Ha, there's a story about a guy in the very early days being paid a piece rate to write virus cleanup software.Unfortunately the supply of viruses dropped off and so did his income... so he took up writing viruses to ensure the money kept flowing.
Crimes Act s252 (1) "Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system."
Did you get any legal advice before a) breaching the security of the MSD systems, b) putting up this post?
I believe you can get five years jail for commercial copyright violation, and that this would be enough to qualify for extradition.
I suspect that this Police end-run around our law is part of a pattern of behaviour by the Police.
There is also some evidence to show that the Police are also using Customs extensive search-at-the-border powers to do intelligence gathering for them. We know that Customs allow the Police direct access to the CusMod computer system that they use to track and intercept people arriving at the border.
We also know that in the Switched on Gardener case, Customs often took and copied mobile phones that belonged to Quinlan (the owner) and his wife, presumably with a view to passing them on to the Police who were investigating them. (There is no suggestion that the Quinlans were breaking customs laws.)
It seems that the Police may be wilfully ignoring the restrictions placed on them by Parliament and taking advantage of powers granted to other government agencies to perform their own duties.
Rich - from the Law Commissions report:
"And in a number of American states there are statutes which make it an offence to send electronic communications without legitimate purpose which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." Footnote 159.
To my mind the thrust of the Communications Tribunal seems to be more towards takedowns and forbidding of further similar communications rather than findings of fact or similar responses.
There's also a strong punitive element, with anyone disobeying such an order being up for a criminal conviction with a fine of up to $5000 and a jail term of up to three months.
Interesting comment about the Tribunal being required to comply with the "principles of natural justice" - but how strong is that requirement?
I would have thought that being able to defend yourself from accusations was important enough that it should have been mentioned explicitly (with possible exceptions when the defendant can't be identified and so on).
Do you believe that the principles of natural justice also guarantee a right to an appeal? What else can we read into it?
While we're talking about principle 10 - "A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability."
I believe that the Human Rights Act s21 covers discrimination based on those (as well as age, family status, political opinion and employment status).
However, when it comes to limiting speech, it seems to only cover (s61) "words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons."
Does anyone know if there is any other part of the Human Rights Act or any other Act that limits denigrating speech based on religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation or disability?
There are actually some clear practical differences. It’s vastly easier to go to an outdoor advertising company and complain you’re being defamed on a billboard than to remonstrate with a vindictive internet commenter. And a billboard doesn’t replicate all over town the way an offensive communication might replicate across the internet.
There’s two points I’d like to make in response to this paragraph:
1. It’s not just defamation. It’s also other communications that cause significant emotional distress to the recipient (even if they’re not aimed at them). i.e. it might be perfectly legal on the billboard but could still be taken down online by order of the Comms Tribunal.
After all they also include “denigrating people by reason of his or her religion or ethical beliefs”.
2. A billboard may not replicate – but if something has “replicated across the internet” do you think that there is any chance that any orders of the Comms Tribunal will be able to take it down?
I think Nat's criticism is wrong on a number of counts.
Firstly, I think the media were correct to draw the parallels between Judge Harvey's comments about the US govt's attitude to copyright in the TPP and the case that he is currently judging which is... about the US govt and copyright. Indeed, the connection is so strong that they'd be failing in their job if they didn't mention it.
Secondly, I think Judge Harvey was foolish to make that comment considering the case he was assigned to. Isn't "not making public comment about one side of a case you're considering" one of the more obvious rules for judges?
Thirdly, Nat conflates judges and politicians with "Do we want our judiciary engaging in discussions? Do we want politicians coming down from the Beehive to actually talk to us about what they think, and learn from us in an honest exchange of views?"
Yes we do want and expect politicians to talk to us, it's part of their job. And if they say silly things while they're talking to us, we're going to report them and ask them to justify themselves.
However, politicians and judges have very different roles in our society. I do appreciate that Judge Harvey engages with the community, but I value judges being both impartial and being seen to be impartial even more. And if judges do engage and are foolish enough to say silly things, it's entirely reasonable to report them.
In summary: It's sad that Judge Harvey won't be on this case because he was probably the best person to judge it, but it was his fault not that of the media.