|
20th August 2013, 09:50 | #41 |
|
I know I'm going to regret commenting on this, but can you guys actually talk about the merits and foibles of the content of the interview itself, instead of which guy seemed to have won as if that'll add any weight to the matter?
|
20th August 2013, 16:31 | #42 | ||
|
Key must be feeling the pressure. Trying to talk shit about someone who has won an international Award for Gallantry for service in areas of conflict.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
||
21st August 2013, 09:50 | #43 |
|
i feel like no matter how much tv3 try and make a big deal out of this, your average middle class middle aged white person in NZ (i.e. the people who actually turn up and fucking vote) won't see this bill as being that bad EVEN IF it is a worst case scenario. reason being, to them, its to catch the turrurists. they have nothing to hide so why do they care if john key is reading their emailed pictures of lolcats? so long as he is catching them bombers before they blow up the sky tower they dont give two fucks. and probably have no fucking idea how it all works anyway.
|
21st August 2013, 12:14 | #44 |
|
The problem is the news media's motivation is eyeballs on screen. Making a big deal is easy than finding people who can explain the issues clearly and concisely.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
21st August 2013, 13:07 | #45 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Shearer fucks up, drops everyone in the poo.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/bu...0%94statements Summary: Shearer stupidly asks a question of the PM in Parliament that the PM can't avoid answering, the PM tries to give Shearer a way out but he just keeps on asking the fucking question, and the answer reveals that Shearer and Key have had at least one secret meeting without the knowledge of the rest of the Labour caucus or the Greens on how Labour can get on board with the GCSB legislation. Quote:
SHIT, meet FAN. |
|
21st August 2013, 20:49 | #46 |
Always itchy
|
Nah, it's fine. All this is going to do is get added as a footnote to the book someone will write about the time we sold our freedom for security (because terrusts).
I don't think anyone thinks Shearer has any credibility or leadership capacity, and it is of no surprise to me that he had 'off book' meetings with JK about this bill. And I think this as a life-long Labour/Greens voter. He's got to go - but there isn't anyone to replace him, so instead I'm just satisfied (??) being cynical about all politicians being incompent or assholes.
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
21st August 2013, 21:01 | #47 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
"Off the book" meetings and nudge-nudge-wink-wink deals make the world go around. It's naive in the extreme to assume that such arrangements don't exist between the leaders of the National and Labour parties.
For the leader of the opposition to bring it up in the House and put the PM on the spot about it? AWWWWWWKWARD. |
21st August 2013, 23:26 | #48 |
|
Fidgit can you explain why the bill is bad, for us obviously uninformed?
edit: This bit.. is pure gold: Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I cannot believe the member is asking that question. If he wants me to answer it, I will get on my feet and do so. Last edited by pxpx : 21st August 2013 at 23:28. |
22nd August 2013, 01:40 | #49 |
|
john key is the sickest cunt
__________________
||hellameke.com Image host of NZG pro's||Tu meke Tu much|| |
22nd August 2013, 03:32 | #50 |
|
So now that its passed is there a page online that lists which mp voted for and against?
__________________
Stuck in Canada. |
22nd August 2013, 07:42 | #51 | |
I have detailed files
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd August 2013, 12:08 | #52 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
If you can be bothered, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson gives a speech in support of the bill. In particular: Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
22nd August 2013, 12:48 | #53 |
I have detailed files
|
Left field question here, which might be relevant, or just show my ignorance. I vaguely remember that about a year ago, a bill being mentioned that allowed the GCSB/Police to remotely monitor peoples computers/phones etc. This wasn't given a lot of airtime, possibly because the GCSB didn't have as much profile. Now, in this context, does section 8A of the new bill have more teeth?
It was almost as if there was a trifecta of bills, the Skynet one, the remote monitoring/sniffing one, and the ability to spy on NZ citizens, that would satisfy Hollywood that Kiwiland wasn't he nastiest bunch of IP pirates that we have been made out to be. Or did I dream it? |
22nd August 2013, 13:02 | #54 |
I have detailed files
|
Oh - here it is. Search and Surveillance Act .
|
22nd August 2013, 14:50 | #55 | |
|
Quote:
Pro sledge. |
|
22nd August 2013, 17:33 | #56 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stuck in Canada. |
|
22nd August 2013, 17:37 | #57 |
Stunt Pants
|
Better judgement? Why should he have voted against the bill?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
22nd August 2013, 17:58 | #58 | |
|
Quote:
Also what CCS said. |
|
22nd August 2013, 19:36 | #59 | |||
|
Quote:
GCSB Bill remains flawed despite proposed changes Lost opportunity to make the GCSB Bill better for internet users Rodney Harrison: Wholesale spy power is precisely what GCSB bill means for Kiwis a selection of letters from prominent New Zealanders sent to the Prime Minister in the last few days urging him to stop the GCSB Bill. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|||
22nd August 2013, 19:42 | #60 | |
SLUTS!!!!!!!
|
Quote:
__________________
Slow internet is worse than no internet. It's like putting your penis in once and then being required to make out for 2 hours --Matt "The Oatmeal" Inman |
|
22nd August 2013, 21:11 | #61 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
22nd August 2013, 22:08 | #62 |
|
The external monitoring and/or transparent accountability seemed to be inadequate with the previous Act also. It wasn't until the Dotcom saga that it all came out that illegal spying was going on.
