Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Budget 2014: Yeah okay., in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
One only had to listen to Tony Ryall’s pronouncements (regarding the Family Carers Case) to realize he hadn’t got a clue what was going on in Health, much less in Disability Support Services. He is totally at the mercy of his advisors and other senior bureaucrats.
Having had conversations with some of those very bureaucrats, I'd dispute this. Tony Ryall very much knows what is going on in Health, and most of it is at his express direction. The fact that he's been able to keep as low a profile as he has should tell you something about the way he's been managing the sector, though you'll find little of it in writing.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Matthew Poole,
No, my friend who can’t talk about bits of the Snowden stuff.
Oh, right. Yes, pretty much.
-
As if EDM’s aesthetic crimes weren’t enough, there’s a growing recognition that the celebrity DJ culture is not what it seems. The online dance music store Beatport has posted this furious open letter about the increasing prevelance of “chart-boosting” – DJs and producers paying a company to buy their tracks so they can use “"Beatport number one!” for bragging rights.
Methinks they doth protest too much. I may be old but this post is the first time I've even heard of Beatport. Mind you, I don't listen to EDM, so there you go. #getoffmylawn
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Matthew Poole,
I assume you’re meaning that as a clarification for others who don’t understand my point?
Bang? Yes
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, 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.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Please provide a solution for:
x >= y
s.t
y ≯ xthen
No.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Paul Campbell,
IS: I don’t know – does having a security clearance legally require you to keep secrets? can the existence of a bug that the NSA is actively exploiting be declared a state secret? even one in my own code?
Simple answer: yes.
Complex answer: it's not the clearance that compels you to keep a secret. It's the fact that something has been declared secret. Your clearance allows you to know about the thing even though it is a secret from people who don't have clearance, which is most of us. America (for example) has declared a number of things as matters of "national security" - much of Snowden's revelations would fall into the category of hacking exploits and the fundamental claim against him by the USG is that he has revealed information that is classified as secret, top secret and all the way up to ultraviolet. If the bug is in your code, they might offer you a job.