NZ To Investigate Illegally Intercepted Data In Dotcom Case 53
First time accepted submitter karit writes with this excerpt from Scoop News: "Prime Minister John Key today announced he has requested an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau. Mr Key says the Crown has filed a memorandum in the High Court in the Megaupload case advising the Court and affected parties that the GCSB had acted unlawfully while assisting the Police to locate certain individuals subject to arrest warrants issued in the case. The Bureau had acquired communications in some instances without statutory authority."
Nothing like what key says about other Dotcom news (Score:5, Interesting)
The other big news in New Zealand related to Kim Dotcom got a very different reaction from the Prime Minister
John Banks ran for the may of Auckland a few years ago and lost. Dotcom and a few others say that he asked Dotcom for a campaign contribution, and then that it should be two lots of $25000 rather than one donation of $50000 because "I want to help you Kim and I can help you more effectively if no-one knows about this donation". Dotcom's security guard late said that Banks confirmed the cheques had been cleared.
Banks later signed the declaration about campaign contributions saying that those (and others) were anonymous. He claims that some staffer filled in the form and that he wasn't responsible even though he signed it. He also can't remember flying to and from Dotcom's mansion in Dotcom's helicopter.
Banks is now the only remaining Member of Parliament for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers party, having been added to the party shortly before the last election in their only safe seat. Well, it was safe. That party was the most libertarian-leaning in New Zealand. Banks isn't quite that, and any remaining ACT party members probably aren't quite so happy that he is leading changes that look set to spend taxpayer money on schools that teach creationism.
The police have said that they can't charge him with some things as the statute of limitations has passed, and can't prove other things. Dotcom is talking to the media as much as he can, and going to parliament for photo ops. The police have released their file but say that Banks won't allow his statements to be included. Banks says that was the police's decision.
Anyway his one vote is needed by the government so the Prime Minister is saying that he accepts Bank's word that he didn't break the law. He refuses to read the police file.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure this was just a cry for karma but I suppose I'll try and set a few things straight, anyway.
1) The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is elected by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader jointly. The office responds to public enquiry and has a very large amount of power; the IGIS must also be a required High Court Judge. Both the PM and the leader of the opposition receive IGIS' annual report. They have full and unrestricted access to all facilities, files, or intercept regardless of source or classification. IGIS also has the right to demand an individual or group for questioning and detain non-responders.
2) It is pretty unlikely that there are one or two wrongdoers in GCSB at fault for the intercept the PM has asked IGIS to investigate. If I had to guess it was collect that should have been discarded (i.e., NZ citizens and/or in support of law enforcement, which is not GCSB's mission and in fact they are specifically disallowed from supporting) that was provided to law enforcement officials upon request instead of the request being denied. The typical approach is not to send the individuals who f'd up to court for treason or something silly but there are likely to be some consequences.
Typically the agency, GCSB in this case, will pay for the transgressions and a lot of their work will come under a microscope (rightly so). The problem in cases like this is very rarely one or two individuals but some policy, law, or underhanded politics that allowed it all to happen and that's what IGIS goes after.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Interesting)
Same deal for DSD in Australia. I lived through a few enquiries, one or two names from the inspector generals office will drop by the GCSB for coffee and biscuits in the board room then be on their way. What you say is exactly what is supposed to happen. It never does though. The people that gave the green light on this will never even speak to IGIS, the guys and girls that dialed in the intercept system will keep pulling 12 hour shifts as if nothing happened. IGIS is toothless by choice.