It's something that the new bill should have addressed. Particularly with the extensive new functions and powers the GCSB has. In the Rodney Harrison piece he comprehensively compares this new Act to the 2003 one.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
22nd August 2013, 22:17 | #63 | |
Always itchy
|
Quote:
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
|
22nd August 2013, 22:23 | #64 |
Stunt Pants
|
fidgit, did you read the Farrar link I posted?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
22nd August 2013, 22:51 | #65 |
Always itchy
|
oh, no sorry jumped ahead. Will read asap, disregard reply
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
22nd August 2013, 23:50 | #66 |
Always itchy
|
Ok read it. I don't see anywhere where he addresses the fact that under the guise of 'cyber security', the GCSB can achieve "access authorisation" for a communication company (say, a mobile phone company or ISP), and have access to all data passed through that network.
No one is making this bit up - it's right there in the bill. Surely if DPF's magic bullet point take down can assuage all worries about the bill, he would address the bit that everyone is actually worried about. But we were talking about oversight - well, the Inspector General that we get now (which is DPF's first 4 points) is appointed by the PM (not by parliament, or, say, someone completely unrelated to the GCSB like the GovGen). The same PM that is the minister for the GCSB. He's hardly going to appoint someone that doesn't take the same view as he does about how the spying should be done is he? The reporting back (which I assume is Peter Dunne's vaunted concessions he managed to wrangle out of the PM in return for his vote) are all effectively 'meta data'. They have to report the number of people they spied on. Not who, or more importantly *why*, even after it's no longer a matter of national security. The annual public hearings are to discuss the financial reviews of the security sector, but again does not cover the details of what spying actually took place, ensuring the general public are kept in the dark about how we are being monitored. Some of his points are silly - they specifically have to undertake their role with a regard to "human rights", which is an improvement on previously not mentioning human rights? Maybe they weren't mentioned originally because every government department already has to do this... It's great that he's trying to do a comparison for those simple folk that can't seem to wrap their heads around the bill without having a blogger break it down for them, but the discussion needed around what should and shouldn't have been in the bill cannot stop at a simple bullet point list of "this is better than the 2003 bill so it's awesome!". The 2003 bill was hugely flawed, we know - they spent the last 10 years acting illegally and no one knew. But the over sight that is necessary wasn't included, especially when combined with wider reaching powers under the cyber-security banner.
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
23rd August 2013, 01:18 | #67 |
Stunt Pants
|
What oversight do you want that still maintains the necessary secrecy that the gcsb requires?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
23rd August 2013, 09:16 | #68 | |
|
Quote:
pretty amazing how national party members can argue a case for their own legislation. im sold.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
23rd August 2013, 09:26 | #69 |
|
I had thought the main issue was the body we were granting the powers to. The GCSB is suspected of being part financed by the NSA and has spied on a person living in NZ based on copyright infringement in the states, which in the scheme of things is a poor reason to spy on people and does not stack up to Key's "omg terrusts".
It certainly makes the "if you have done nothing wrong..." argument a wee bit dodge. I haven't read any good proposals for alternatives but most groups seem to be indicating that this law is being rushed and shoe-horned in when it should be really done properly. |
23rd August 2013, 09:51 | #70 |
|
^^pretty much.
all shonkey is doing is slightly changing the rule-set they will continue to trample.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
23rd August 2013, 10:02 | #71 |
|
I am not really sure what pisses me off more about this whole saga, that Key used such lame political tactics as launching a fishing quota change to grab peoples attention alongside using the old US "fear politics" of terrorists under your bed
or that it worked. |
23rd August 2013, 14:06 | #72 |
|
Did it really work though? Tens of thousands of submissions, protests, and multiple polls showing upwards of 70% of nzers opposed it. And despite this was still rushed through parliament using their majority of 1 vote /-:
|
23rd August 2013, 14:14 | #73 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Rushed? It was a Bill. It got voted on. It passed with a majority. It is now an Act.
|
23rd August 2013, 14:25 | #74 | ||
|
TENS OF THOUSANDS!!!!!
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
23rd August 2013, 14:48 | #75 |
|
I think that was meant to be tens of thousands of messages posted online and comments on Campbell Live.
|
23rd August 2013, 15:09 | #76 |
|
i dunno, eh, like, i can understand the direction, and can see arguements both ways. the slippery slope is the clincher for me tho. It's the 'we'll be part of the 5 eyes network' thing that i don't like ( is it 5 eyes? i dunno, i cbf reading this thread, let alone into factual stuff). imo, that'll bring us more heat than it'll stop, in terms of the bad guys.
I could handle kiwis spying on kiwis, for kiwi interests. Not so much kiwis spying on kiwis to hand information to canada for americas interest. But hell, i'm talking about this like it's still up for debate. |
23rd August 2013, 15:18 | #77 |
|
Argh put my foot in it in at least two ways. I blame lack of coffee and also tardedness )-:
|
23rd August 2013, 15:18 | #78 |
Stunt Pants
|
Newsflash RQ, we've been part of '5 eyes' (Echelon) for a long time.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
23rd August 2013, 15:21 | #79 | |
Stray Dog
|
Quote:
Not sure whether the new GCSB bill makes this legal now - wouldn't surprise me if it did.
__________________
Omnis hominis insulas sunt |
|
23rd August 2013, 16:04 | #80 | |
|
Quote:
|
|