Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand

126 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • nzlemming, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Please provide a solution for:

    x >= y
    s.t
    y ≯ x

    then

    No.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    As best I can ascertain vetting is still only routine for S and TS (to differing depths, obviously), but a check with Ministry of Justice is standard for C and R (and everything else in government, pretty much)

    That's my understanding, too.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Aforementioned friend still can’t talk about anything classified he was read in on while in government employ, even if its existence is now public courtesy of Snowden. And he wasn’t working for the spooks, either. If he was still employed in a vetted role, he wouldn’t be allowed to talk about anything that Snowden’s released because it’s material that’s classified by an allied intelligence partner so it’s considered to be classified in NZ

    Just because it's been made public, doesn't mean it's not still classified. Again, it's the material that is classified. Your clearance means that you are allowed to look at/know about that material. Your clearance does not permit you to reveal that material even if someone else does, because the material is still classified SECRET even if it is not secret anymore.

    I know it's a subtle difference, but it is the fundamental difference between the Official Secrets Act and the Official Information Act. The former swore the individual to keep all official information secret, regardless of the classification, unless s/he was specifically authorised to release it. The OIA is premised on the information rather than on the individual. I was probably in the last tranche of govt recruits that had to sign the OSA (1982), which you had to do if you wanted the job, and I was only a clerk in the NZPO.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    “Telling the public stuff the government doesn’t want them to know” is no part of [treason].

    No, but telling the world stuff that harms the defence of NZ is part of it if it's likely that al Qaeda or some other such group got to see that stuff. It's not the kind of material that's just lying around, but if you managed to get your hands on it you'd probably be doing a Snowden from a position of holding a TS clearance so there'd be no question about your owed loyalties.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    If you are discussing S.78A of the Crimes Act, then the infomation has to belong to an NZ government department.

    Any information received by a government agency is deemed to be official information from the time of receipt onwards and can be released as part of an OIA request, but they can't make it classified on that basis, so you can still disseminate it on your own.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    That does not mesh with the wording of the section. "Official information" does not have to be held by "an organisation" to be covered, and the definition of what constitutes official information is very, very broad. The IGSI and the ISC are both covered.

    Shall we look at it? Are IGSI or ISC...
    ...a "Department"? No
    ...a Minister? No
    ...an "organisation"? No
    ...employees of a Department or organisation? No
    ...independent contractors of a Department, Minister or organisation? No
    ...an unincorporated body established by a Department, Minister, or organisation? No

    As a result, no information held by them is "official information". It cannot be requested under the OIA (you are of course welcome to try; let me know in 20 working days how you got on), but the consequence of importing OIA definitions and exclusions into the Crimes Act also means that leaks from those bodies can never be prosecuted. Which is why Peter Dunne was never charged: because he had committed no crime.

    (This is also why SIS and GCSB are subject to the OIA. Because if they weren't, their secrets would have no legal protection whatsoever)

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1716 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to nzlemming,

    I assume you're meaning that as a clarification for others who don't understand my point?

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    I/S is correct in that the IGSI and ISC are not covered by the OIA, but it is because they are creatures of Parliament, not government, and Parliament is not covered by the OIA.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I assume you’re meaning that as a clarification for others who don’t understand my point?

    Bang? Yes

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    No, but telling the world stuff that harms the defence of NZ is part of it if it's likely that al Qaeda or some other such group got to see that stuff.

    Nope. The closest you can get is "assist[ing] an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities". Which requires something more than spook paranoia about some vague harm at some undefinable time in the future.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1716 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    And presumably an actual declaration of war; something that seems to have gone out of fashion these days

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    Which is why Peter Dunne was never charged: because he had committed no crime.

    Peter Dunne committed no crime because the document he allegedly leaked was not subject to a national security classification. It was a public document that was going to be released in two days, so it was a broken embargo and nothing more. If the leaker had included the classified appendixes, that would have been at least a potential (but not definite) breach of the law. A “Confidential” classification ahead of public release, however, is never going to be seen by the courts as anything that might imperil national security.
    As for your assertions about the work of the IG and the ISC not being covered by the Crimes Act, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Section 78 can absolutely be interpreted to cover the ISC (a committee, established by statute, to assist/advise a minister) and the IG (a statutory officer).

