Frankly Speaking&#8230;

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (aka Customs and Excise Amendment Act 2014)

National/Labour

Customs and Excise Act 2018 (legislation) (history)

The Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013 – one of the most contentious in recent history – increased the reach of the GCSB to allow monitoring of New Zealand citizens, and other individuals, at home and abroad.

Prime Minister at the time, John Key, justified increased State surveillance by invoking the threat of terrorism;

“In a world of global terrorism where Isis is trying to reach influence into a country like New Zealand, of course on a much lower scale than they do somewhere else, we can best defend ourselves by stopping that before it ever happens.”

During a review of the security agencies in 2016, Michael Cullen put the case for widening the surveillance powers of the GCSB by invoking emergency scenarios;

“Let us suppose a New Zealander is in imminent danger, in terms of their life overseas. Maybe lost at sea or some other example. Under this legislation as the GCSB feels it has to interpret it, the GCSB’s capacity to trace an individual’s cellphone and to say exactly where it is, cannot be used.

We have no way of finding out where that person is, using that capacity, in order to take immediate and urgent action, in whatever way, to try to protect the safety of that New Zealander.”

The National government got the “green light” and the GCSB Act was duly amended.

And it did not help us one iota.

As for financial resources, both the GCSB and NZSIS enjoyed a considerable increase in funding over a decade:

GCSB:

2008/09: $48,888,000 (up $8,543,000 from 2007/08)

2018/19: $158,029,000

NZSIS:

2008/09: $36,889,000 (up $3,138,000 from 2007/08)

2018/19: $82,843,000

So any suggestion that State agencies did not have the legislative power or government funding to enable monitoring of extremist groups in this country is not credible and flies in the face of facts.

The threat existed. Just not from ISIS. The State was looking in the wrong direction.

Indeed, surveillance was widespread in Aotearoa New Zealand by State agencies, even going so far as to employ private investigators to spy on Christchurch property-owners, affected by the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011.

The spying by Thompson and Clark was illegal, but it indicated a strong willingness by various State agencies to carry out snooping when it suited them. Thompson and Clark spied on political activists, iwi groups, and environmental protestors such as Greenpeace.

The invasive and illegal breach of Nicky Hager and Martyn Bradbury’s privacy by Police is also a matter of public record.

But when it came to keeping a watchful eye on our own, local hate groups, the Police, SIS, and GCSB failed.

They had one job to do and they failed us. They failed 49 innocent people.

Where were you?

2. A Message to Simon Bridges

As the awful horror of the terrorist attack slowly dawned on us, social media was flooded with many messages of support, well-wishes, empathy, as well as disbelief, anger, and horror, our elected representatives added their voices.

One, from current leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, ‘tweeted’;

Simon Bridges
@simonjbridges

I’m shocked to hear about the incident unfolding in Christchurch. My heart goes out to the families and I stand with the Canterbury community.
2:49 PM – 15 Mar 2019

My response – perhaps overly emotional as the Christchurch terror-attack impacted on me – was not impressed;

fmacskasy
@fmacskasy

Replying to

Simon Bridges
@simonjbridges

Mr Bridges, I have one request of you. DON’T YOU DARE USE THIS TRAGEDY AS SOME PERVERTED LAW & ORDER ELECTION ISSUE NEXT YEAR. Don’t even think about exploiting this for votes. Just. Don’t.
6:29 PM · Mar 15, 2019

Is it a forlorn hope that National’s party strategists, desperate to regain the government benches, would not exploit this tragedy and the deaths of fortynine people? National has exploited the “law and order” issue in the past;

If, as I suspect, National goes down this road, I hope the vast majority of good New Zealanders responds accordingly.

Does Mr Bridges really want to end his career as the self-serving politician who was willing to exploit the worst terrorist attack in our modern history? I hope that wiser heads in the National Party counsel him against such a grotesque idea.

Don’t do it, Mr Bridges.

3. A Message to my fellow Progressive Comrades

Last year, two alt-right (I call them polite-fascists) Canadian activists visited Aotearoa New Zealand. Their visit generated much soul-searching and debate – especially within progressive circles. There were many bloggers and left-wing commentators who – whilst opposing Southern and Molyneux’s racist, transphobic, Islamophobic, and sexist beliefs – supported their right to free speech.

I held a different view.

On 29 August last year, I explained why I believed that countenancing the spread of hate-ideology by visiting “activists” was a luxury we could ill-afford;

For many others, free speech was not absolute. Spreading racist, homophobic, sexist, and transphobic vitriol belittled already-marginalised and disempowered people in our society.

For others, their Care Factor was zero. Faced with an empty refrigerator, or sleeping in a garage or car, or choosing whether to pay the power bill or medication for a child with rheumatic fever, was a closer reality for many New Zealanders.

If you were white, male, and straight – you would be right to feel safe from the bigotted chauvinism of two alt-right Polite Fascists . A White, Male, Straight could countenance violence as a price for “free speech”.

If you were a person of colour, gay, a woman with a career and a baby, or transgender – not so much. You might feel less inclined to welcome people into our country whose main purpose was to denigrate you; deny you your equality; your inclusivity in society; your very identity.

[…]

For the more rational angels on the side of the Free Speech debate, it was a necessary price to pay for a free society.

Unfortunately, it could be said that ‘price’ was paid mostly by those minorities and women targetted by our Polite Fascist visitors.

Perhaps my background as the son of immigrant parents gave me an insight that other New Zealanders, whose parents were also born here (or immigrated from another Anglo-Saxon country) could not easily appreciate.

I repeated my subtle warning that “free speech” was not free and “unfortunately, it could be said that ‘price’ was paid mostly by those minorities and women targetted by our Polite Fascist visitors“.

As in the United States, many Americans support their Second Amendment “right to bear arms”. At least 5% support gun rights with “no or very few” restrictions”. For those Americans, mass-shootings is the “price” to pay for their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, that “price” is paid by others.

Just as the sale of one gun, from one gun shop, somewhere in New Zealand, probably didn’t contribute directly to the mass-shooting in Christchurch. Or the sale of one gun in the US didn’t contribute directly to mass shootings in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.

Am I suggesting that Southern and Molyneux were directly responsible for the terror attack in Christchurch. No, not directly.

After all, their voices were only two, of many.

But really, what did people think was the purpose of Southern and Molyneux to visit Aotearoa New Zealand? To engage in rational debate with progressives over a cup of Earl Grey and gingernut? To do the Tourist Thing and take ‘selfies’ on the Fox Glacier?

What did we think their purpose was to visit Aotearoa New Zealand?

Let me answer that. They were not here to debate. They are past debate.

They were here to (a) encourage new recruits amongst the disaffected and (b) re-energise existing far-right and alt-right groups.

It took barely six months after I wrote my rebuttal to permitting the Polite Fascists to visit. They came, nevertheless. They made their public speeches. (There was no debate.) And they left, to continue their ‘mission’ to spread their poison somewhere else, to eager listeners with anger and hate in their minds.

So we had our free speech. Only, it wasn’t “free”. There was a cost attached.

The price for their free speech has been paid-in-full. By the gods, we paid dearly.

Or at least, people of colour; of another religion; another ethnicity, paid. Those earnest, white, Free Speech Advocates who called for free speech – they didn’t have to pay the price.

The alleged shooter reportedly approached a white male by-stander outside one of the Mosques and spared his life. Because the person was white. Fortynine others were not so lucky. Wrong skin colour.

I hope that Aotearoa New Zealand’s naive notions of free speech for visiting far right extremists has come to an end. Extremists have no natural, “god-given” right to enter our country. That “right” has never existed and was an indulgence we mistakenly encouraged.

The price to pay is too high.

15 March was a day when thousands of young people took to the streets to demand action on worsening climate change; which would impact on them and steal their futures. Meanwhile another “grownup” was committing cold-blooded murder. On a day which should have been positive and filled with youthful idealism and hope…

… it ended in tragedy and tears and grief that would break our hearts.

15 March 2019 – it was the best of days, it was the worst of days.

15 March 2019. Our Day of Infamy.

#Love

#Christchurch

#ThisIsNotWhoWeAre

.

References

Radio NZ: Christchurch mosque shootings – ‘This can only be described as a terrorist attack’ – PM Jacinda Ardern

Twitter: Matthew HootonMatthew Hooton

Twitter: Tau HenareTau Henare

Maori TV: Christchurch shootings – Man charged with murder

Fairfax/Stuff media: New GCSB bill allows spying on Kiwis

Radio NZ: Focus on Politics – 11 March 2016 (alt. link)

Budget 2008/09: Vote Communications Security and Intelligence

Budget 2008/09: Vote Security Intelligence

Budget 2018/19: Vote Communications Security and Intelligence

Budget 2018/19: Vote Security Intelligence

Radio NZ: Thompson and Clark spied on earthquake victims, inquiry finds

Radio NZ: Private investigators used vehicle register to spy on environmentalists for years

Twitter: Simon Bridges – 15.3.2019 2.49PM

Twitter: Frank Macskasy – 15.3.19 6.29PM

Southern Poverty Law Centre: Stefan Molyneux

Fairfax media: Southern and Molyneux good test for our free speech tolerance video

Mediaworks/Newshub: Jacinda Ardern ‘simply can’t’ be both a mum and Prime Minister – Stefan Molyneux

Fairfax media: Oscar Kightley – This free speech victory tastes a little strange

Reuters: Gun control support fades three months after Florida massacre – Reuters/Ipsos poll

Previous related blogposts

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!

“Free speech” – The Rules according to the Right

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 March 2019.

