What if I put Roman numerals or Khmer (១, ២, ៣, ៤, ៥)?
I think the usual response is: working people are processing these things, so don't be a dick.
could you please extend this with an appraisal of what a spoiled paper will do; and/or how best to register dissatisfaction the the process itself?
A spoiled paper will be counted as an informal vote. The number of informal votes will be recorded, but not the reasons for that (the only person seeing your beautifully drawn Matariki flag is the drone recording your vote on a computer).
The best way to register your dissatisfaction with the process is to tell people. There is pretty much nothing you can do as part of the voting process that would be recognised as a protest.
Feel free to ask other questions!
why does Vic Uni run an unlicensed bookmakers?
In terms of receiving (by Nicker Hager) there is no offence if:
any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence has been returned to the owner
From memory, you're missing some important words after that. The law is just there to avoid the following: Alice steals something from Bob. If Alice gives it to Charlie, Charlie might be receiving it. But if the Police find it and return it to Bob, and then Bob gives it to Daniel, has Daniel received stolen property? The property has been stolen, and Daniel has received it. But no - the law says a subsequent transfer after Bob gets it back isn't illegal.
And Slater has been back in court this week.
The more interesting question is whether it means Nicky Hager gets prosecuted. Police originally investigated him, but determined that a charge of receiving couldn't apply because of the Dixon case, as computer files aren't property. From that point, they investigated him as a possible witness only.
Now that the Supreme Court says computer files can be property, the reason that police have given for abandoning their investigation into Nicky has gone.
But I wanted to flag that many of the items ripped out of website terms-of-use etc from various agencies, will be generic references to IDS/IPS type behaviors that are likely already-in-place, and likely also have nothing to do with Cortex, so assumptions should not be made.
Oh yes. Operating on the assumption that both Una Jagose, and the writers of terms and conditions on Government websites are telling the truth, we can only rule out agencies, we can't rule them in.
I have tried to be careful when reporting my findings (premised, as they are, on participants meaning what they say), and have been saying that while some organisations can be ruled out as being protected by Cortex, based on their public advice, those who are ruled in are only possibly protected by Cortex.
I fear paranoia does us a disservice.
I don't particularly care that an email I have sent the DPMC might be monitored by the GCSB computers systems, or even seen by GCSB employees.
My point is that they have said we would be told if something like this was happening, and they have yet to tell us. If Una Jagose hadn't given a speech and an interview in which she said we would be told about monitoring for cyber defence purposes, I wouldn't be here talking about this.
If the Government wants the benefit of being able to claim openness in some aspect of the surveillance state, the very least they can do is be as open as they have said they will be.
I think Ben is right and there are no keys under this lamp post.
I am not really trying to find out what Cortex does with this blog post. I'm mostly trying to hold (to the extent a blog post and some tweets can) the GCSB and others to account for the things they say.
They have said that Cortex will not monitor my emails unless I am told in some way that particular emails may be subject to that monitoring.
If this claim is true, I want to see that advice.
There’s other possibilities. DPMC haven’t got around to it. There is a disclaimer that says:
The alerting of those who are in contact with your computer systems to the possibility of cyber defence monitoring is supposedly a pre-condition to use of Cortex by an agency. If DPMC haven't got around to alerting users yet, then my same three options apply:
they aren't protected by cortex
they have misled someone in order to be protected by cortex
contra claims by Jagose, advise is not necessary to be involved in cortex
I'll note that I'm not talking about protecting the website. I'm mostly talking about email. They way that the system was described, it was anti-malware protection, because eg malware can be a security risk. I suppose it is possible that DPMC has protection from malware excluding that which might come via attachments to emails, but that seems a pretty big hole, and is not far removed from the first of my options.