Hard News: Vision and dumbassery
551 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 Newer→ Last
-
What kills me is that he wasn't even very good at being a troll. If he hadn't done such a stupid megaflounce he could have kept baiting everyone for months or years while dancing on the line of acceptability. But no! Bad at arguing AND bad at trolling. Poor guy.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Given a combination of IP(s) from posts and his claims to be a member of our friendly auckland media elite, it wouldn't be too hard to pin down who exactly it is. Although OGH's comments about going back to sports commentary imply he probably already knows.
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
it wouldn’t be too hard to pin down who exactly it is
I for one would love to know. It would be satisfying to troll-bait his den and see if he really enjoys anonymous posters.
-
Email
through the 'ringer'...
Sadly if the trolls win in the shire election
the fallout will be unbearable, if not Orcwood,
it'll be back down into the caves for us...Here's a wee reminder of shelter etiquette:
from boingboing
-
jack starrow, in reply to
Don’t worry your twisted selves. I have no intention of ever evr contacting this site ever ever again. It’s too dmn depressing. And remember, th abuse I’ve received far outweighs ny givn back. Nw ll lnk rms nd hm.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Email
Just like John Key. My word is my bond!
I have no intention of ever ever contacting this site ever ever again
What's that,
3 hours since you said farewell forever,
the first time?Cold turkey is a bitch, isn't it...
Dude needs help.
But what a waste of carbon...
Send in the Worms! -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Send in the Worms!
There is a season, worms, worms, worms
And a time to every purpose under heaven. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Email Web
dancing on the line of acceptability
That's still one of my favourite songs of the 80s.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
dancing on the line of acceptability
That’s still one of my favourite songs of the 80s.
But the video! Man, those haircuts ...
-
Email Web
When our annoying troller named 'jack'
Promised us he'd never come back
Our 'twisted selves' all really knew
He was hitting refresh despite his adieu
To see if anyone had noticed his lack -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Email
There is a season, worms, worms, worms
It's those early Byrds that reap...
;- ) -
Emma Hart, in reply to
I wonder whether he’ll show his coworkers how low he was prepared to go for fun.
And his kids. Remember that day when he had kids?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Remember that day when he had kids?
Back when I went to school the expression was "having kittens".
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email Twitter
To Ben Wilson for sharing the Internalized Really Complicated Situation in his head as he works out
You know we can't change the government with our ghost votes.
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
Email Web
You know we can’t change the government with our ghost votes.
Want a chip bro?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
This sits strangely with the cup of tea affair, arranged as PR, in a public place, surrounded by journos but with an angrily claimed expectation of privacy from the PM himself.
Spurred by Russell’s mention of equivocations so I thought I’d come back to this as I didn’t pick up on teapot tapes yesterday. I’ve just been reading up on Stephen Price Andrew Geddis and Stephen Price’s Rebuttal. And the legal principle seems very similar, and is especially interesting now that the charges against Bradley Ambrose have been dropped and he was only issued a warning and that no charges were laid over Dot Com’s illegal spying, both related to intent.
So looking back at the GCSB Bill in order to fix(?) it. Preliminory Prevision 4 (interpretations)(2003-2013):
private communication—
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so
Part (b) here serves no purpose than to undermine rights of privacy. In many situations my communications may be intercepted by private citizens, as was the case with the teapot saga, but this definition cornily implemented under Helen Clark is a regulation for a Government apparatus, and it *could* (that’s the key) be interpreted to mean that if I am in circumstances where I can not *guarantee* interception won’t occur then I lose the right of privacy from the GCSB.
Au Contraire Ms Clark – Enabling the GCSB to distinguish between a New Zealand citizen or resident’s private communication or grotesquely and brazefuckingly public communication like this in no way serves the interests of the New Zealand people. Because communication in and unto itself is and never has been a threat to the security of the democratic (by definition) Government. In no circumstances should New Zealanders’ communication be subject to classification for the express purpose of enabling exploitation by the New Zealand Espionage industry.
