Key on Campbell Live re GCSB Bill

[EvilLumpy]

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?

[fixed_truth]

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.

if there was a terrorist attack at Auckland Airport opponents would "run for the hills" and demand to know why more was not done to prevent it.

"That would include David Shearer and Russel Norman,"

Shearer responds:

"The last time an attack happened I was actually in Iraq where a rocket came in and I ran to the people who were killed and wounded and helped out,"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...terrorism-fear

[leadinjector]

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.

[Lightspeed]

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.

[Ab]

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.

David Shearer : Did he or anyone in his office ever contact the Labour Party to obtain broader support for the bill?

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.

David Shearer : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that was a question. Did he or anyone in his office ever contact the Labour Party to obtain broader support for the bill—did you contact me?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : OK—[Interruption ]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I want to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : OK. Yes, Mr Speaker. After one of the Intelligence and Security Committee meetings, I asked Mr Shearer whether he would like to come to my office to have a discussion. We sat down and had about a 30-minute discussion where Mr Shearer said: “Keep this confidential. If you come out and say we’ve done it, that won’t look good and I don’t want you shouting it out about the House.” My deputy chief of staff went to see Mr Goff and also went to see Mr Robertson. On numerous occasions we reached out and at one point—

Grant Robertson : No, no, no. Don’t make stuff up.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : If the member really wants to get down and dirty, members of the Labour Party said they did not understand the law.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The Bledisloe Cup was on Saturday.

David Shearer : So he is saying that he initiated contact with me after the—[Interruption ]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The member has every right to have his supplementary question heard.

David Shearer : Is he saying that he made contact with me after the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting and that it was my request that he should remember that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I am afraid the member is wrong. I went up to the member after the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting and said “Do you want to come to my office?”, to which the member said yes, and I said that we would probably take the stairs to avoid the other guys. We actually waited for the other members, in particular, Dr Norman, to leave so that he did not see the member coming up to my office.

SHIT, meet FAN.

[fidgit]

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.

[Ab]

"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.

[pxpx]

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.

[p01s0n]

john key is the sickest cunt

[wasp]

So now that its passed is there a page online that lists which mp voted for and against?

[StN]

Originally Posted by wasp

So now that its passed is there a page online that lists which mp voted for and against?

I heard the numbers last night and it was split 61/59 down party lines with one of the Maori party members abstaining - it was speculated that this was Turia?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Fidgit can you explain why the bill is bad, for us obviously uninformed?

I can't say why fidgit might think the law is bad, but Farrar posted an interesting comparison of "some of the major differences between the 2003 Helen Clark law and the 2013 John Key law." It shows extra safeguards and clarifications in the 2013 version.

If you can be bothered, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson gives a speech in support of the bill. In particular:

I want to address some of the claims we have heard about the new section 8A. That section confirms the GCSB’s existing ability to assist with information assurance and cyber-security. To claim that it gives the GCSB the power to spy freely on New Zealanders is wrong. It is wrong especially when one considers the wording of the provision. That would be so far out of the scope of the new section 8A that it is simply scaremongering to suggest otherwise.

[StN]

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?

[StN]

Oh - here it is. Search and Surveillance Act .

[ZoSo]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

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.

Pro sledge.

[wasp]

Originally Posted by StN

I heard the numbers last night and it was split 61/59 down party lines with one of the Maori party members abstaining - it was speculated that this was Turia?

Bugger I was hoping my uncle - hon Chester Borrows (national MP) would of had better judgement but I guess all national members have to tow the party line.

[CCS]

Better judgement? Why should he have voted against the bill?

[plaz0r]

Originally Posted by wasp

Bugger I was hoping my uncle - hon Chester Borrows (national MP) would of had better judgement but I guess all national members have to tow the party line.

It's 'toe the line', namedropper.

Also what CCS said.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Fidgit can you explain why the bill is bad, for us obviously uninformed?

Not sure if serious but there is widespread concern about this bill from both experts and NZ as a whole.

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.

Very significant questions remain about many aspects of its extended powers and their impact on New Zealand citizens and residents. Regrettably the Bill does little to provide rigorous external monitoring or transparent accountability in relation to the actions of the GCSB. Both are essential to prevent abuses of power by any agency of the State and especially those that must operate largely outside of the public view.

This is an urgent appeal to you as Prime Minister not to proceed with the GCSB Bill knowing that it contains, in the view of many legal and human rights experts, quite unnecessary infringements of human rights and civil liberties of New Zealand citizens. This is not the sort of Bill that should pass into law by a 1 vote majority in the House of Representatives.

I write this message as a professor of law but in my personal capacity.

[Rince]

Originally Posted by CCS

I can't say why fidgit might think the law is bad, but Farrar posted an interesting comparison of "some of the major differences between the 2003 Helen Clark law and the 2013 John Key law." It shows extra safeguards and clarifications in the 2013 version.

If you can be bothered, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson gives a speech in support of the bill. In particular:

And WhaleOil (in which he references Farrar) mocks Curran

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

And the rigorous external monitoring and/or transparent accountability in relation to the actions of the GCSB that existed prior to this bill is what?

[fixed_truth]

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.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by CCS

And the rigorous external monitoring and/or transparent accountability in relation to the actions of the GCSB that existed prior to this bill is what?

And the rigorous external monitoring and/or transparent accountability in relation to the actions of the GCSB that exists now as a result of this bill, which also explicitly allowed for them to spy on all New Zealanders, and to undertake mass surveillance of New Zealanders? Oh, we've got the PM's promise to resign if they do. Well, that's reassuring.

[CCS]

fidgit, did you read the Farrar link I posted?

[fidgit]

oh, no sorry jumped ahead. Will read asap, disregard reply

[fidgit]

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.

[CCS]

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

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

fidgit, did you read the Farrar link I posted?

yeah.
pretty amazing how national party members can argue a case for their own legislation.
im sold.

[Baxton]

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.

[chubby]

^^pretty much.
all shonkey is doing is slightly changing the rule-set they will continue to trample.

[Baxton]

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.

[curses]

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 /-:

[Ab]

Rushed? It was a Bill. It got voted on. It passed with a majority. It is now an Act.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by curses

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 /-:

Back to school for you.

Submissions, advice, and report on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

The closing date for submissions on the bill was Friday, 21 June 2013. The committee received 123 submissions and has released these to the public. The committee has now reported on the bill, and its report and the advice it received are now publicly available.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/le...communications

[BoyWonder]

I think that was meant to be tens of thousands of messages posted online and comments on Campbell Live.

[aR Que]

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.

[curses]

Argh put my foot in it in at least two ways. I blame lack of coffee and also tardedness )-:

[CCS]

Newsflash RQ, we've been part of '5 eyes' (Echelon) for a long time.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Baxton

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".

I got a reply from one of John Key's communications guys on this. He pointed me to the Kitteridge report, which was commissioned after Kim Dotcom was spied on. It says that as soon as the public found out that the GCSB was spying on a permanent NZ resident or NZ citizen, all other similar spying was stopped since they thought they were likely in breach of the the 2003 GCSB Act. Or at least there would have been strong basis for the government to be taken to court since the law wasn't clear on this point.

Not sure whether the new GCSB bill makes this legal now - wouldn't surprise me if it did.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by CCS

Newsflash RQ, we've been part of '5 eyes' (Echelon) for a long time.

*sad trombone*.