Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Matthew Poole,
This smells rather bad
No shit - its a blatantly political release decision, with embarassing information on government MPs withheld unlawfully to protect the government of the day. And it shames out entire public service to be used as a tool of the government-of-the-day like this.
I am confident the Ombudsman will force release. Though it will probably come far too late.
(Note: none of this excuses Cunliffe or Labour's muppetry; it just shows us that other people are guilty of other things as well)
-
Sp if the law is widely flouted and never enforced, why is it even on the books?
-
it seems possible that the Cunliffe letter came up in the course of OIA requests around Liu's interactions with various National Party ministers. (On the other hand, John Key seems to know an unusual amount about Labour's historical business here and if he's bragging that he's had a copy of the letter for weeks, then it would be interesting to know how and why.)
No surprises policy: Ministers get informed (but do not get to make the decision on) anything significant, usually by being given a copy slightly pre-release (see also: Willaimson and the police, where Key was briefed on the request the day before). If Key's had it for months, it may have been released some time ago, and either sat on or just had its significance noted.
And of course, you or anyone else can use the OIA to find out, by OIAing a copy of the request which resulted its release, as well as all correspondence and advice related to that request. If you do, I recommend using FYI, so we can all see the result.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Is the advice behind appointment to the G-G post unavailable as "royal magic", or can it be OIA'd?
Secret due to divine right, sadly. "The counsels of the crown are secret", or else we might realise that they are mere mortals like us.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Russell Brown,
How on earth does he get away with this stuff?
By abusing the respect too many kiwis have for his office.
Fortunately that respect is eroding, along with deference generally, limiting his ability to pull such stunts in future. And the more he does it, the faster it erodes.
-
It also seems unusual that the Prime Minister, the minister responsible for the GCSB, would not even have known who Dotcom was until January 19, the day before the raid on the Dotcom mansion. But no one can prove otherwise.
And that's the fundamental problem with secret agencies: the secrecy necessary for them to do their jobs effectively also protects their mistakes and abuses of power.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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? NoAs 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)
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Matthew Poole,
unless the government decides to try you for treason.
Treason in NZ has a very specific meaning. "Telling the public stuff the government doesn't want them to know" is no part of it.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Matthew Poole,
To be breaking NZ law you must “knowingly or recklessly, and with knowledge that [you are] acting without proper authority, communicate any official information or deliver any object to any other person knowing that such communication or delivery is likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand”.
And in that, the term "official information" is crucial. Official information is information that is "held by" the government - that is, it originated with them, and has not been made public. If you have a non-NZ government source e.g. a Snowden leak, then its not "official information" and you can distribute it as much as you like.
"Likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand" is also a far higher bar than it sounds. The Court of Appeal has interpreted similar language in the OIA, and requires it to be "a serious or real and substantial risk... a risk that might well eventuate". Ordinary spy paranoia "but this is super-sekrit!" doesn't count.
And if the body whose information it is isn't covered by the OIA e.g. the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence, or the Intelligence and Security Committee - then its not "official information" and its total fair game.
(There are other branches to the offence. Both involve "official documents", so don't forbid disclosure of content. One also requires "intent to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand", which again is pushing shit uphill territory).
Basically: if you're a security-cleared ISP employee, its only an employment issue, unless you're distributing actual copies of government-originated documents with intent that they be used to bring down the Net 9as opposed to "stop the spooks from being jerks")