= fs =

Categories: Social Issues, The Body Politic Tags: 15 March 2019, christchurch, GCSB, NZSIS, terrorism, White supremacy

I spy with my multitude of Eyes

13 September 2018 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Several pieces of legislation enacted under the previous government saw a vast increase in State surveillance. The GCSB – first created in 1977 by former National PM, Robert Muldoon, – was initially set up to provide overseas surveillance during the Cold War era.

By May 2013, the powers of the GCSB were extended to permit domestic surveillance of New Zealanders by former National PM, John Key.

A variety of state “security” and extensions of surveillance powers have been enacted over the past sixteen years;

Labour:

Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

National:

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (aka Customs and Excise Amendment Act 2014)

Not to be outdone, the private sector also dabbles with surveillance. On most occassions, that surveillance is subtle.

In other instances, it is overt and in-your-face.

An example of this is the recently (and currently on-going) re-developement at Kilbirnie Pak N Save supermarket in Wellington’s Eastern suburb. The store’s internal up-grade has included the sprouting of dozens of security cameras. In some areas, the high-security of CCTV cameras, descending from the ceiling on poles – eerily like some mutant upside-down mushroom – would be more appropriate for a top secret military installation.

Upon entering the store, the first camera is apparent;

Foyer at Kilbirnie Pak N Save

Walking through the turn-styles, into the first part of the super-market – more cameras;

The Fruit & Vege section;

Meats…

Chilled goods, heading toward the Deli and Bakery;

The Bakery section…

Down the side of the building (greeting cards, breads, et al)…

And a close-up of the all-seeing eyes…

Until we reach the check-out – and the ubiquitous cameras become a parody of surveillance as their numbers become apparent;

In case the reader has difficulty making out the individual cameras, they are highlighted here;

Even banks don’t have as many cameras.

In an age of tracking by online corporations like Google and Facebook; by the apps in our smartphones; by CCTVs in buildings, streets, offices, etc – we have reached a surveillance state far surpassing anything envisioned by George Orwell.

Some of us will recall the days of the friendly corner grocer;

Acknowledgement: Wairarapa Times-Age

Once upon a time, retailers functioned with not a camera in sight;

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald

Those days now seem long gone.

Perhaps this is the price of “progress”?

Ironically, the advent of the Surveillance State and Surveilled Society has been long foreseen by academics, writers, activists, etc. As surveillance increased – both State and commercial – the public became more and more inured to every-present prying eyes.

The constant warnings of encroachments into our privacy; against increasing State power; alerting us to the perils of Big Data held by offshore (and domestic) corporations have become a Cry Wolf! to most of the public. Unless you are a left-wing blogger or investigative journalist who become an irritant to The Established Order, the public perceive no threat to their glacial erosion of our privacy.

Couched in terms of “preserving law and order” and/or “fighting terrorism”, people will think little of our own country as a Surveilled Society. Especially if they perceive no “down side” to their personal liberty. Previous warnings of a Big Brother State have – apparently – not become reality.

Like the frog-in-the-pan-of-heating-water fable, fears gradually gave way to blasé acceptance. We have arrived to a society where the presence of literally dozens of overhead surveillance cameras in a supermarket now barely raises an eyebrow.

.

References

Wikipedia: GCSB – History

Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Wairarapa Times-Age: First class First St grocer

NZ Herald: (story removed from website)

NZ Law Society: Privacy Commissioner issues guidance on personal information and transparency reporting

Fairfax media: Police apologise to Nicky Hager over Dirty Politics raid as part of settlement

Previous related blogposts

Surveillance laws, Strikebreaking, & Subversive groups

2013 – The Year We Became a Policed Surveillance State

The Growth of State Power; mass surveillance; and it’s supporters

Copyright (c) Notice

All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com – thedailyblog.co.nz’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,

» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 September 2018.

= fs =

Categories: Odd, Social Issues, The Body Politic Tags: corporate surveillance, GCSB, Pak N Save, privacy, surveillance state, Surveilled Society

Gerry Brownlee, David Farrar, and Brett Hudson win Hypocrisy Awards

31 August 2018 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Minister Clare Curran’s recent demotion was announced in a surprise press conference at Prime Minister Ardern’s electorate office, just before 4pm on a Friday afternoon. A government statement outlined her sin-of-omission;

In February this year Minister Curran met with Mr Derek Handley at her Beehive office in her capacity as Minister of Government Digital Services to discuss Mr Handley’s interest in the vacant Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role. This meeting took place after the first unsuccessful recruitment round for the CTO. As with approaches from other interested parties, the Minister directed Mr Handley to register his interest with MBIE officials. Applications reopened for the CTO role in May.

The meeting was not recorded in the Minister’s diary and neither the Minister’s staff nor officials were made aware of it.

The demotion and removal from Cabinet comes on top of Ms Curran’s unrecorded “secret” meeting at Astoria Cafe with former Radio NZ executive, Carol Hirschfeld, which hit the headlines in March this year.

Ms Curran’s gaffs have sparked the usual and tedious pious pontification from the National Opposition benches. Former Christchurch Re-build Minister, and airline security hazard, Gerry Brownlee, climbed the rarified heights of Mount Moral Highground to demand Ms Curran’s sacking;

But not everyone agrees. National Party MP and shadow House leader Gerry Brownlee said it was the “most limp-wristed, wet bus ticket thing” Ms Ardern could do.

He wants her stripped of the broadcasting portfolio as well.

“It’s undergoing a huge amount of change at the moment, and you need a minister that’s pretty active and onto it to make sure that broadcasting legislation is going to be the best for the sort of information and entertainment services that New Zealanders expect.”

Relatively unknown National Party List MP, Brett Hudson, devoted an entire press release excoriating the hapless Minister*;

“The decision to allow Clare Curran to retain any of her Ministerial portfolios after being dumped from Cabinet is a sign of weakness in the Government…

It’s almost comical that Ms Curran, who until today held the Associate State Services (Open Government) portfolio has failed not once but twice to answer Written Parliamentary Questions accurately.

Her punishment is a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. She keeps her Ministerial salary and the all the perks that come with that despite demonstrating that she’s not capable of being a Minister.

It’s not good enough that it took Ms Curran five and a half months to correct her answer to a written question and to finally acknowledge she met with Derek Handley, who had expressed interest in the Chief Technology Officer role created by the Minister.”

Rightwing blogger and National Party activist, David Farrar, was equally scathing;

So covering up secret meetings is okay for a Minister outside Cabinet, just not inside Cabinet. That’s mighty low standards. A meaningful sanction would be removal from the Ministry.

The undisclosed meeting was just as improper as the Hirschfeld one, namely:

It was a conflict of interest as Derek Handley was an applicant for the CTO job that the Minister appoints

The meeting was not in the Minister’s diary

The meeting was kept a secret from the Minister’s own staff and officials

The meeting was not disclosed to a written parliamentary question

If that is not enough to be removed from the ministry, what is?

Good question, Mr Farrar: “If that is not enough to be removed from the ministry, what is?”

Let’s try to answer that question. What would merit removal from office for unofficial, unrecorded meetings?

Here are three possible answers;

But in answer to parliamentary written questions, the Prime Minister said he had “no meetings” with representatives of Mediaworks to discuss the deal.

Two days later that answer was corrected, saying he “ran into” Brent Impey at a “social event” in Auckland where the issue was “briefly raised” and he “passed his comments on” to the responsible minister.

Was Key’s “social event” where he “ran into” Brent Impey held at Astoria Cafe by any chance?

Earlier this week, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said Mr Key’s diary showed no scheduled meetings with Sky City representatives since July last year.

“Having said that, the Prime Minister attends numerous functions and is quite likely to have come across Sky City representatives at some stage.”

Mr Key was asked last July in a question for written answer from Green MP Sue Kedgley whether he or any of his ministers had met representatives from the casino to discuss changes to the Gambling Act.

He replied: “I attended a dinner with the Sky City board 4 November 2009 where we discussed a possible national convention centre and they raised issues relating to the Gambling Act 2003”.

So the former PM’s “diary showed no scheduled meetings with Sky City representatives” – but he did have dinner with the entire “Sky City board 4 November 2009 where we discussed a possible national convention centre and they raised issues relating to the Gambling Act 2003“.

Also held at Astoria Cafe, by any chance?

Prime Minister John Key had breakfast with Ian Fletcher just days after he selected a panel to interview candidates for the country’s top spy job.

The pair ate together at Auckland’s Stamford Plaza Hotel on June 17, 2011. Mr Key says the vacancy, as head of the Government Communications Security Bureau, was not discussed.

Three days earlier, Mr Key had signed off on an interview panel for the job, which included then Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet boss Maarten Wevers. Mr Fletcher was the only person to be interviewed for the post, after a shortlist of four other candidates was rejected.

Not held at the Astoria Cafe.

But Mr Fletcher did get the job.

As for Mr Farrar’s question – would the former Prime Minister’s unofficial and unrecorded meetings with Brent Impey, Ian Fletcher, and the entire Board of Skycity Casino quality to be “enough to be removed from the ministry”?

Herein lies a lesson for Ms Curran and other government ministers. If you’re going to have “secret” meetings, follow the National Party’s handbook. They do it much more effectively.

And they get away with it.

.

* Note

National Party pages are removed regularly from their website. Brett Hudson’s page/statement has been saved for future reference.

References

NZ Herald: Clare Curran sacked from Cabinet, PM Jacinda Ardern announces

Scoop media: Clare Curran removed from Cabinet

ODT: Carol Hirschfeld resigns over Clare Curran meeting

Mediaworks/TV3: Why wasn’t Clare Curran stripped of all her portfolios?

