Key on Campbell Live re GCSB Bill

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by CCS

What oversight do you want that still maintains the necessary secrecy that the gcsb requires?

And there's the rub - the trade off means there needs to be some degree of information that cannot ever be made public.

So, here is what I would have rather seen:

An Inspector General, or similar role, that is appointed by a non-partisan group. Obviously this is going to be hard to come by, but the group suggested by, I believe, Geoffry Palmer was parliament - as opposed to the Prime Minister or appointed Minister for the GCSB (which has so far always been the same person). Given that their role is to be the 'moral compass', I don't think there should also be a list of people automatically excluded, and this includes anyone that's likely to automatically side with, or against, the Government (so, no ex-members of parliament, and no friends-and-family, or something along those lines). I think the role doesn't need to be one by someone that necessarily can run the GCSB, just provides over sight, after all the PM is still the Minister in Charge.

The second thing I would like to see is specific instruction to disclose gathered knowledge at the first reasonable opportunity. To use the American's as an example, after the world wide travel caution a few weekends back, they actually announced what had taken place that led to that warning. What we never see from the GCSB (or SIS or police for that matter) is a release of the information they've gathered. Once a threat has passed, it should be practice to release the information that identified that threat. This would have the double advantage of showing the "bad guys" we're onto them, and showing the public what threats actually exist so, as a population, we're better placed to know if the level of reach given to the GCSB (or anyone else) is necessary, or just an extension of powers because more power is always nice. John Key asserts there were al quaida training in New Zealand - well now that you've let them know we know about it, why can't the GCSB release the information that led to them knowing this? A lot of the fuss has been because most New Zealanders do not think we are under the level of threat that John Key asserted we are on Thursday night. If we really are, release information showing that. It doesn't need to be timely - information from what happened 5 years ago would show the kinds of threats that we've faced, and surely would not place the country in any risk. (and if it does we need to take a look at the entire process and work out why we're not acting on the things we know).

[Lightspeed]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...eges-Committee

Dunne said it had shown "little or no regard" to the legal rights and privileges afforded to communication with MPs.

My sense is this is the accepted culture within the government and its agencies at the moment. But you know, support the extension of the government's powers to spy, Dunne.

[chubby]

peter dunne.LOL.

[IoriDyson]

hahah its true, he's a fool. but i really dont see him getting in after the next elections... but there again, ppl seem to have short memories when it comes to nz politics. fun times

[GM]

I'm wondering with the latest revelations about the NSA "Information Dominance Center" (lol) NOC design based on the Star Trek Enterprise command deck.

Pics:





That some GCSB neckbeard has also had his release and jizzed out a fantasy NOC into a government building somewhere in Wellington. Who knows, with weta on board I'd imagine some kind of HALO inspired set with cortana interface.

[Ab]

Needs more fedora

[GM]

Some bitches in miniskirts perhaps, eh, nah I can't imagine girls being allowed into the INFORMATION DOMINANCE CENTRE. They might want to rename it something less cool and pansy sounding like; Group Information Technology and Services Support.

[StN]

Or Very Intelligent Reactive Government Information Number-crunching Specialists.