarian government are likely to do based on their past performances with legislation. Urgency, last minute revisions, and restricting access to select committees.

     It isn’t a government that accepts any limits on the ‘lawful’ abuses of process.

     BTW: Remember that in placing your limits you have to define how you’re going to limit it – especially in presumption of guilt and privacy of the innocent. Quite simply you’ll find it a really hard task without saying that police can look at whatever they want whenever they want and communicate it with whomever they want at their discretion. Think of how you prevent them passing traffic fine information to the likes of Whaleoil
     • queenstfarmer 2.3.1

       25 August 2011 at 11:51 am

       The limits will be defined in law, like they are now. There are already a range of powers and discretions and limits on civil liberties. and always have been. Anything involving a discretion by definition already cannot be precisely defined. And at the end of the day, anything that ends up in Court comes down to a judge’s view of whether or not it is lawful. This is no different to how the system works now, in the past, and in every democratic country.

       Questionable parliamentary processes (or abuses thereof) are a completely separate issue.
       • Ianupnorth 2.3.1.1

         25 August 2011 at 11:55 am

         Crusher should go and have a read; the police are light years behind the game!

         http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/24/inside-secret-world-of-hackers
         • queenstfarmer 2.3.1.1.1

           25 August 2011 at 12:48 pm

           For fighting hackers, even Govts of major countries are struggling to keep up, let alone NZ.

           When it comes to more non-hacking-related crime fighting though, NZ police are apparently quite good (I’m sure that’s a relative assessment). I went a NZCS talk last year where they had the head of the Police’s e-crime lab come along and discussed various initiatives the police had in placel

           (Just dont mention INCIS!)
           • mik e 2.3.1.1.1.1

             25 August 2011 at 10:03 pm

             Its a pity they couldn’t beef up the new Sfo and prosecute a lot more fraudsters but no they have said themselves we don’t have enough money to prosecute all the fraudsters from the recent finance company collapses [ponzi schemers] !
             • queenstfarmer …

               25 August 2011 at 11:44 pm

               I hope they bring all the finance fraudsters to justice, though in fairness prosecuting white-collar fraud is a massively expensive and time-consuming process. It’s pretty easy to spot the crime when it’s a burglary or a bashing. But investigating financial crime may mean trawling through thousands of documents going back years looking for a few figures out of place. I don’t know if there is any easier way to do the job properly.

               However harsher penalties would be a deterent. Plus, trust-busting liability, so you can’t be Rod Petrecivic living in your mansion and driving round in your flash car while asking for taxpayer-funded legal aid.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 26 August 2011 at 12:17 am

                 Speaking from a US perspective and slightly OT. Harsher penalties are not a deterrent when no one is ever charged, let alone convicted.

                 No lenders have been convicted in the US (and lenders were implicated in 80% of collateral and loan frauds in the US subprime mortgage scandal) despite hundreds of billions of dollars of failed mortgages.

                 I hope they bring all the finance fraudsters to justice, though in fairness prosecuting white-collar fraud is a massively expensive and time-consuming process. It’s pretty easy to spot the crime when it’s a burglary or a bashing.

                 No no no you got it all wrong. In many of these residential mortgage backed securities which were rated AAA but turned out to be toxic trash, destroying the value of many pension funds and investment funds (and the retirement hopes of millions of workers) the fraud was what you could call FUCKING OBVIOUS.

                 Put it this way, when Moodys rated those toxic securities AAA they never ever looked at any of the original mortgage documents that formed the basis of those securities.

                 When Goldman Sachs onsold those securities to their valued clients (LOL) they too never looked at any of the original mortgage documents.

                 Finally in one case, when Fitch did look at the original mortgage documents in one set of failed AAA rated RMBS’s they found clear and obvious fraud on the loan applications of more than NINETY PERCENT of the loan documents in the folder.

                 It doesn’t get more open and shut than that.

                 Number of subsequent convictions: ZERO

                 The financial markets and the system of law and justice is a farce. A kid knocks a dairy over for $200, gets put away in jail for 2 years. A banker rips his clients off for $200B, gets his year end bonus.

                 Total farce.
     • aerobubble 2.3.2

       26 August 2011 at 12:00 pm

       Just remember that serving Police officers can now stand for council. I could be wrong.
       Add to having heaps of data available, it does start becoming a hidden threat to
       civil liberty.
3. Benjamin B. 3

   25 August 2011 at 10:31 am

   Details on the impediments removal?
4. Afewnkowthetruth 4

   25 August 2011 at 11:07 am

   ‘ the government initiates a crack down on “organised crime”.

   That could pose quite a problem, since most organised crime in NZ emanates from government front bench, which promotes organised crime.

   The NZ banking system is organised crime (creation of money out of thin air, fractional reserve banking, usary etc.)

   The activities of corporations is organised crime (stealing from the commons, largely for the benefit of a few at the top).

   The Ministry of the Environment is organised crime (sanctioning the destruction of sustainable systems and their conversion into unsustainable systems, for profit).

   The National Party organisation is organised crime (churning out propaganda founded on fabrications and lies, and ignoring fundamental scientific truths).

   As Dr Jim Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute said, political leaders should be prosecuted as [environmental] criminals for their abject failure to deal with out-of-control CO2 emissions.

   ‘a stronger focus on “disrupting the money trail underpinning offending”.

   Does this mean the government is going to tackle the rort system which underpins most decision-making and commercial activitiy in NZ?

   I guess the government really means clamping down on the victims of this corrupt and inefficient system.
   • aerobubble 4.1

     25 August 2011 at 12:10 pm

     Yes, after every deluge of plague proportion the population starts eating itself in order
     to sustain the same level of avarice.
     • prism 4.1.1

       26 August 2011 at 1:25 am

       @aerobubble – Always can be counted on for sweetness and light!
       • aerobubble 4.1.1.1

         26 August 2011 at 12:02 pm

         Evolution is dangerous, adapt faster than your neighbor.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     25 August 2011 at 1:33 pm

     +1

     The government has, for many centuries, promoted crime and theft as a valid system.
5. Terry 5

   25 August 2011 at 11:42 am

   So National will begin investigating itself and all of its own kind!
   • Ianupnorth 5.1

     25 August 2011 at 11:45 am

     Bugger Terry, you beat me to it – investigate those continually fiddling their taxes!
6. kriswgtn 6

   25 August 2011 at 7:49 pm

   ayatolley strikes again

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/5507550/Teachers-given-right-to-search-students

   When do strip searches begin and when does this get rolled out all over the country

   Oh thats right it has

   my bad 😛
7. prism 7

   25 August 2011 at 9:29 pm

   I don’t know why National doesn’t go easy on criminals and their ‘organised’ crime. With the disorganised way that the country is being run and the lack of any coherent, forward looking policies, it may be that soon the only organised commercial activity will be crime.

   At least it’s ‘honest’ crime, straight-forward malfeasance, unlike the activities of many of our politicians which are so cleverly managed at getting round the law that we don’t realise we have been rorted in some way until years later. By then they have been promoted by their mates to some position where they never even feel the effects of their shoddy behaviour.
8. Marjorie Dawe 8

   26 August 2011 at 9:44 pm

   Will they catch all of the tax dodgers and put them in prison? Not likely cos prisoners cant vote and their whole voter base will be locked up.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS