Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Angela Hart,
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.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Paul Campbell,
like a boomerang
Dingo!
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to mark taslov,
[Update] Advertorial videos have been removed and the article has been revised to it’s original format with the single photo of John Key. Four hours after publication article has 11 Facebook likes and 3 Twitter.
They’ve removed that photo on that article suddenly Ian. Without the picture there are 676 words owing.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to mark taslov,
Advertorial has belatedly been rejigged with a John Key greatest campaign video hits/ Cunliffe blunders selection. Because that's what newspapers do 4realz.The body remains, some of John Key’s weakest writing:
In the end, however, one thought rules them all. “It’s the economy, stupid” may be trite, but it is true.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I hadn’t read right to the bottom of his post and when I did I felt it needed some revision. I’m always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, as has been accorded me – as you quite fittingly point out.
Trollathons like that in this climate are likely to do more harm than good for his cause.
I like that Russell’s prepared to catch all types on record. Insights for future anthropologists.
[this joke has no punchline]
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
The timing of that couldn’t be better, and that m. is a nifty trick.
Targeting overseas voters they had this up as lead story overnight; no author, blatant advertorial. The odd photo I assume for plausible deniability.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Soup Kitchen $3, Tuesday.
-
-
Which he then denied. And then he had to leave.
Well that's an unfortunate turn of events.
I'm surprised this thread doesn't have more views, If anything is going to confirm/ inform assumptions about the deeper ethical principles of a political party it's how they propose to assist those in need beyond mere economic considerations, so thanks for this.
-
In case there was any doubt which way this paper leans*.
[actual screenshot]Gratuitous. I understand times may be tough for print media, but discretion is advised, unless flagrantly broadcasting your partisan leanings has now become something for NZMSM to aspire to.
*may also help to explain where all the money went.