Fairfax media: Gerry Brownlee fined for airport security breach

National Party: Curran token demotion a sign of weakness

Kiwiblog: Disclosure State

Kiwiblog: Curran demoted after a further secret meeting

TVNZ: Prime Minister defends loan to MediaWorks

NZ Herald: SkyCity deal was PM’s own offer

Fairfax Media: Key met spy candidate for breakfast

Other Blogs

The Standard: Clare Curran demoted

Previous related blogposts

Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)

Blogger threatened with lawsuit over questions of conflict-of-interest regarding Mediaworks

National Party Corporate welfare vs real welfare

Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How

Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)

.

Disclosure: This blogger had a date with his current partner at the Astoria Cafe. It was very nice.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 26 August 2018.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Astoria cafe, Brent Impey, Brett Hudson, David Farrar, Entire Board of Skycity casino, GCSB, Gerry Brownlee, Ian Fletcher, john key, Mediaworks, Paula Bennett Hypocrisy Award, Skycity

Mr English: Where are National’s secret coalition negotiation papers?

8 December 2017 Frank Macskasy 5 comments

Bill English has been kicking up a shit-storm, demanding that Labour release what they have been describing as a “secret coalition agreement” between Labour and NZ First.

English complained;

“This is a government that said it would be more transparent and more open. The document is clearly there somewhere, it must be important because it’s 38 pages and it’s come out of the agreement – people deserve to see it.

It sounds like there might be quite a lot more in this other piece of paper. If it’s at the core of how the Government’s going to run, it’s in the public interest.”

English defended his insistence that the coalition notes be made public by comparing the Coalition with his own previous administration “transparency”;

“By any international standard the last government was open and transparent, and this government, as with many other things, has expressed these high-minded intentions and then fails to follow through.”

Which is a patently dishonest claim considering that the last nine years of National governance has been one of secrecy; obstructing OIA requests; increased state surveillance; and misleading the public.

Former Dear Leader, “Sir” John Key was brazenly open only in one respect of the OIA. He openly conceded that his administration regularly and willfully delayed releasing OIA requested information for purely political purposes;

“Sometimes we wait the 20 days because, in the end, Government might take the view that’s in our best interest to do that.”

To which Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem, responded by reminding Key and his ~~cronies~~ colleagues they were were not permitted to flout the OIA legislation by deliberately delaying up to the twenty-day deadline;

“It’s pretty clear. It couldn’t be much clearer than that… As soon as you have made a decision as to whether you’re going to respond to the request or how you’re going to respond to it, you ought to convey that.”

During it’s nine years in office, National has widened the powers of the GCSB to permit it to spy on all New Zealanders; mis-used GCSB surveillance to secure leadership of the World Trade Organisation; spied on our Pacific neighbours; and unlawfully harassed National’s critics such as Nicky Hager and Martyn Bradbury.

But when challenged on whether the GCSB was conducting mass surveillance on New Zealanders, Key simply point-blank refused to comment.

Who can forget National’s obstruction and prevarication – including contradictory statements – over the SAS-led attack on two villages in the Tirgiran Valley in 2010 which caused fifteen injuries and the tragic deaths of six innocent Afghan civilians, including a young child;

Lest we forget: Fatima, aged 3

Just recently, it was revealed that an OIA request by Radio NZ, for details regarding the business case for a proposed new multi-million dollar Auckland City rail-line, was met with deliberate stone-walling from then-Minister, Simon Bridge’s “office“;

Transport Minister Simon Bridges has been caught trying to block an official information request for details about a proposed new $50 million Auckland railway line.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters tabled an email trail in Parliament yesterday showing that Mr Bridges’ office repeatedly urged KiwiRail last week not to release a business case on Auckland’s proposed third main railway track.

Initially, his officials opposed the document being released, saying it was part of an unsuccessful budget bid, but were told by KiwiRail on Thursday that the law was clear it should be released.

After consulting its legal team, KiwiRail told Mr Bridge’s office it would struggle to justify not releasing it.

But on Friday Mr Bridges’ office again urged KiwiRail not to release the business plan.

This time it used a scatter-gun approach – arguing the report was only a draft, was on a misleading template and that its proposed release was making them “extremely uncomfortable”.

Writer Harriet Gale…

[…]

… said KiwiRail made it clear the business case did not need to be kept secret and that the minister’s behaviour was worrying.

Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, was obviously frustrated and disturbed by National’s attempt to suppress the Kiwirail Report and their continual flouting of the OIA;

“It’s so important that we get this Act flowing better than it has been and it hasn’t necessarily flowed that well.

And that’s why I’ve used this as an opportunity to exhort the Prime Minister to help me and support me in getting the roles crystal clear.

We are coming down increasingly heavier where we see instances where the Act is not being compiled with – and in some cases, where it’s been flouted.

I think there’s an understanding that we mean business.”

Hardly the hallmarks of an “open and transparent” government when a Minister’s “office” is prepared to conspire to break the law by circumventing the Official Information Act. Also not helped when the ombudsman’s office has to write a scathing letter to the Prime Minister demanding they obey the law.

As if to underscore National’s mania for secrecy, in 2011/12, New Zealand’s ranking in media freedom by Reporters Without Borders fell from eighth place in 2010, to thirteenth, in the world.

The Herald’s senior reporter, Matthew Backhouse, wrote at the time;

The report did not say what was behind the fall – but it comes after a year in which newsrooms were searched by police, the New Zealand Herald was temporarily banned from the parliamentary press gallery and a proposed new law sought to give police greater powers to enter newsrooms.

Another story by Fairfax media’s Susan Edmunds, in May this year, also reported on New Zealand’s fall in World Press Freedom Index, citing Government secrecy;

The report said journalists were struggling with the Official Information Act, which gives government agencies long periods of time to respond to requests. Sometimes journalists were asked to pay for information.

“In August 2016, the government revealed a grim future for whistleblowers, announcing a bill that would criminalise leaking government information to the media and would dramatically increase the surveillance powers of the intelligence services. Journalists, bloggers, and civil society representatives would be among the potential targets of the proposed law, which could be adopted in 2017.”

Catherine Strong, from Massey University’s School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, said;

“Our lower standing is due to the growing list of government agencies trying to hide information by thwarting the Official Information Act, and these agencies are ruining our reputation.”

What is even more grimly ironic is that having been thrown out of office, National persists in refusing to disclose information to the public.

Remember that National Party leader, Bill English, recently demanded;

“This is a government that said it would be more transparent and more open. The document is clearly there somewhere, it must be important because it’s 38 pages and it’s come out of the agreement – people deserve to see it.

It sounds like there might be quite a lot more in this other piece of paper. If it’s at the core of how the Government’s going to run, it’s in the public interest.”

Following coalition negotiations, and Peters’s subsequent announcement on 19 October that NZ First would coalesce with Labour and the Greens, Radio NZ’s Susie Ferguson spoke with National’s Bill English on Morning Report.

On at least two occassions, Ms Ferguson asked Bill English if he would be releasing the text of coalitions negotiations with NZ First. English first replied;

@1:57

“Well again, I’m not going to be discussing that. It was part of the negotiations and New Zealand First actually required, rightly, confidentiality about those negotiations.”

When pressed, English was adamant that there would be no public disclosure;

@2:28

“I’m honour bound to stick with the confidentiality agreement. As are the other parties.”

Note English’s reference to “the other parties“.

That would be Labour. No one else was in the room with Peters and NZ First. So when it suited English, he was more than willing to point to “the other parties” to validate his refusal to release National’s own coalition discussion papers.

A month later, on 28 November, TVNZ’s talented Jack Tame interviewed Bill English on Breakfast TV. After English repeated his demands that Labour publish all coalition documents, Tame pointed out the apparent hypocrisy of demanding Labour make public their coalition papers whilst English refused to disclose National’s;

@1:13

TAME: “So are you prepared to release what your coalition negotiations with NZ First if the government does the same?”

ENGLISH: “Well, look, I don’t know if it’s a record of negotiations. We conducted ours under a confidentiality agreement. That was very clear right at the start.“

So according to English, National operated under a “confidentiality agreement“. He failed to explain how that differed from Labour’s confidentiality agreement with NZ First. As English insisted on 19 October, Labour was “honour bound to stick with the[ir] confidentiality agreement.”

Tame put the story on Twitter;

https://twitter.com/jacktame/status/935245506040623104

Kudos to Jack Tame for being the only journalist (to my knowledge) to recognise and point out English’s double standard on this issue.

English’s refusal to come clean with the New Zealand public whilst demanding “transparency and openess” from Labour is a stark reminder of National’s toxic track record of paranoia, secrecy, and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do arrogance. Every time English or one of his National Party parliamentary colleagues opens their mouths, we are reminded of their own hypocrisy.

They are political charlatans not to be trusted.

For the first time in our political history, it has become the role of the Government to hold the Opposition to account.

.

And now…

Introducing the first (but not the last!) Paula Bennett Award for Hypocrisy. Named for the National party politician who used the Training Incentive Allowance to gain a free, tax-payer funded university education when she was a young mother on the domestic purposes benefit. Later, in 2009, as Minister for Social Welfare, one of her first actions was to scrap that Allowance, thereby denying other solo-parents the same opportunity for advancing their lives.

The first Award goes to Bill English, for saying one thing and doing another. Congratulations, Mr English!

Acknowledgement

My thanks to a Radio NZ producer for locating specific audio that provided much-needed information for the completion of this story. I am indebted for the significant time and effort it took to assist me on this project.

.

