Hard News: Key Questions
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Are you on the GCSB naughty list?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Operating outside the law was standard operating procedure – my view is that Key, Fletcher & even Ferguson would be in the know.
The hurdle in the track of your certainty is that it appears from the report that the institutional understanding within GCSB was that if they were assisting NZSIS or the Police they were allowed to undertake the work because there was a warrant. So even if Fletcher knew about all these past cases he still almost certainly would have given the same answer about there having been no other illegal surveillance, because it was believed to have been legitimate. The practice of assisting other agencies, as the report also makes clear, is decades-old and it was only the 2003 Act’s ambiguous wording which clouds the legal waters.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
it was only the 2003 Act’s ambiguous wording
But isn't the wording seems clear enough for (almost?) everyone to agree there was ILLegal surveilance?
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
I think it was a case of a bloke ending up "god" in an organisation, everyone cowtowing to him on everything legal and he not exposing himself to the rest of lawnorder brigade of the country. Insular I think the word is.
From the report it does seem that Wolfensohn had an unhealthy hold over the place.
Did I hear right he even had a hand in writing the legislation???
-
There is also the very real possibility that Police, SIS, and the Office of the Prime Minster used the GCSB to undertake surveillance as they saw fit - say at the request of the FBI - and had no regard to any form of warrant or authority at law.
The excuses paraded in al amnner of places are coming out as labour and national are likely equally bent.
-
Sorry meant to finish with -
The excuses paraded in all manner of places are coming out as labour and national are likely equally bent.
Perhaps Key should be seeking Keith Locke's input.
Shearer's views on this that an inquiry is needed before any reform is something I support.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
But isn’t the wording seems clear enough for (almost?) everyone to agree there was ILLegal surveilance?
In hindsight, yes, though Kitteridge is still equivocal in her conclusion. She hasn't announced that the law is crystal clear. The situation is far from certain.
-
Scott quotes the relevant section 14 of the GCSB law:
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
How anyone can keep a straight face while claiming it says the GCSB are allowed to spy on behalf of the SIS, Police, FBI or whoever is beyond me. However, Finlayson is talking right now in parliament's snap debate about how 'foreign organisation or person' is somehow ambiguous.
In the comments below that post, Lyndon links to the affadavit of the Police raid boss where the GCSB discuss their scope with him.
-
Can some informed person direct me to the legal justification which allowed an organisation, putatively set up to protect the interests of national security, to operate so as to protect the commercial interests of a foreign corporation? Does cooperation with a NZ police investigation really extend that far?
-
Ultimately, this surveillance “needs” (for varying definitions of the word) to happen. If the GCSB are not allowed to do it, NZSIS and the Police will seek (and doubtless be given) the necessary funding to establish and maintain the necessary internal capability. That will run to many millions of dollars, each, and for a capability that has been used between the two agencies an average of under nine times per year since the 2003 law change.
Unless we want the law changed so that such surveillance is off the cards entirely, I’d rather that there was a single agency being funded to carry it out. Because our intelligence services don’t appear to have a particular need for more money, and it’s sure as hell easier to keep a close eye on one than on three. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Can some informed person direct me to the legal justification which allowed an organisation, putatively set up to protect the interests of national security, to operate so as to protect the commercial interests of a foreign corporation? Does cooperation with a NZ police investigation really extend that far?
Why aren't you asking why the Police are protecting the commercial interests of a foreign corporation? This entire fiasco is down to us bowing and scraping to the US government's ownership by Big Media.
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
Well I think I am asking that. But the remit of the NZ police is to police NZ law in NZ; the GCSB is connected to national security which at least has some international dimension.
I think the domains got tangled (as I see it we go from US commerce > US law enforcement > NZ Govt > NZ law enforcement > specious criminality) and I wonder if/where/how the NZ national security implication and the legal framework for it breaks down. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
The involvement of the GCSB has nothing to do with national security. They have capabilities for electronic surveillance that the police do not, and have been assisting the police with those services since long before the 2003 Act came into being.
As I observed above, if we don't make it legal for GCSB to undertake this surveillance on behalf of the spies and the cops then the spies and the cops will expect to be funded for that capability themselves. It's much, much more cost-effective to have GCSB as the sole supplier of that capability, and a hell of a lot easier to monitor if there's a proper oversight regime.
-
DexterX, in reply to
GCSBAct 2003 - provides under s 14
s - 14 - Interceptions not to target domestic communications
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.Doe not provide grounds for confusion - looking at the obejcts and purpose of the GCSB as contained in the Act - The GCSB was never set up to target New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.
That the solution to this mess is to enable GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents at the whim of the Minister in Charge or the Director is a disturbing erosion of civil rights and freedom.
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
Or we could just not do it: the capability creates the need.
(Also, there's a perfectly good reason we don't let the GCSB spy on us even if it would be more efficient, and it's because they are the external spies: no monolith, as a le Carre character would say.)
