New Zealand Cyber Spies Win New Powers 132
caeos writes "New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced in New Zealand giving police and Security Intelligence Service officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life. The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS or SIS) is an intelligence agency of the New Zealand government."
Warrants (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Warrants (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed they do. This simply extends the existing wire tapping laws to internet/mobile comms
Re:Warrants (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, they no longer have to specify which form of electronic communication they wish to monitor; one blanket warrant covers them all...
Re:Warrants (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't that kind of make sense? Before phone was the only possible electronic communications device. If there's a need (real need) to tap on to someones phone, it should include all electronic communications.
Re:Warrants (Score:5, Informative)
In the USA, search and seizure powers were specifically limited by the fourth amendment for among other reasons, reducing the liklihood of fishing expeditions. Here you can't use the power to search something specific eg. someone's car to justify searching someone's house, mail etc. as well.
Re: (Score:1)
In the USA, search and seizure powers were specifically limited by the fourth amendment for among other reasons, reducing the liklihood of fishing expeditions. Here you can't use the power to search something specific eg. someone's car to justify searching someone's house, mail etc. as well.
and i have a bridge to sell you too.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you like some extraterrestrial land titles with that?
Re:Warrants (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe so, but over the last 10 years the government has made some changes to it's interpretation of the 4th amendment. Specifically, what constitutes an expectation of privacy as defined by Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104.
Beyond even the 4th amendment and 5th amendment, the US government has shown a willingness to ignore the constitution and even international law altogether if they feel national security interests are at stake. The somewhat recent case of an extraordinary rendition of a Canadian citizen while on US soil to Syria poses significant opposition to commonly held beliefs about constitutional protection. After being tortured and returned to Canada, in 2007 he came back to the US to testify before congress about his experience and as far as I know, nothing has ever come of that hearing.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 allows for the FISA court to deport an alien suspected of terrorism based solely on classified evidence, to which the target cannot try to suppress evidence or intervene in any way including having representation at any hearings. Whether they are deported or not, they receive very little(if any) information about the proceedings or how any decision was reached. Oddly enough, after reading the entire bill, I could not find any reference anywhere describing where the persons can be deported to. In essence, our government formally legalized extraordinary rendition 15 years ago, although I doubt in many cases of extraordinary rendition that they follow the appropriate steps(however rudimentary they may be) through the FISA court. All they have to do is call it a deportation instead of rendition. And since the target cannot intervene in any proceedings of the process, they cannot suppress any evidence gathered via illegal means.
If anyone was hoping for "change", you didn't get it the way you thought you would. The Alien Terrorist Removal Provisions of this bill were sponsored by your very own Joe Biden. Clinton formulated the bill but it wasn't until the Oklahoma bombing that the political will to pass it existed.
So here we sit, 15 years later. The government now has the PATRIOT act on top of what was considered in 1995 to be necessary to stop terrorism. We have broad spectrum warrantless wiretapping without FISA approval based on a shady interpretation of an AG. Are we safer? In some respects maybe. Would any of these laws prevent a bomber such as Timothy McVeigh from repeating what he did? Probably not. Would these laws prevent someone from hijacking a plane and ramming it into a large bulding? Perhaps.
But at what cost? It seems to be the question that no politician has the fortitude to ask. Where do we draw the line? Terrorism is evil, but at what point do we say "this is the line we can't cross". If we enact further privacy and liberty restrictions every time someone manages to strike America, what will be left in 20 years? 50 years?
Re: (Score:2)
As a follow-up, Gregory Nojeim(then a counselor for the ACLU) testified before congress in 1995 about their new terrorism law and described in great detail the damage it does to 1st amendment protections. In essence, he described how the new law could create guilt by association and give the government broad selective prosecution powers.
It's a really interesting read.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it? These folks have a warped understanding of privacy. How bad does it have to get? What if someone produced an accurate mind reading device? Then thoughtcrime would become a reality. I imagine people would have a problem with that. Well, I have the same problem with government spooks being able to access my private telephone calls.
Nobody ever asks us if we are willing to give up our privacy in exchange for security.
Re: (Score:1)
> Then thoughtcrime would become a reality.