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    And presumably an actual declaration of war

    No. "Engaged in hostilities" is very broad.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to nzlemming,

    Bang? Yes

    No, my friend who can't talk about bits of the Snowden stuff.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    No, my friend who can’t talk about bits of the Snowden stuff.

    Oh, right. Yes, pretty much.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2931 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    I don't think you get formal "enemies" without a declaration of war

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    TIL

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19705 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    surely NOT telling people that the NSA was breaking into computers in NZ would "prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand” in the sense of NZ being all of us rather than just the government

    not if you're a fan of 'ends justify means' unfortunately. On that sort of planet, lying to us to protect us is as rational as gravity. Kissinger and co love that sort of atmosphere. Money traders thrive on it too..

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19705 posts Report Reply

  • david kinniburgh, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Russell Brown: These Trojan horse systems were described by an NSA manager as being “some of the most productive operations in TAO because they pre-position access points into hard target networks around the world.” Has photographs.

    These would seem to be CISCO kit. All CISCO's modern routers use digitally signed firmware. This is specifically designed to meet government and industry requirements around firmware tampering. So, if the NSA is installing altered firmware, they have Cisco's private key (obtained by agreement or covertly) used to sign the firmware.

    CISCO is a company with over $10 billion quarterly revenue, and whose core business is Routers and switches. They need more customers in Asia to improve their falling revenue and expand their market.
    Most of these customers will now be asking questions about the security of their data, and are unlikely to accept CISCO going "Shock Horror" but doing nothing. This would confirm the view that CISCO was acting on behalf of the NSA, not their customers, with a flow on effect on sales.

    So CISCO is now in a position to sue the NSA for substantial loss of business. And for *a lot* of money. It would be very interesting to see NSA finally having to face some consequences of their actions. (Remember Sony Rootkit? )

    I await the details of the CISCO lawsuit . But I'm not holding my breath :-)

    Auckland • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to david kinniburgh,

    hey need more customers in Asia to improve their falling revenue and expand their market.
    Most of these customers will now be asking questions about the security of their data, and are unlikely to accept CISCO going “Shock Horror” but doing nothing.

    But hang on.... Hasn't CISCO being supplying to China for years? And doesn't their kit enable both my access to PAS and (most of) the rest of the internet and the government/Party to monitor what I'm up to and put a nice, big, Great Firewall around me? So, um, I may well be misunderstanding the situation, or even have it all wrong, but right now my reaction is shock, horror, and that all lower case with nothing to indicate any more than a "ho hum" sigh.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    So maybe the reason for all the US "Don't buy Huawei, it's got leaks to the Chinese government" talk....

    Is more about "Huawei doesn't have leaks to us, so we don't want you to install it" ??

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 888 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to FletcherB,

    So maybe the reason for all the US “Don’t buy Huawei, it’s got leaks to the Chinese government” talk….

    Is more about “Huawei doesn’t have leaks to us, so we don’t want you to install it” ??

    There's also the "It doesn't ship from the continental US, which makes it that much harder for us to intercept and 'enhance'" factor.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    The gullibility of the New Zealand public fills me with despair and anger, wake up sheeple.

    What can one do?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen R, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    There's also the "It doesn't ship from the continental US, which makes it that much harder for us to intercept and 'enhance'" factor.

    I think it's also likely be some of "We're bugging all the stuff produced in the US, so I bet the Chinese are doing the same".

    A liar never trusts anyone...

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    No doubt we've all heard the Sunday Times (UK) claims that both Russia and China have somehow accessed the top-secret Snowden documents, that their spies had been endangered and British and UK security has suffered as a result. Strong stuff.

    If you have that nagging feeling that something here just doesn't ring true, I urge you to read Glenn Greenwald's take on the claims.

    Thank God for real journalism.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1421 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.