References

TVNZ News: ‘It’s in the public interest’ – Bill English calls for release of coalition document

Radio NZ: New govt has ‘no follow through’ – National

NZ Herald: John Key, mass surveillance and what really happened when Edward Snowden accused him of spying

Radio NZ: Spy agencies come under scrutiny

Radio NZ: PM admits Govt uses delaying tactics

Fairfax media: New GCSB bill allows spying on Kiwis

NZ Herald: Revealed – Tim Groser sent GCSB spies after WTO job competitors

Radio NZ: NZ spying on Pacific ‘growing’

NZ Herald: Police house raid on investigative journalist Nicky Hager found to be unlawful

Mediaworks: Police accessed blogger’s bank records unlawfully – report

Radio NZ: PM refuses to comment on spy links

Fairfax media: Defence Force chief slams ‘major inaccuracies’ in SAS Afghanistan allegations

NZ Herald: Former Defence Minister concedes civilian casualty in 2010 SAS raid in Afghanistan

Fairfax media: Killed girl’s parents demand NZ Government inquiry

Radio NZ: Transport Minister tries to block official information request

Radio NZ: Ombudsman urges ministers to follow OIA rules

NZ Herald: NZ slips out of top 10 for freedom in the media

Fairfax media: Press freedoms stifled by cynical use of Official Information Act – Report

Fairfax media: Labour finally retakes power after Winston Peters gives Jacinda Ardern his support

Radio NZ: Bill English faces first caucus since defeat (alt. link)

Twitter: Jame Tame – 28 November

NZ Herald: Bennett rejects ‘hypocrite’ claims

Additional

NZ Herald: OIA tension raises questions over minister’s request for information

Other Blogs

The Standard: Key and Mass Surveillance – Was this the reason for the Golriz distraction?

TDB: Now we know Key lied about mass surveillance – let’s remind everyone what our msm said at the time

Previous related blogposts

Once upon a time there was a solo-mum

“Fool me once”

Judith Collins owes an explanation to voters

National whines about Cullen’s appointment – they should know about cronyism

National’s $11.7 billion hole is right where they left it

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 December 2017.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: coalition negotiations, GCSB, Jack Tame, Labour-Green-NZ First Coalition, National's hypocrisy, Official Information Act, Opposition Leader Bill English, Paula Bennett Hypocrisy Award, spying, Susie Ferguson

The Rise and Rise of Daddy State: MSD blackmails NGOs for private data

25 March 2017 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Nanny State takes a Shower

What do showers have to do with this issue?

Wait and see.

Spying, Spooks, and Silly Journos

Nearly five years ago, the highly controversial Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was passed by National. As reported at the time;

The Search and Surveillance Act, which was passed through Parliament in March, extends production and examination orders to the police and legalises some forms of surveillance.

It will let more government agencies carry out surveillance operations, allows judges to determine whether journalists can protect their sources, and changes the right to silence.

[…]

Police could complete some forms of surveillance and searches without warrants, but [Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm] Burgess said the situations were pretty common sense.

Yes, indeed. Police surveillance and seizure powers were being massively extended. But according to the Police Commissioner, citizens could rely on the Police using “pretty common sense” to use them.

Then-Justice Minister, Judith Collins offered this excuse for the extension of police powers;

“ The new Search and Surveillance Act 2012 brings “order, certainty, clarity and consistency” to messy, unclear and outdated search and surveillance laws.”

(Interestingly, the fact that Collins felt the need to use irony-quotation-marks, in her Beehive statement, to enclose the phrase order, certainty, clarity and consistency is revealing.)

This is the same Judith Collins who, in 2009, passed personal phone numbers of a civil servant to far-right blogger, Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater.

A year later, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was being hotly debated throughout the country.

Essentially, the Bill (since passed into law), would allow the GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens which up to then had been the sole province of the NZ SIS.

National’s ‘spinned message’ – constantly parroted by Dear Leader Key – was;

“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known…

[…]

The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.

[…]

It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”

In fact, the law was clear with it’s wording and intent and Section 14 of the Act (since altered to reflect the Amendment) stated with crystal clarity;

14Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

Some journalists were too lazy to fact-check Key’s lies;

Journalists who failed to realise that Key was being disingenuous, and simply parroted the government’s official spin, did immense damage to public understanding of the issues involved.

Others, like Audrey Young and Tracy Watkins were sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to recognise a government ‘stitch-up’ when they saw it;

“ The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders. But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.” – Audrey Young, 26 June 2013

“ The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.” – Tracy Watkins, 3 August 2013

National ignored strong public opinion wary of extending the GCSB’s surveillance powers. The Bill became law on 26 August 2013.

The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act was followed by the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act (TICS), made law on 11 November 2013.

The TICS law made it mandatory for all electronic communications companies (telcos) to comply with spy agencies demands to intercept and decrypt phone calls, txt-messages, and emails.

The excuse for this piece of intrusive legislation from Communications Minister, Amy Adams;

“ The fundamental reason that I have sought to introduce this bill is to safeguard New Zealand public safety and security. ”

The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act was, in turn, followed by the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (split into several Bills after it’s Second Reading in Parliament on 9 December 2014).

This Bill, covering three existing laws, allowed the SIS to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects without requiring a judicial a warrant for up to 24 hours; to conduct secret video surveillance on private property; gave SIS access to Customs Department data in relation to suspected terrorism, and allowed the Minister of Internal Affairs increased powers to arbitrarily suspend or cancel a passport.

The Labour Party were so opposed to this law change that they voted for it. (NZ First, the Maori Party, and the Greens, to their credit, voted against it.)

Then Dear Leader Key used the usual “defending Kiwis against terrorist” bogeyman to justify the State’s growing surveillance powers;

“ The threats faced by New Zealand have grown and it is important that we have the ability to respond to that. The Government has a responsibility to protect New Zealanders at home and abroad…”

Simultaneously in 2014, the IRD signed an agreement to share data with the Police;

Taxpayer information is required to administer New Zealand’s tax system effectively. This information can be supplied by taxpayers, or it can be collected by Inland Revenue during an audit.

Broadly, the government’s current legislative position is that this information is not shared with other government departments on the basis that it is ‘tax secret’.

However, there are instances where sharing taxpayer information relating to serious crime could bring offenders to justice, support the goals of other government departments, and offer the State broad efficiencies.

Up until that point, the IRD expected everyone who earned money – whether from legal or illegal mean – to pay tax. This meant that, for example, sex workers prior to 2003 would be expected to pay tax on their earnings regardless of the fact it was an illegal activity.

The tax department didn’t care where or how the money was earned – they just wanted their “fare share”.

After 2014, the IRD abandoned that policy, and data-sharing with Police was implemented. It means that taxing other illegal activities such as the production and sale of cannabis, is no longer feasible. This has unintentional consequences – such as the hoarding of cash; use of firearms to protect that cash; and violence.

This is part of an on-going wider process of government departments sharing private information with each other.

The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, and Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill all follow on from previous extensions of State power, notably the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

This poorly thought-out law was Labour’s contribution to George Bush’s ill-conceived “War on Terror”.

Throughout National’s three terms in office, it has extended Police powers; widened the scope for the GCSB and SIS to spy on New Zealanders; and created a vast data-sharing network amongst it’s bureaucracy.

MSD, NGOs, and Demands for Data

To date, New Zealanders have been mostly apathetic as the government build up it’s ability to spy and store personal information on us. Most of the government’s “targets” have been so-called “terrorists”, immigrants, criminals, student-debt defaulters, and those on welfare benefits or living in state houses.

Most of Middle New Zealand find it difficult to identify with these elements of our society.

Recently, however, Radio NZ has been running a series of stories and interviews on a disturbing development regarding state aquisition of personal information.

On 2 March, on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon programme, Kathryn Ryan interviewed Brenda Pilott, the chairperson of ComVoices (an umbrella organisation for NGOs).

At issue was the disturbing revelation that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), presumably under direction from National ministers, was forcing NGOs to collect and pass private information about their clients back to the Ministry, in return for on-going funding. This proviso was to be written into new contracts set to take effect in July this year after negotiations had concluded after Easter.

>Kathryn Ryan interviews Brenda Pilott – 2 March<

Accordingly to Comvoices, NGOs were expected to pass on;

names of clients
birth dates
ethnicity
other personal details such as dependent children’s names

NGOs that refused to share this information with MSD would forego funding. The result would be predictable;

According to Brenda Pilot, the Ministry’s excuse to demand this data was;

“ They want to be able to find out what services are effective. And that this will provide information over time that will allow sensible decisions to be made about government funding and where to apply that funding.”

Ms Pilot voiced concerns that private, identifiable information would be used for tracking individuals who used NGO services. She said that vulnerable people needing to use services such as counselling, Women’s Refuge, Rape Crisis, etc, would be reluctant to engage those organisations and would “walk away”. Ms Pilot was concerned that passing personal, identifiable data to MSD would force NGOs to violate Privacy Laws.

Ms Pilot said that the Privacy Commissioner was also concerned at MSD’s intentions to obtain such data, and was investigating. She said the Commissioner would most likely report on the issue by the end of this month.

On 3 March, Radio NZ reported; grave concerns held by at least one NGO, Women’s Refuge;

Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said agencies would have to abide by the contract change if they wanted to keep their funding.

“If agencies choose not to share this information they won’t be contracting with the ministry. That’s pretty much where it sits.”

Dr Jury said it was not an ideal situation for the refuge but they were not in a position to say no.

“This is not something that we would happily go out and say, ‘yes, this is exactly what we want to do’.

“If it is going to happen, our job now is to make sure we get the sort of safeguards built around that information that we need to keep our women and children safe,” she said.

At least one privacy lawyer doubted the legality of MSD’s demands;

Privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel said the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) looked to be on shaky ground.

“This is a potential breach of privacy because they don’t appear to have identified, anywhere, the purposes for which they are collecting that information.

“There doesn’t seem to be any transparency around it … I also don’t think it’s fair,” she said.

“Principle 2 of the Privacy Act says that if you want to collect information from third party, you have to have a good reason.