Not so. At least, not on it's own. Search warrants are to collect evidence. So you could be arrested for thinking 'That was a fun murder yesterday!', since that might be interpreted as strong evidence for having physically carried out a murder yesterday. That doesn't directly mean that thinking something is the crime, although inevitably it might become one. It is two distinct things though: a crime, and evidence of having committed a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the summary posted fails to reflect what TFA is all about. I opened this discussion in my browser, prepared to condemn New Zealand for infringing on the rights of it's citizens. However, after RTFA, I have to go along with them. If we assume that a wire tap is ever justified, for any reason, then it makes little sense to make SOME electronic communications subject to the tap, but others are immune.
I see nothing wrong here: the cops still have to get a warrant, and go through channels. There sh
Re: (Score:2)
If they discover additional places they have probable cause to search then they should not have any problem getting a proper warrant specifying as such. If they can't get a warrant for those formerly unknown devices then they really shouldn't be given a blanket warrant for said devices!
Re:Warrants??? (Score:1, Troll)
Judge: Why should I issue a surveillance warrant for this guy?
Cop: Well, we think that he and his pals got dressed up like Santas, go all liquored up, and then ran through the streets, yelling, "Ho, Ho, Fucking Ho!"
Judge: Warrant granted!
Re: (Score:2)
> At least in New Zealand they still need a warrant.
Unless, of course, the 'collection' is done by partner services of the Echelon-participants...like it's been done for decades.
Good grief. (Score:4, Interesting)
New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced in New Zealand giving police and Security Intelligence Service officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life.
Who in the world thinks their "online life" can be kept secret from anyone? Good grief, you don't need to be the New Zealand Secret Service to dig around online to see what people are up to. Once again, if you don't want people to know what your doing, don't put it online for everyone (including the spooks) to see. The Interwebs are by their nature not private. And really, no one really cares what's on your Facebook except your uptight potential employer.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
But video surveillance is starting to blanket the civilized world, for a variety of reasons having to do with security, science/engineering, and business (Google). Tie it all together (and they will), and once again Mr. George Orwell is looking incredibly prescient. Apart from the date, 1984 was perhaps the most amazingly accurate forecast of the past 200 years.
Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
Encrypted communication such as that between your self and your bank would be considered private. Do you really believe that the government tapping someone's communications is no big deal?
Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you shouldn't be banking online if you don't want everyone to know what your doing?
So your theory is that people should have to physically go out in public if they want something to be private? I hope i don't have to point out the obvious flaw in this.
Online banking, and any other encrypted communication should be private by default.
Privacy from the government is not enough. (Score:1)
If your encrypted communications are not private then you are doing them wrong. A law can give someone the legal right to look at your communications, however if you understand encryption you can still send private communications.
Don't get me wrong, I value my privacy. But the government is only one of many possible people who could be eavesdropping and if I am doing something I really want private having it be illegal to eavesdrop really isn't enough, you need to make it prohibitively difficult for someone
When Eve contracts with VeriSign (Score:2)
however if you understand encryption you can still send private communications.
Not if Eve has compromised the the trusted third party introducing you and your bank.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess I should clarify. I am not saying that all encrypted communications are secure. But if you and the person you are talking to understand what you are doing then a secure private message can be sent without too much trouble, even over a completely open channel such as a wire tapped email or a slashdot post.
Re: (Score:1)
But if you and the person you are talking to understand what you are doing then a secure private message can be sent without too much trouble, even over a completely open channel such as a wire tapped email or a slashdot post.
The chair is against the wall.
John has a long moustache.
Bank customers don't understand (Score:2)
But if you and the person you are talking to understand what you are doing then a secure private message can be sent without too much trouble
I agree: ideally, a bank would be the root CA for its own SSL servers and hand out its root certificate on a CD or USB stick to new account holders. But in fact, most customers of a retail bank [wikipedia.org] do not understand what they are doing and rely on companies like VeriSign to do all the understanding for them.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you and the person you are talking to understand what you are doing...
Your asking for a lot here. People should be able to benefit from security and privacy without understanding it.
Suitable law, regulation, and appropriate oversight can make this happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Online banking, and any other encrypted communication should be private by default.
Well the thing is that it isn't. You can trust that it is private, but you will never know
Re: (Score:2)
You can trust that it is private, but you will never know
I can never know that it is private. But i can know that it isn't private if laws are passed and systems are in place ensuring that it won't be.