And then onto section 16 which deals with the GCSB’s right to intercept communications without a warrant.
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting the private communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
replace with:
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting all communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
And then you can kindly go about your business.
None of this was new in the 2013 law change. though the notable shift in section 16 was that with your new Iphone, the limitation to ‘computers’ was removed.
The most important issue here – and this goes back to the Kim DotCom’s case – is that the police are never going to independently press charges against the GCSB and the ability of the private citizen to detect cases of GCSB interception is next to zero so the openness of “private communication” means it’s exploitable with regards to the greater public (now fully informed of Xkeyscore), contestable by Kim Dotcom (impending civil test case) and beyond the reach of the 88 other New Zealanders whose spying the Kitterige report uncovered.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting all communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
Obvious rejoinder from weasel spy : we didn’t take all the communications, only some of them. Perhaps the word “any” would suit better.
Edit: Or even just "the", for simplicity's sake. Although it leaves up to definition how you determine ownership of a communication - how much do I have to say for it to be considered "my" communication instead of the Australian on the other end? Or is it mine if I only listen?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
That may be right, I’m not lawyer and I left my grammar in 1996 but we need to remove any exploitable loophole for the *circumstance* in which NZer's is collected here because this section deals with interception without a warrant. Hopefully there’s some legal mind in New Zealand who can accomplish that.
I feel like a cup of tea.
WRT to your edit, there are sections in the bill for the disposal of incidentally collected communication. but again if there’s no warrant out on you then they should not be intercepting your communication.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
I don’t know, I’m no lawyer. anyway, have a go
Oh, neither am I, and tbh why bother when it'll all be over-ridden by some unknown clause in the TPPA anyway?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Oh, neither am I, and tbh why bother when it’ll all be over-ridden by some unknown clause in the TPPA anyway?
If the country lies down like a soggy rights reneging dishcloth as it clearly seems to have done since I left, then quite possibly yes. defo buddy.
Thanks for your questions Greg, I wish there was more discussion going on about it, hoping to stir some pots so someone can give me a good bitch slap.
-
Based on an admittedly skewed sample of legal bloggers in NZ, I don't think it's the legal minds that we lack. Instead it's that the politicians keep treating expert advice like the car keys, and giving it to the pilot.
Hopefully it doesn't just come down to NZ for the TPPA, and a couple of other key countries decide it's not for them (like say, Japan). That might give our leaders the spine to follow suit, since they don't seem to be interesting in trying anything new that doesn't involve strip mining public assets and slashing welfare.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Yes, true, no lack of legal minds in New Zealand, actually with due respect to Helen Clark, I'd assumed she was a lawyer, checking now I see she's not so I should rein that in.
tangentially I have received three Adware Adinstaller.Astomenda attacks in the last 5 minutes.
-
And sorry [correction] I mistitled “Section 16” above, it was amended as “Section 15” last year; (2)(b) still applies. The only other section I can find “private communications” mentioned is Section 15B”:
“15B Involvement of Commissioner of Security Warrants
“(1) An application for, and issue of, an interception warrant or access authorisation under section 15A must be made jointly to, and issued jointly by, the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants if anything that may be done under the warrant or authorisation is for the purpose of intercepting the private communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand under—
Again, maybe no qualifier at all is necessary for both 15 and 15b, simply “…intercepting the_communications of a New Zealander…” covers all that. And perhaps completely removing the interpretation of “private communications” from the legislation so that nothing can be collected without a warrant – shifting the focus to foreign intelligence gathering as David Cunliffe mentioned in the 3rd leaders debate……ah ideals….
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0109/13.0/whole.html#DLM5177706
Graeme?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
nothing can be collected without a warrant
“nothing” meaning: absolutely no communication, "private" or otherwise.
“collected” meaning: intercepted* by the GCSB.
*needs a prescribed interpretation
-
but anyway
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.