“You also have to have … lawful and reasonable purposes for collecting that information in the first place. Now, none of that has been done.”

However, what really raised fears was Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive, Murray Edridge’s responses to Kathryn Ryan’s questions. His answers not only failed to reassure, but raised serious concerns as to MSD’s intentions regarding the storage and end-use of personalised, identifiable data.

>Ministry responds to privacy concerns – 3 March<

Edridge parroted the usual monetarist rhetoric of “the New Zealand public demands that government spend it’s money well”.

When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that MSD was attempting to track NGO service-users, he denied it;

“ No we’re not tracking them. What we’re doing is we’re saying to providers, look, for us to understand the effectiveness of services, to understand where the resources are best invested, where we will decide between priorities in terms of investment we need to understand who the people are and what value they get from the services. For some time we’d had concern that investment’s been made in social services where they’re not the most effective mechanism for the people that require them, and this is part of the mechanism by which we understand the clientele better and we understand how we can serve them better and invest in services that are going to support them.”

When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that anonymised data would work just as well, Edridge kept referring back to needing to know “who these people are“.

Moments later, Edridge contradicted himself by admitting “we know who the clients are, we know all about them“. If that wasn’t creepy enough, Ms Ryan then asked Edridge why MSD demanded further information about NGO service-users. She asked why MSD needed to know who was approaching (for example) Women’s Refuge for assistance..

Edridge’s response was further contradictory and throughout the twelve minute interview he could provide no satisfactory answer why MSD was requiring personalised data from NGOs. At one point he attempted to cloud the issue by stating that MSD required “demographic information”.

Ms Ryan dismissed that claim by remind Edridge that MSD was seeking names, addresses, ethnicities, children’s names and that was not simply “demographic information”.

When Ms Ryan suggested that NGO service-users might not want their details passed on to MSD or other ministeries, Edridge could only respond,

“ Well, we need to know where to get the money in the right place.”

Four days later, Rape Crisis draw a line in the sand and announced it would flat out decline to sign contracts with MSD in return for passing private information about service-users in exchange for on-going funding.

>Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts – 7 March<

By 16 March, pressure on MSD and Minister Tolley was such that the ministry caved, and was forced to step back from demanding personalised data from some NGOs dealing with sexual violence.

>Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts – 16 March<

The “reprieve”, however, was only temporary, and would last for only one year until MSD “works out how to securely collect and store their clients’ private data”. It also did not apply to all NGOs.

The Creep of Big Brother and the Daddy State

Up till this point, data-collection has centered on those who come in contact with the Justice system; WINZ beneficiaries; and Housing NZ tenants. These are generally New Zealanders who are usually the most deprived and vulnerable socially and financially, and rely on State assistance to survive.

A person seeking help from WINZ and Housing NZ is forced to supply both ministeries their private data. To refuse means no help. Next stop; the street;

A citizen in contact with the Justice system has even less option to refuse to provide private data.

MSD’s demand for personalised data from NGO service-users marks a new stage in National’s slow advancement in building a data-base on every person in the country.

NGO service users may not necessarily be unemployed beneficiaries or live in state houses or have broken the law in some way – but their details will still be required to be collected and supplied to the Ministry of Social Development.

The ministry has assumed the de facto role of collecting and storing data on New Zealanders who – up till this point – may never have come into contact with any governmental organisation such as Housing NZ, WINZ, or Police.

The implications of this are staggering.

The net to scoop up data on as many citizens as possible, has just widened considerably.

If you think you – the reader – may never need the services of Women’s Refuge or Rape Crisis, consider for a moment that there are thousands of NGOs operating in this country and hundreds that are funded by the State.

Victim Support is just one state-funded NGO;

So if you’ve just become a victim of a crime; Victim Support enters your life; the State now has your personal data on file;

Client: Name, address, gender, date of birth, primary ethnicity, Iwi.
Dependents: Name, date of birth, relationship to client.
Service Level: Information Programme/service name, start date and end date.”

Middle-class New Zealanders who may never have had cause to have personal data collected on them may soon be on file with various ministeries. With data-sharing, personal information from MSD can end up throughout other ministeries. Or on the desks of ministers;

Never mind “Nanny State” – this is the muscular arm of Daddy State flexing it’s strength to reach out to grab more and more of our private information.

And it won’t end with this.

Not until we say “Enough is enough. No more“.

Back to Showers

Remember this?

In the lead-up to the 2008 general election, National attacked the then-Labour Government for “Nanny Statism”.

Following on from a disastrous drought in 2007 that cost the country’s economy over $2.8 billion (in 2008/09 dollars), the then-Labour government sought out ways and means to conserve water. The alternative was the possibility of further water-shortages or costly storage and irrigation systems. Labour opted for conservation. This included measures to save water in residential areas.

It could be suggested that water-saving shower heads and energy-efficient light-bulbs are the least of our concerns. National has surpassed anything that Labour envisaged, as this government reaches further and further into our private lives.

If there is one thing that history has taught us – governments that spy on their own people do not trust their people, and are fearful of them.

National must be very frightened of us.

.

References

NZ Legislation: Search and Surveillance Act 2012

NZ Herald: New police search and surveillance law in force

Beehive: Search and Surveillance Bill becomes law

Radio NZ: Collins defends giving details to blogger

NZ Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Beehive: John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance

Legislation.govt.nz: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

NZ Herald: Spying on NZ: More power to watch us

Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM

Fairfax media: Kiwis do care, prime minister

Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill

Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill

Fairfax: Spying bill passes into law

Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading

Parliament: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

NZ Herald: Foreign fighters bill passes 94 – 27

Fairfax media: Labour backs anti-terror laws, despite attacking it

IRD: Information sharing with New Zealand Police

IRD: Cross-government Information-sharing to Identify, Stop or Disrupt Serious Crime

MacNicol & Co: Tax News – IRD to share information with police

NZ Legislation: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

Wikipedia: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

Radio NZ: Government demands private data from NGOs

NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: Relationships Aotearoa to close; funding models and issues in spotlight

Radio NZ: Govt on shaky ground over data-for-funding contracts, lawyers say

Radio NZ: Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts

Radio NZ: Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts

Comvoices: HomePage

Victim Support: Where does your funding come from?

NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: MSD to require individual client level data from community agencies

NZ Herald: Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums

Dominion Post: Minister defends releasing private details

Fairfax media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details

Scoop: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state

NIWA: 2007 – much drier than average in many places

Beehive: Drought costs NZ $2.8 billion

Additional

Fairfax media: UN privacy expert slams government stance on privacy and ‘big data’

Other Blogs

The Standard: Social investment meets the surveillance state

Previous related blogposts

OIA Request points to beneficiary beat-up by Minister Chester Borrows

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 March 2017.

= fs =

Categories: Social Issues, The Body Politic Tags: daddy state, GCSB, Ministry of Social Development, nanny state, Non Governmental Organisations, SIS

Coming soon: A terror alert near you!

19 March 2016 Frank Macskasy 7 comments

threat-level - nz (1)

Setting the Stage for to Dis-information, Deception, and Distraction

Right about now, National is in very, very, VERY deep trouble.

Dairy-farmers, with associated down-stream support businesses, are facing severe economic hardship as Fonterra reduces the pay-out from $4.15 per kgMS to $3.90 per kgMS.

Dairy farmers’ debt has reached unsustainable levels;

About 10 per cent of the most indebted dairy properties owe a combined $11 to $12 billion, about 30 per cent of total dairy debt.

[…]

About 20 per cent of the most indebted farms hold 45 to 50 percent of the total debt – $15b-$38b.

The value of farms and sale numbers is falling (thereby placing many farmers into a negative gearing situation). As Rural Value’s national manager, David Paterson, said on Radio NZ;

“Unless there’s some bright light on the horizon I think there’ll be a continuation of slow sales and we’ll continue to see a reduction of farm values particularly on the dairy farm sector.”

On 18 March, Bill English admitted that real national disposable income-per-capita fell 0.4% for the year;

“You’ve got a big drop in national income, because dairy prices are down. At the same time you’ve had surprisingly high migration numbers. So it’s not surprising that when you work the figures you get a drop in national disposable income.”

Not for the first time in his political career, English boasted that low wages were keeping a lid on inflation;

“The labour market turned out to be quite a bit more flexible than we were expecting.”

The Reserve Bank – recognising that a major economic “correction*” is looming on the horizon – has lowered the OCR from 2.50% to 2.25%. The RBNZ’s 10 March media release paints a gloomy economic picture for the foreseeable future;

The outlook for global growth has deteriorated since the December Monetary Policy Statement, due to weaker growth in China and other emerging markets, and slower growth in Europe. This is despite extraordinary monetary accommodation, and further declines in interest rates in several countries. Financial market volatility has increased, reflected in higher credit spreads. Commodity prices remain low.

Domestically, the dairy sector faces difficult challenges, but domestic growth is expected to be supported by strong inward migration, tourism, a pipeline of construction activity and accommodative monetary policy.

[…]There are many risks to the outlook. Internationally, these are to the downside and relate to the prospects for global growth, particularly around China, and the outlook for global financial markets. The main domestic risks relate to weakness in the dairy sector, the decline in inflation expectations, the possibility of continued high net immigration, and pressures in the housing market.

Retail banks, however, seem reluctant to participate in any plan to stimulate economic activity. The 25-point fall in the OCR has yet to be passed on to bank customers.

If the economy enters recession, expect inward migration to reduce, adding to a slowdown in domestic growth and rise in unemployment.

Setting the Mood

In November last year, our esteemed Dear Leader announced – almost casually – that New Zealand could be targeted by terrorists;

“I think every country in the world is potentially vulnerable, we’re probably less vulnerable than others. We have in this instance the advantage of distance, we’re a long way away, [but] i just couldn’t say to you we’re completely immune.”