Obviously I'd prefer laws to be in place that enable privacy to at least be possible.
Re:Good grief. (Score:4, Insightful)
there is also a distinct lack of support for good old shared secret and one-time pad encryption in modern email/IM standards so that isn't helping either. maybe even if things like PGP and 'off the record' plugins were standard then it might be used outside the realm of nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of e-mail clients (Thunderbird, OS X's Mail.App, and I believe Outlook) come with support for encryption and signing of e-mails using X.509 certificates and RSA keys. It's a chain of trust (so you have to get a certificate from a certificate authority of some kind) rather than a web, but until recently Thawte was doing free e-mail certificates. The real problem is... no-one seems to care. Why aren't e-mails from my bank signed cryptographically? Do they even know it's a possibility...
Re: (Score:1)
...Why aren't e-mails from my bank signed cryptographically?...
Because my bank never, ever sends me an e-mail, so it doesn't matter. I have to log securely into my account, in order to see any communications from them. I can also send them information securely via the web when I am logged in to my account. All communications to/from my bank account are encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get plenty of "You've got stuff waiting. Please log in and read it" or "We've changed our terms and conditions (so you now owe us your first born), please log in to accept them" or similar...
Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not realize it but your argument could also be used to justify massive surveillance programs outside of peoples' homes like that in London. After all, what you do outside isn't terribly private either; people can see you all the time but that doesn't make the surveillance mundane and not worth mentioning...
Re: (Score:2)
People still don't get the concept of the slippery slope. By the time they do, they have fallen off the end of it and are sitting in the mud and cant get out.
Re: (Score:2)
The footages makes next to no difference [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
uptight potential employer
Sorry, but that’s mutually exclusive. Either he’s a potential employer. Or he’s uptight, in which case I’d not see him as a potential employer anyway.
OK, on the other hand, in my business model, there are no employers or employees. There are business partnerships. (Nearly the same thing, but without any enforcement of exclusivity or who gets to hire someone. Also the relationships are equal. Not king & slave.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're snooping with plans to present it IN COURT, you'll still need permission.
If you're doing it just to be a joker or a pervert, yeah, you can do it already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're snooping with plans to present it IN COURT, you'll still need permission.
Time and time again, the courts have accepted evidence that was improperly collected, with a "don't do it again, wink, wink, nod, nod..."
NZIS? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, you can't make that shit up. Didn't they at least consider the acronym before deciding on a name?
Re:NZIS? (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that the operations in Iraq were once referred to as Operation Iraqi Liberation, it shouldn't surprise you that another government put minimal thought into the naming process for its new surveillance program.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Australian Federal Police was going to be called the Federal Law Enforcement Agency.
Re: (Score:2)
*SIS seems to be a minor naming trend in commonwealth countries.
Re:NZIS? (Score:4, Funny)
It sounds threateningly close to 'nazis'.
Yours truly,
Captain Obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you :)
I feel stupid now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds threateningly close to 'nazis'.
I don't think it sounds anything like 'nazis' although it may look somewhat similar when written. I'm not sure how one would actually pronounce this, other than "N-Z-I-S."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it (kiwi here) - please explain?
And the burning eye on that tower ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh Welcome, my dear friends, to the future: Where even the worst crimes against humanity are "worth it".
Re:And the burning eye on that tower ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, was meant as a sarcastic post so tough luck. I'm not really surprised on how tough security is getting, I'm actually more surprised how lightly people seem
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you rather that new frontiers to never be policed or surveilled ever?
I would rather people started fixing that fucked up thing we call a "society" instead of trying to stomp out the fire even harder. Our societies are at war with each other because we're still ruled by ignorance and greed. No one installs monitoring systems in the offices so why the hell wonder about terrorism? To take your "frontier" analogy a bit deeper into reality. Instead of building a fence thousands of miles long and trying to "monitor" what goes over it you could try to seolve the issues that drive people over such a barrier. But you're probably right, monitoring is way less dirty and can't be pinned to individual responsibility.
The fact is that criminals and other evildoers are using the internet and other technology for nefarious purposes as well as the good guys.