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Or we could just not do it: the capability creates the need.
That is the other option. I’m sure Keith Locke would be completely supportive of that course of action. But in the absence of a decision in that vein (which would, I suspect, have us skating mighty close to the edge of what’s required by various international agreements on anti-terrorism) someone needs to have the capability.
NZSIS are also external spies, if you weren’t aware. They run intelligence-gathering operations against foreign countries, in addition to running various kinds of operations domestically. There’s no blanket prohibition on the GCSB operating in NZ, either, only a prohibition on spying on NZ residents and citizens.
ETA: Given that GCSB are allowed to run operations within NZ, I’m unsure why you raise the spectre of their getting expanded powers. If they remain forbidden to run surveillance against NZ residents and citizens except under warrant from the domestic agencies nothing has changed from what was the situation prior to the 2003 Act. They used to do it, they’ve continued to do it, and unless someone presents Parliamentary debate from the passage of the 2003 Act that advises that the intent with that Act was to stop GCSB assisting other agencies (it certainly didn’t even attempt stop them from operating entirely within NZ) I’m going to continue with the presumption that it was bad drafting rather than deliberately flouting a law because it was inconvenient for other agencies to comply.
-
Quotes from lawmakers as the GCSB Act was brought into being may reveal their intent.
-
DexterX, in reply to
someone needs to have the capability.
Seriously - Read Sacha's Link which takes you to the No Right Turn.
That people are even considering as a solution Key and his like being able to spy on NZers at a whim is troubling - and that the solution is reported in the media with no real scrutiny - well - just dense.
-
Quotes from lawmakers as the GCSB Act was brought into being may reveal their intent.
This Hansard stuff is extremely dangerous. Who allowed this to happen? Surely, if people want to know what is spoken in Parliament they should turn up and watch.
We can’t have this stuff dug out from some shitty old bit of paper that people think should be kept as “heritage”.
For gods sake, for an organisation set up to protect us, this sort of damaging information is dangerous to our democracy.
PS - Isn't Hansard a "backroom expense" anyway?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Oh, there’s no doubt about the intent that GCSB not initiate actions against NZ citizens and residents. That was always abundantly clear, and I don’t think I’ve suggested that it wasn’t. I’m questioning the existence of intent that GCSB be forbidden to assist other domestic agencies, which is not made terribly clear even by those quotes.
Let’s rephrase the question. NZSIS get an interception warrant for all internet traffic and telephone calls to/from a particular person and then go to the appropriate telco(s) to have that implemented. Who’s spying on the person? I would say it’s NZSIS, but the reaction in here suggests that many in here would say it’s the telco who’s spying. If so, then I understand your position and we’ll have to agree to disagree. If the reaction is consistent with mine, though, and we replace telco with GCSB, setting aside the legal situation what’s the difference as to who’s doing the spying? If GCSB isn’t determining the target, assessing the intelligence need, seeking the warrant, and making the requests for implementation, how are they different to an ISP or telco who’s been served with an interception warrant?
-
As Ian Fletcher said,
The GCSB is, as the name says, The Government Communications Security Bureau.
As such it is responsible for the security of the Governments networks. So, how well have they done?
MSD's leaky servers.
Hacking at the DOJ.
Leaks from the EQC.
and who knows what else has been left insecure while they spy on their own people?.Also...
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said Section 14 of the 2003 act, which prevented the bureau spying on New Zealanders, was only included in the legislation by then Prime Minister Helen Clark "to get the votes in the House".
Um. We call that democracy. Bill English was one of those that wanted an amendment that would protect our citizens from foreign threats and not allow the sort of thing that happened to Kim Dotcom.
-
Tim Michie, in reply to
GCSB hasn't been trending on either Herald or Fairfax sites since the story broke. I suspect another mess that won't alter Key's rating by a mote jot.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
if there’s a proper oversight regime.
If. There sure as sh*t ain’t much evidence of this to date. Why should we assume there will be in future?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
There sure as sh*t ain’t much evidence of this to date.
That's because there isn't one. It's a joke, and anyone who's paid attention knows it. I mean if they create one, because I know that right now it's the Intelligence Minister who chairs the Intelligence Select Committee, and the ISC has no powers to ask any questions of anything to do with the operations of the intelligence services. The ISC's membership is limited to receiving the full reports (not just the public bits) of the various agencies and swallowing whatever other bullshit the Chair deems them worthy of being fed. No other minister even gets to sit on the select committee that oversees their portfolio, never mind chairing it!
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
As such it is responsible for the security of the Governments networks. So, how well have they done?
MSD’s leaky servers.
Hacking at the DOJ.
Leaks from the EQC.
and who knows what else has been left insecure while they spy on their own people?.It is responsible for advising on the security, when asked, and only organisations dealing with national security information are required to follow GCSB's directions on securing their information systems. It isn't responsible for the security of any of the systems you just listed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.