And;

“There’s no question about what their motivations are and that’s the tragedy of the Isis story is that you get some very dysfunctional people, for want of a better term, who want to associate themselves with Isis.”

However, on 8 December last year, an entirely ‘new dimension’ was added to the ISIS bogeyman with this dramatic revelation from SIS director, Rebecca Kitteridge;

“Something that has changed over the last year is the issue of New Zealand women travelling to Iraq and Syria, which is something we haven’t seen previously or been aware of.” – Rebecca Kitteridge, 8 December 2015

The media, rather unsurprisingly, went nuts on the story;

NZ women going to IS areas on rise - SIS

As Tracey Watkins and Tommy Livingstone reported for Fairfax Media;

In evidence to the committee, Kitteridge said the past 12 months had seen a significant increase in the global terrorism threat.

“When I started as director of security in May 2014 the so-called Islamic State was barely talked about in New Zealand. Now a day rarely goes by without news of some act of violent extremism associated with IS.”

The threat to New Zealand’s domestic security posed by foreign terrorist fighters and other extremists was real and continued to develop.

“The number of New Zealanders fighting alongside or supporting IS remains small but has increased.”

That included the rise in the number of New Zealand women travelling to Syria and Iraq.

In the same story, Watkins and Livingstone wrote;

Kitteridge said after the committee hearing the numbers leaving from New Zealand were small but significant – but declined to give further details.

As events were to transpire three months later, the suggestion that women were “leaving from New Zealand” was to be proved a false assertion.

Yet, during those three months, SIS director, Rebecca Kitteridge, maintained silence on the issue and she did nothing to correct the (mistaken) belief that New Zealand women were departing from New Zealand.

This prompted the usual feeding-frenzy and rantings from the ill-informed rabid-right who vent their ignorance on right-wing fora such as Kiwiblog;

kiwiblog comments - longknives - Jack5

Kiwiblog editor and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, did nothing to bring reason to the discussion. Indeed, a few voices of sanity on the blog had their moderate views dismissed and voted down;

kiwiblog comments - andrei

Protestations

Following Kitteridge’s comments, lone voices of calm and sanity were barely reported and given much less prominence;

Hazim Arafeh, a spokesperson for he Islamic community, said he was surprised to hear women from New Zealand may have left the country to join ISIS.

“We are not aware of New Zealand Muslim woman going over to Syria to get married. If it is happening, we still don’t know if it is a genuine case, or are they joining ISIS,” he said.

Islamic Women’s Council issued their own rejection of Kitteridge’s comments;

The national Islamic Women’s Council is not aware of any New Zealand jihadi brides heading to war torn regions to join the fight with Isis.

Council president Anjum Rahman told Paul Henry that although it was happening overseas there was no indication the same thing was happening here.

Ms Rahman said she listened carefully to Security Intelligence Service director Rebecca Kitteridge yesterday and she didn’t mention the women leaving were jihadi brides travelling to Syria to marry and support fighters.

“All she said was the number had been growing and because it was a war torn area that was a concern,” she said.

“We don’t know the ethnicity of these women, we don’t actually know the religious background of these woman, whether they just converted before they went, whether they converted at all, and we definitely don’t know what they’re doing while they’re over there.”

Asked if the council had information on women travelling overseas to marry and support Isis Ms Rahman said: “No. We don’t have any knowledge or indication of that happening.”

Three days later, The Wireless illustrated the predictably dire results of the demonisation of muslim women;

the wireless - I'm not a jihadi bride

Hela Rahman, a 25-year-old who has been a NZ citizen for more than 20 years, says these comments aren’t backed by evidence and are causing more harm than good.

A few weeks ago, she returned from a trip visiting her family in Iraq. When she arrived at Auckland Airport she says she was instantly made to feel like she’d done something wrong.

“I was going through with my E-passport and it was automatically declined. I had to go over to the counter.”

The Border Control officer asked Rahman why she’d been in Iraq.

“I told her I was there to see my family. She just looked at me with an awkward uncomfortable expression. She didn’t say anything and just drew a red line through my arrival card.”

Rahman continued to the customers area where the officer, after taking a look at her card, told her to go down the far side.

“Everyone else was being let through, even my parents. I was the only one in that lane.”

She was told to unlock her bags and was put into a holding room for a “long time” while the staff talked about her behind double-sided glass.

“The thing is, they make you feel so uncomfortable that you start questioning yourself. You start wondering if you have done something wrong,” she said.

She was asked a series of questions about why she’d gone to Iraq, what she had done there, and who had bought the flights for her.

Although Rahman had travelled to the Middle East with her mum and dad, she was the only one who was pulled aside for questioning.

“I thought my parents would be questioned too, but they weren’t. I wanted to ask ‘why me’ but I couldn’t. The opportunity never came up. I was just feeling so uncomfortable.”

Rahman spent the next few weeks confused about what had happened. Her Iraqi friends reassured her that it was just standard airport security Muslims have to face now.

That incident took place here, in good old relaxed, laid-back, give-people-a-fair-go, New Zealand.

All that was missing was requiring muslim’s to wear a red crescent stitched to their clothes to identify them in public – a practice very popular with a certain fascist regime and occupied nations, in the the 1930s and 1940s…

badges of suppression

The Truth Will Out

On 16 March, of this year, the truth of the matter was revealed when Radio NZ – bless them – lodged an Official Information Act request and discovered;

radio nz - kitteridge - SIS - NZ's 'jihadi brides' left from Australia

“Something that has changed over the last year is the issue of New Zealand women travelling to Iraq and Syria, which is something we haven’t seen previously or been aware of,” she told MPs.

Rebecca Kitteridge, Director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski

In response to an Official Information Act request, SIS, the domestic spy agency, said the women concerned “did not leave New Zealand.

“They were New Zealand citizens domiciled in Australia and they left from there.”

In response to charges of misleading the media and public, the Minister in Charge of the Security Intelligence Service, Chris Finlayson, denied that National and the SIS had wilfully deceived the country;

“If you go back to the statements that were made there were no implications or ‘winks and nods’ that they were not resident in New Zealand.”

Consider Kitteridge’s statement on 8 December 2015;

“Something that has changed over the last year is the issue of New Zealand women travelling to Iraq and Syria, which is something we haven’t seen previously or been aware of.”

Where else would “New Zealand women” travel from – except New Zealand – unless specifically stated otherwise?

Remember that Kitteridge owned the problem by stating, “which is something we haven’t seen previously or been aware of”. She made no reference to receiving the information from any Australian intelligence organisation.

A day after Radio NZ breaking the story, Minister in Charge of the Security Intelligence Service, Chris Finlayson still refused to issue an apology for National’s and the SIS’s deception;

Chris Finlayson, the Minister in charge of the SIS, told reporters today where the women left from was irrelevant.

“I would have thought the critical issue is were they New Zealand citizens, whether the left from Kingsford Smith airport or Auckland Airport is by-the-by.”

Mr Finlayson said he was due to meet with about 100 members of the Muslim community tomorrow night, and had regular discussions with that community during the process of the intelligence and security review.

“And I’m very happy to proffer an apology on behalf of Metiria Turei who started all this nonsense. I think her performance is lamentable… You just don’t go round handing out apologies willy-nilly.”

The Radio NZ report stated that “the SIS said it had no comment“.

The SIS’s mission was completed; the public was spooked. National’s planned deception had succeeded – nothing further need be said by the spy agency.

It is also worth noting a noticeable lack of follow-up coverage on Kiwiblog by David Farrar on this issue. Perhaps the discovery that Key and Kitteridge had mis-led the New Zealand public and smeared the Muslim community in the process was not as worthy of a comment as Kitteridge’s innacurate initial comments, three months earlier?

A Happy Confluence of Purpose?

On 8 December, Audrey Young wrote in the NZ Herald;

Meanwhile, Mr Key questioned whether that a proposal he has previously rejected – attaching the Cortex cyber security programme to the Southern Cross internet cable linking New Zealand to Australia and the United States – should be revisited to give wider cyber protection to New Zealand companies.

He made the suggestion while questioning the acting director of the Government Communications Security Bureau, Una Jagose, who gave a detailed speech recently about Cortex as part of a new policy of openness in the bureau.

Mr Key said he had canned the original proposal because of the potential anxiety of it being seen as mass surveillance but he asked if an argument could be made, with enough public debate for it happen to protect smaller companies.

At present, the GCSB uses Cortex to mount cyber defence on Government agencies and strategically important private companies – and only with their permission.

Ms Jagose said the “hard ground work” by the GCSB needed to be done to be more open about the GCSB’s cyber defence work.

She acknowledged the possible anxiety over “mass surveillance.”

It could safely be argued that stories of “jihadi brides” would scare the bejeezus out of the public, in the process softening opinion to welcome extending the powers of the SIS and GCSB.

If so, this would be a cynical ploy by National and our spy agencies to manipulate public opinion to accept the unpalatable; a massive increase in state surveillance and mass-gathering of data on all New Zealanders.

They just never counted on anyone actually asking a fairly simple question; where did those so-called “jihadi brides” migrate from?

Implausible Deniability

During last year’s Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee meeting on 8 December, where Rebecca Kitteridge uttered her now (in)famous references to “New Zealand women travelling to Iraq and Syria“, Key made reference to “Jihadi Brides“.

Yet, on TV3’s The Nation, Key tried to evade responsibility for using the term “Jihadi brides” on 8 December;

Lisa Owen: All right. One other issue this week has been the so-called ‘jihadi brides’. Muslim leaders that we spoke to said that they were victimised and confused as a result of your comments around jihadi brides. Do you owe them an apology?