Oh come on, evildoers? Really? Where are we? Kindergarten? I had hoped that this word vanished with the imbecile who introduced it. There are more "evildoers" in public positions and among the ranks of history than ANY terrorist group will ever hire in the entire existence of the planet. Sure we all use the technology for what we can and to prevent our antagonists from beating us to it. The problem here is that we subject millions of people all over the world to ridiculously inept means of what we call "prevention" and "preemptive measures" that the tiny amount of actual victims is far outweighed by the hysteria riddled members of the public who are easily manipulated. How many Al Qaida operatives do they actually catch in New Zealand? Isn't this just another excuse to find means to control your population? I seriously don't know but as of late ... I'm more worried about the finding out the truth part than about
what they claim to protect us from.
I for one am glad for police and law enforcement agencies having the same powers as they would have in the offline world.
Then you, for one, don't understand that there is a difference between the "powers" in the offline world and the ones in the "online" world. Even if you wanted you need to put lots of effort into pinpointing someone's location in real life. The combined data from all our real world tech appliances on the other hand seem to erradicate that effort and give us instant access to whatever you need to know. At least in the olden times to find someone's hidden stash you would at least have to actually go to his place and break it open.
I wish you a happy 2010 and hope that you'll take a lesson in what people call "sarcasm". Getting it makes life on the interwebz much easier you know?
Re: (Score:1)
...Oh come on, evildoers? Really? Where are we? Kindergarten? I had hoped that this word vanished with the imbecile who introduced it....
So what would you call the guy who tried but failed to blow up an airplane full of people recently?
There are different kinds of evil doers. Some of them get themselves elected to public office or become so after they are elected. That isn't the same as someone flying airplanes into buildings or blowing them out of the sky. Besides, do you really expect anything on the Inte
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what would you call the guy who tried but failed to blow up an airplane full of people recently?
How about: A criminal? How about that word? Last time I checked, trying to kill hundreds of people was a crime. In his weird and sad way what he tried to do was probably not evil. So since evil stems from the perception/perspective of the one being submitted to it I think the entire word has to go out the window in discussions like this. Good and Evil are fairytale words that normally don't do reality justice in any way.
There are different kinds of evil doers. Some of them get themselves elected to public office or become so after they are elected. That isn't the same as someone flying airplanes into buildings or blowing them out of the sky.
How exactly is it different? If a strange person chooses to commit murder-suicide for re
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, evildoers? Really? Where are we? Kindergarten? I had hoped that this word vanished with the imbecile who introduced it.
Batman?
Re: (Score:2)
Batman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqEl_3o094c [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then you, for one, don't understand that there is a difference between the "powers" in the offline world and the ones in the "online" world. Even if you wanted you need to put lots of effort into pinpointing someone's location in real life.
That's nonsense. For starters, 90% of the time you are either at your home address (which the government has a record of) or your place of employment (which they also have a record of). And for the remaining time, an ordinary police constable knocking on your door and asking your partner "Hello, we're looking for Mr Bloggs. Do you know where he is right now?" usually reveals the answer. "Pinpointing someone's location in real life" is only hard if that person is already on the run from the law and their
I DID BEEN TROLLED ME (Score:4, Interesting)
Can someone write me a more appropriate list to detect ignorance please? Mine just blew off the charts.
1. Don't answer to arguments no matter how easily they can be interjected with your own
2. Call your corresponding recipient a A) Leftist B) Liberal C) Nutjob or D) Tinfoil Hat or a combination of all
3. Use adjectives like "pathetic" or "whiny" to distract from you lack of discussion value or opinion
4. Calling an individual "You people" after having had one (in numbers 1 -ONE- O N E) written anonymous exchange over the internet underlines your differenciated approach to the world and people in General
5. Make a reference to a board game you probably never played but value because of it's binary black-and-white-ishness
6. Using the wrong board game analogy to imply an ultimate state of "decidedness" to superimpose your own self worth in spite of no mentionable arguments whatsoever
7. Post anonymously to give power to your non-researchable untraceable remarks
8. Consider the state of the world a "one sentence, you suck, I rule" kind-of-problem
9. Take pride in trolling, nothing is valued more online that someone giving his "honest-to-god-uninformed-you-liberals-will-all-burn-in-hell-agenda"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm so going to write a Haiku with my own blood once I figure out how to break this ladyshave.
Don't worry! (Score:4, Funny)
Obama will change everything!
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Funny)
I, too, am outraged at his failure to rein in New Zealand. Aren't they a subsidiary of Australia, which is in turn the Oceania subsidiary of the USA?
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't they a subsidiary of Australia
We don't want'em but they can have Tasmania if they want it. Come on guys. Its going cheap.
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Funny)
Which means as soon as Obama solves the kangaroo problem in Oz, he'll take care of the hobbit humpers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he was going to solve the world financial problem on Christmas until the Master deleted his plan.
Same shit as always (Score:3, Insightful)
Police association vice-president Stuart Mills said ... that people who weren't committing criminal offences had little to fear.
That's what everyone says who wants to violate privacy. They forget that the privacy itself has value. I fear that my privacy will be violated, for no reason other than that I want privacy. Why do I want privacy? I don't have to justify that - wanting privacy is like wanting happiness. Why do you want happiness? There is no reason. Happiness and privacy are end-wants. People want other things, only because those other things provide happiness and privacy.
Well, it is for me anyway. Other people may have sensitive things that they want to do anonymously, without anyone finding out who they are, like criticizing a dictator. That's also a valid reason for privacy.
Re:Same shit as always (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like being in a zoo, where you know everybody is pointing and laughing at you while you shit behind a wall of glass.
Imagine this: you're a soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. You may be a colonel with 20 years of service or a lowly grunt with 2. You're a married man who obviously can't have sex, so you and your wife arrange to have a little private "pillow talk" over the phone. NSA agents pull up your private conversation [boingboing.net] for the "lulz", laughing their asses off at you even though you might die tomorrow for the very same government who is paying for them to watch you like a zoo exhibit and e-mail each other details of your sex life just as office workers do the latest jokes.
Fuck that, man.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like being in a zoo, where you know everybody is pointing and laughing at you while you shit behind a wall of glass.
I don't think the animals in the zoo care one bit about shitting in front of people, or whether the people are laughing. Not being able to get out, or be in their natural habitat is an entirely different matter.
Re: (Score:1)
....wanting privacy is like wanting happiness...
The United States Constitution says you have the right to PURSUE happiness, but it does not give you happiness itself. You have to work on that yourself. Why do you expect privacy is any different? There is no such thing as absolute privacy, if you're going to not live as a hermit in a forest somewhere. Law enforcers always have had the power to inspect communications, even in the days when snail mail and special couriers were the only means. Why are you upset
Re: (Score:1)
I couldn't agree with you more.
I have to wonder about these people who justify invasion of privacy, would they be willing to have their entire life monitored, knowing nothing they do is private? Wouldn't they feel the slightest bit violated?
The lesson here is to never under any circumstance, use any technology when you need to have a private conversation or communication. We must all fully think about what we are going to say before we communicate. If you don't want anyone to know about it beside the person
At least they don't have secret police (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [nationalreview.com]
Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands [patriotroom.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A more reasonable take is here [volokh.com]. Especially since The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative-leaning libertarian blog, staffed mainly by law professors, that generally dislikes Obama, I'm going to suspect they have a better take on it. Also, a site mockingly named after a conspiracy is probably better than one like patriotroom.com that is deadly earnest about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope no one reminds them about foreign embassies on US soil and diplomatic passports. No search and seizure there either, nor coming or going.
On a side note it is interesting that Interpol looks to be taking on a new role in providing policing capability and education in regions where military peace keeping activities are under way. It is wildly inappropriate to use military in a policing role for two reasons, the lack the proper training or the appropriate psychological profile and secondly they will
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything on either of those sites: The National Review of William Buckley's old magazine, which these days is just a neoconservative mouthpiece. As for patriotroom: sorry, but the word "patriot" is forever tainted with teabagger idiocy.
To me, those sites have as much credibility as Sesame Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Were either of the National Review or patriotroom.com brought to you by the letters A & W, and the number 4?
Re:At least they don't have secret police (Score:4, Funny)
Sesame street has a lot of real world politics subtly hidden within it. Kermit [wikipedia.org] was the CIA's man that disposed of the democratically elected government of iran to put in a puppet government. People don't appreciate how much a geopolitical fan Henson must have been.
Robert Newman [google.com] has a far funnier bit on Kermit and puppet governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is Sesame Street a fountain of lies? I always regarded Sesame Street as eminently credible. Their staff includes many leading figures in children's education. Sorry, can you provide citations of dishonest behavior on their part? I have no idea why you brought them into a discussion of vile politics and mudslinging.