John Key: I don’t think so, and the reason for that is, I think, if you just look at the sequence of events, the first thing is that- I’m not distancing myself, but I didn’t raise the issue. The SIS directed it, and I wasn’t-

Lisa Owen: No, you used the phrase ‘jihadi brides’, Prime Minister. I’ve looked at the transcript. It was you that used that phrase, not Rebecca Kitteridge.

John Key: I didn’t coin that phrase. That phrase is used all around the world.

Lisa Owen: But you were the first one to use it.

John Key: Not around the world, I’m not. It’s a common term.

Was our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, aware that none of the so-called “Jihadi Brides” had actually departed from New Zealand, and were actually residing in Australia at the time?

Yes, according to Gerry Brownlee’s own admission in Parliament, on 17 March;

Metiria Turei (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Was he advised, prior to 8 December 2015, that the so called “jihadi brides” he referred to during the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting were all resident in Australia and did not leave from New Zealand?

Hon Gerry Brownlee (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Metiria Turei: So the Prime Minister can confirm that he knew that none of those women had left for Syria or Iraq from New Zealand?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, and the member needs to be aware that as New Zealand citizens it does not matter where they left from. If they pose a security risk to New Zealand on their return, then that is something we are concerned about.

This time Key cannot feign memory loss; erroneous advice; misinterpretation, or a mistake. According to one of his own senior ministers – Key knew the facts.

For reasons of his own, he chose not to disclose that information.

Key’s Lie By His Own Words

On 17 March, Key refuted any willful attempt to mislead the public by inference that so-called “Jihadi brides” had left New Zealand. As reported on Radio NZ;

Today he denied any attempt to create a misleading impression that the 12 or so women referred to by Ms Kitteridge left from New Zealand, rather than from Australia.

“We didn’t say that, it was the Director [General] that made the statement, and what she said was there were jihadi brides.

“The fact that where they leave from is irrelevant, if they’re New Zealanders, they’re New Zealanders, they may return to New Zealand and so we have to deal with those issues.

And remember the Minister in Charge of the Security Intelligence Service, Chris Finlayson, who categorically denied that National and the SIS had deliberately created a deception;

“If you go back to the statements that were made there were no implications or ‘winks and nods’ that they were not resident in New Zealand.”

Yet, that is precisely what Key said on 10 December last year, as this video clearly shows;

Kiwi jihadi brides a reality - PM - yahoo news

John Key: “And it’s just a reality that there are women that we know that left New Zealand, ah, and we suspect that they have gone and got married and we know that this concept of Jihadi Brides is not, it’s not my term, it’s an international term, and you pick up the World’s Section of the newspapers today, a couple of newspapers, and see them reporting on that, hundreds and hundreds of women from around the world, ah, going off and, and potentially marrying these guys before they undertake Jihadist activity.”

Reporter: “Do you think it’s strange that, that, um, that New Zealand muslims don’t… aren’t aware of any of their women going over and, and, marrying men in places like Syria?”

John Key: “Yeah, well, I mean they don’t know everybody in the community, um, and you know, they obviously have a, you know, be [unintelligible word] as anyone can on these things, but we can just tell you by what we see. Y’know, people travel out of our country, and people who turn up, through other reporting, and otherwise, in Syria or Iraq.”

Key was as crystal-clear as his garbled-style of speech permits him to be. He cannot claim he was mis-represented in the media: he stated categorically that “there are women that we know that left New Zealand… people travel out of our country“.

At the same time, according to Minister Brownlee, Key was perfectly aware that “jihadi brides” he referred to during the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting were all resident in Australia and did not leave from New Zealand”.

This was no “mistake” on the part of the media. Brownlee and Key stand convicted of their duplicity, by their own words.

Coming soon: A terror alert near you!

This is now the second (that we are aware of) mis-use of our spy agencies for National’s own political agenda.

Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, found that in 2011, then-Labour leader, Phil Goff, had been mis-led by then-SIS director, Warren Tucker, at a briefing meeting. Inaccurate information had also been provided by the SIS to right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater that was used to damage Phil Goff’s reputation.

As the Herald reported in November 2014;

Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn said this morning the inquiry found the NZSIS released “incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information in response to Mr Slater’s request, and provided some of the same incorrect information to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s office”.

Ms Gwyn said she found no evidence of political partisanship by the NZSIS but did find that the NZSIS “failed to take adequate steps to maintain political neutrality”.

Ms Gwyn said the having released misleading information both to Prime Minister John Key’s office and then to Mr Slater, Dr Tucker “had a responsibility to take positive steps to correct the interpretation”.

“He failed to do so.”

On that basis, Ms Gwyn said Mr Goff was owed an apology.

Ms Gwyn said information about a briefing Mr Goff received from Dr Tucker about suspected Israeli agents in Christchurch following the quakes was “not an accurate description of what happened at that meeting”.

According to revelations in Nicky Hager’s exposé, “Dirty Politics“, the smearing of Phil Goff was orchestrated from the Beehive’s Ninth Floor, by Jason Ede – a National Party “black ops” apparatchik.

The SIS was party to this covert plan to smear Phil Goff and undermine his election chances in 2011.

Unsurprisingly, Green Party Co-Leader Metiria Turei, condemned both the SIS and our esteemed Dear Leader for willfully deceiving the public;

“They were using information for political purposes, and that political purpose was to encourage New Zealanders to accept greater surviellance by spy agencies.

The SIS has proven time and time again they can’t be trusted with the powers that they have. They don’t follow the law that they’re required to, and John Key is using spy agencies to pursue a political agenda.”

It is now a matter of time before another dramatic “terror alert” is issued by this government, to further frighten and manipulate the country into submitting to National’s agenda to increase powers for our spy agencies.

The “terror alerts” will most likely come to nothing; no arrests will be made; no details of any thwarted “terror plot” will ever be released to the public – but the ultimate goal of fomenting fear will be achieved.

A frightened populace is a compliant populace.

.

Postscript1

“Correction” = polite euphemism for shit-about-to-hit-the-fan.

Postscript2

Did the SIS/GCSB ever keep track of New Zealand women travelling to Northern Ireland, during “The Troubles”, who may have met and married men from that province?

Were they ever referred to as “IRA Brides”?

.

References

Fonterra: Fonterra revises 2015/16 forecast milk price

Fairfax media: Small farmer group holds nearly $12 billion of dairy debt

Radio NZ: Dairy farm values set to keep falling

Radio NZ: Incomes dropping despite GDP growth, English admits

Fairfax media: Low wages ‘advantage’ for NZ – English

Reserve Bank: Official Cash Rate reduced to 2.25 percent

NZ Herald: Banks keep their slice of OCR cut

Fairfax media: Distance, spy network means NZ less vulnerable to attack – John Key

Fairfax media: John Key ‘scaremongering’ with details of security threats: Andrew Little

Radio NZ: NZ women going to IS areas on rise – SIS

Fairfax media: Kiwi Jihadi brides on the rise

TVNZ: ‘The worse the attack the more excited they are’ – Kiwi women leave to be jihadi brides

NZ Herald: Q&A – Why do women want to be jihadi brides?

Otago Daily Times: ‘Jihadi bride’ fears over Kiwi women

NZ Herald: Rise in Kiwi women heading to Iraq, Syria

Kiwiblog: Kiwi jihadi brides

NZ Herald: Islamic Women’s Council – It’s news to us

The Wireless: ‘I’m not a jihadi bride’

Radio NZ: NZ’s ‘jihadi brides’ left from Australia

Radio NZ: No apology from govt over ‘jihadi brides’ claims

NZ Herald: Rise in Kiwi women heading to Iraq, Syria

TV3: The Nation – Interview with John Key

Radio NZ: No apology from govt over ‘jihadi brides’ claims

Parliament Today: Questions & Answers – March 17 – Intelligence and Security Committee – Advice

Yahoo News: Kiwi jihadi brides a reality – PM

NZ Herald: Dirty Politics – John Key won’t apologise to Goff

NewstalkZB: Kiwi women heading off to join ISIS, Key insists

Additional

“I’ve Got Nothing to Hide” and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (hat-tip: Nitrium)

Other blogs

Kiwipolitico: Threat Distortion as Fear Manipulation

No Right Turn: Caught fearmongering

The Daily Blog: Key wasn’t just scare mongering with Jihadi Brides – he used it to distract from Tim Groser GCSB spying

The Dim Post: The struggle

The Standard: The Jihadi Brides lie

The Standard: Nats refuse to apologise for targeting Muslim community

Previous related blogposts

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!

.

headless-chickens

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 March 2016.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: dairy payout, GCSB, ISIS, OCR, Phil Goff, Rebecca Kitteridge, SIS, terror alerts, war propaganda

Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!

18 March 2016 Frank Macskasy 6 comments

TB5

1.

When a spokesperson for the government tries to employ scare-tactics to persuade the public that increasing surveillance powers for various arms of the State – in this case the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) – is warranted, then suspicions arise.

In the week following the release of the first review of intelligence organisations in New Zealand, Michael Cullen offered no less than three scare-tactics, that on the face of it, should send children and the naive running into the arms of spymasters at the SIS and GCSB.

On 10 March, Kathryn Ryan interviewed Michael Cullen on Radio NZ’s ‘Nine to Noon‘ show. Cullen was one of the reviewers of our spy agencies. In reply to questioning why the GCSB needed increased powers, he said;

@ 10.04

“…Suppose, let’s take an example, you know that a Chinese agent is arriving on a plane at an airport, for whatever reason you also know that they’re only going to be here for a short time but you’ve no idea what it is they’re going to be up to, and you can’t find a judicial commissioner, you know you’re only half an hour out from a landing kind of thing…”

@ 10.34

“…In extreme circumstances where you can’t find the Attorney General, or the the Minister deputed [sic] by the Prime Minister [to] act on the Attorney General’s behalf, or the judicial commissioner, then the Director can issue a warrant, but that’s in the case of immediate threat to life or the fact that if it doesn’t happen quickly then the opportunity to gather that intelligence will have passed…”

Aside from a “Yellow Peril” hint to Cullen’s reference to “a Chinese agent”, one has to ask why he is suggesting that the imminent arrival of such a person would strike fear into the heart of our government and it’s agencies.