Secondly, one of the things I learned from Sesame Street was that all ideas are equal, everybody is the same, and there are no right or wrong viewpoints, only different life experie
Scary Stuff (Score:2)
Wouldn't VPN or TOR make this sort of surveillance moot?
One wonders if all the home wireless networks whose owners never put a password on, would be a good place for "terrorist" to surf from (LOL sorry it's funny)...well...funny until interpol kicks in your door because the terrorist next door used your unsecured wireless networks.
"but I didn't do it"
Guilty until you can buy your innocence.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't VPN or TOR make this sort of surveillance moot?
It would make surveillance more difficult. Which makes this crap even crappier. You'd think that the people who really are up to no good are busy covering their tracks. So who are the spies spying on exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
So who are the spies spying on exactly?
The low hanging fruit.. there's bound to be enough nutters who are not tech savvy enough to cover their tracks online (or offline) or even some who don't care.
Modern Laws for a Modern Society (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of technology and power in the hands of a certain historical figure from 1930's Europe is indeed something that would worry many. In this day and age, conspiracy theorists aside, a majority of law abiding citizens should have no problem with this technology, provided they are educated and informed on its use.
This is no different than the conversation I had with my girlfriend's brother the other night. He recently got off probation and we were having the talk about cops and stuff while driving to a concert. He, of course, hates cops, and if he's doing things that are illegal, he should. If you aren't breaking the law, fear of law enforcement borders on irrational. And instead of a response coming back to me mentioning things like Rodney King, cli-Che Guevara, or some martyr of an oppressive militant dictatorship, why not spend some time reading about the countless times when some honest, moral, and ethical person's life was dramatically improved because of modernized laws in the hands of an honest, moral, and ethical society.
You see, there are idealists on the other side of the argument as well.
Re: (Score:1)
....improved because of modernized laws in the hands of an honest, moral, and ethical society....
I would like to know if there still is such a thing on this planet? I certainly would not think there is, judging by the 10 o'clock news every night. In fact I wonder if there has ever been such a thing on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of technology and power in the hands of a certain historical figure from 1930's Europe is indeed something that would worry many. In this day and age, conspiracy theorists aside, a majority of law abiding citizens should have no problem with this technology, provided they are educated and informed on its use.
Normally I would agree with you, except for another very modern -- looking for "indicators" of future illegality rather than convictions for past illegality. This isn't just an issue of "terrorism", but anywhere that "safety" is a concern -- positive vetting for working with children, with the elderly, money, etc. UK legislation will very soon require a very large proportion of the population to be vetted as to whether they are safe to work with children -- possibly right down to the plumber who fixes the
Re: (Score:2)
why not spend some time reading about the countless times when some honest, moral, and ethical person's life was dramatically improved
Why not spend some time reading about the countless times when those same individuals have had their lives destroyed? Start with Radley Balko's pieces in Reason, you might find your notions of the inherent goodness of police challenged a bit.
Waihopai spy base probably doing this already (Score:4, Informative)
Say Hello To My Little Friend... (Score:1)
NZSIS? I have a suggestion for the service name (Score:3, Funny)
and this helps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
New, more permissive laws provide police and government prosecutors with the opportunity to selectively pursue certain easy cases. The cases they choose to investigate will invariably be in line with their political or personal agendas. I don't know if I would consider this a burden.
I guess it depends who you are asking. This was an easy case and not pursued despite several laws being broken. I was not actually commenting on the morals of the case, and you are correct that it will give them the opportunity to drive their agendas, of course that will just be further resources away from other cases.
At least they admit it! (Score:2)
stuff.co.nz slashdotted my cpu (Score:2)
Money Back Guarantee (Score:2)
I think once any government is involved, the term intelligence becomes an oxymoron.
This agency is surely driven by the taxes stolen from New Zealanders under the pretense of "protecting" them from unsavory internet users.
On the surface we know, there as everywhere else, the agency will work hard to justify its existence and go overboard in doing so.
Eventually they will defend what they do , because they have a job and want to keep it, so they will get even snoopier and make a big deal out of little situatio
Fighting back (Score:1)
New Zealand Intelligence Dept's? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Rugby union not Aussie rules.