Did the announcement that we are at war with China miss the 6PM news bulletin on both TV1 and TV3?

If such a mythical “Chinese agent” is a “threat” to our security and well-being, then a simple phone call to New Zealand Customs should be sufficient to detain the person and return him/her home on the next available flight. NZ Customs already has this power, as Mario Quintela learned to his misfortune last February;

Portuguese tourist gifted free flight to NZ after immigration debacle

Not only was Mr Quintela detained after disembarking his flight; he was held for ten hours, and promptly deported thereafter. (As the story reports, Customs then had to pay for Mr Quintela‘s flight back to New Zealand.)

So why the “imminent arrival” of a foreign agent should send the GCSB or other state agency into a tizzy is unclear. Our Customs department already ‘has our backs’ on such matters.

Cullen then painted a frightening picture where “in extreme circumstances where you can’t find the Attorney General, or the the Minister deputed by the Prime Minister [to] act on the Attorney General’s behalf or the judicial commissioner”.

Really? In the 21st century, with mobile phones, smartphones, email, faxes, landlines – Cullen is deeply concerned “where you can’t find the Attorney General, or the the Minister deputed [sic] by the Prime Minister [to] act on the Attorney General’s behalf, or the judicial commissioner“?!

If such an unlikely scenario ever eventuated, my concern would not be for the GCSB unable to have a warrant-to-surveil signed – but where the hell our Attorney General, or the the Minister deputed [sic] by the Prime Minister [to] act on the Attorney General’s behalf, or the judicial commissioner” were, that they could not be easily located.

Perhaps the most disingenuous, anxiety-laden scenario from Cullen was his implausible Lost At Sea fantasy. On Radio NZ’s Focus on Politics, Cullen maintained that expanding the GCSB’s surveillance powers was a “safety” issue;

@ 2.30

“Let us suppose a New Zealander is in imminent danger, in terms of their life overseas. Maybe lost at sea or some other example. Under this legislation as the GCSB feels it has to interpret it, the GCSB’s capacity to trace an individual’s cellphone and to say exactly where it is, cannot be used.

We have no way of finding out where that person is, using that capacity, in order to take immediate and urgent action, in whatever way, to try to protect the safety of that New Zealander.”

I call total bollocks on Cullen’s example.

Aside from the fact that most yachties and other vessels now use modern emergency locator beacons, if a New Zealander is in “imminent danger”, a bunch of spooks sitting in Pipitea House, Thorndon, listening in on conversations and reading emails and txt-messages are hardly likely to be in a position to facilitate rescue operations to assist a person “ lost at sea “.

Checking Google, using the search parameters “spy agency locates lost person at sea” did not yield a single example of a spy agency finding anyone in such dire straits.

The GCSB is a spy agency. International Rescue, it is not.

If by some bizarre chance the GCSB did pick up an SOS call, or locator beacon, no person in their right mind would object if the information was passed on to rescue services. By definition, SOS calls cannot be considered “private communications” since they are broadcast far and wide to anyone capable of picking up the transmissions.

Cullen is fear-mongering.

2.

In the report, Intelligence and Security in a Free Society Report of the First Independent Review of Intelligence and Security in New Zealand, under a section headed “Key Issues Identified“, the authors write;

7. It quickly became apparent to us that there were a number of deficiencies in the Agencies’ current legislative frameworks. The legislation establishing the Agencies is not comprehensive, is inconsistent between the two agencies, can be difficult to interpret and has not kept pace with the changing technological environment. This has led to some significant problems.

8. First, lack of clarity in the legislation means the Agencies and their oversight bodies are at times uncertain about what the law does and does not permit, which makes it difficult to ensure compliance. Critical reviews in the past have led the Agencies, particularly the GCSB, to take a very conservative approach to interpreting their legislation. While we understand the reason for this, and it is certainly preferable to a disregard for the law, this overly cautious approach does mean that the GCSB is not as effective or as efficient as it could be. The legislation needs to set out clearly what the Agencies can do, in what circumstances and subject to what protections for individuals.

It appears that Cullen and his co-author, Dame Patsy Reddy, are repeating the very same justifications that Key and other National ministers spouted in 2013, when they implemented an expansion of GCSB’s powers to legalise Bureau surveillance of New Zealanders.

Michael Cullen and Report co-author Patsy Reddy (Radio NZ)

On 9 April 2013, our esteemed Dear Leader claimed that the GCSB – as it stood at the time – was not “fit for purpose”;

“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known…

[…]

The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.

[…]

It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”

Now it appears that Cullen and Reddy are parroting the same rationale for advancing the “need” to expand the Bureau’s surveillance powers.

This appears to be the stock-standard meme that will be trotted out every time the government pushes for further extensions to State surveillance powers.

Council for Civil Liberties, chairperson, Thomas Beagle, was correct when he pointed out the obvious “mission creep” of stealthily increasing State surveillance in this country;

“I think it’s part of a shift towards an overall surveillance society and I think it’s part of a wider shift towards a government which is not of the people but a government which is actually working on the people.”

Cullen and Reddy have played their part in this latest chapter of an on-going process.

What next in two, five, or ten years’ time?

References

Parliament: Intelligence and Security in a Free Society Report of the First Independent Review of Intelligence and Security in New Zealand

Radio NZ: Nine To Noon – Spy law shake-up, heightened protection or erosion of privacy? (alt. link)

TVNZ News: Portuguese tourist gifted free flight to NZ after immigration debacle

Radio NZ: Focus on Politics – 11 March 2016 (alt. link)

Beehive: PM releases report into GCSB compliance

Radio NZ: Spy review aims to clarify powers

Additional

Radio NZ: Canada stops sharing Five Eyes data

The Guardian: Canada spy agency stops sharing intelligence with international partners

Other Blogs

Dim Post: Security and intelligence legislation: then and now

No Right Turn: As predicted

No Right Turn: The problem with the intelligence review

The Standard: New report on GCSB spying powers

Previous related blogposts

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

.

No more anarchy

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 March 2016.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: GCSB, Government Communications Security Bureau, Independent Review of Intelligence and Security, International Rescue, Michael Cullen

Big Bro’ is Watching You!

13 November 2015 Frank Macskasy 6 comments

This piece by Dita DeBoni on TVNZ’s website is worth re-posting in it’s entirety – just in case it ‘mysteriously vanishes’ into the ether. Not that I’m implying the New Zealand is now more-or-less a quasi-Police State…

Whether it be information about our household digital television account, or my child’s ear infection medication, or a text message, say, sent by a Prime Minister to a highly prominent sportsman or blogger, “privacy” is often the reason trotted out for stonewalling.

Sometimes it’s legitimate. Goodness knows what might happen if a complete stranger paid my household bills for me, or felt inclined to impersonate me at the chemist.

And do we really need to know that the Prime Minister and prominent All Blacks are in cahoots over the new flag design?

Some might say yes, but I reckon I could have figured that out by the sheer number of photographs we’re subjected to day after day featuring them gazing adoringly into each other’s eyes.

It seems the main reason a journalist – or even a citizen – is denied ‘official’ information much of the time is either that releasing it is going to unleash a torrent of (metaphorical) excrement, or getting the information you’re after would be a pain in the posterior for the person being asked for it.
Advertisement

The exception to this is if the police are asking.

It now seems as though certain institutions are more than happy to hand over incredibly personal financial and other information if the plod request it, even if they’ve skipped the part where they’re supposed to get the proper legal documentation to do so.

Some institutions actually wait for a formal, legitimate request before complying with police fishing expeditions.

Others, notably Westpac Bank, do not.

We know this because it emerged this week that Westpac handed over 10 months of data from three of author Nicky Hager’s accounts when police were investigating the hacking of Cameron Slater’s blog and social media accounts at the end of 2014, willingly complying with detectives who simply explained it was part of their investigation into ‘criminal offending’.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest the criminal offending they were investigating was anything to do with Nicky Hager.

Hager began the investigation as a ‘suspect’ but became simply a ‘witness’; he is not accused of stealing anything.

He did what good journalists do on a daily basis – was given information on nefarious wrong-doing that he believed the public needed to know. Then he published it.
Advertisement

He’s been treated extraordinarily for a witness in such a case – had his house raided for ten hours, had personal files uplifted, been wire-tapped, had his records requested from as many as 20 different companies and sources, and been vilified by the government.

But whether you like Nicky Hager or not, whether you agree with what he set out to do or not, there is something rotten about the way the police acted in the case – and something profoundly out of order about the way Westpac Bank rolled over and gave away Hager’s bank records and other personal information on the strength of an unsupported request by police, without even telling their client they were doing so – which is also something they are required to do.

It now emerges Nicky Hager has complained to the Privacy Commissioner about what’s happened and also wants a ‘full and frank’ disclosure from Westpac.

It will be more than anyone else has had. Westpac say they won’t comment on what they do with customer information because it’s an ‘internal policy’.

Again, you may think Nicky Hager deserved the treatment he’s had. You may not agree with him in general.

But remember that whatever treatment’s been handed out to him can be handed out to anyone with the ‘wrong’ connections, the ‘wrong’ information, and the ‘wrong’ intentions.

Privacy increasingly seems to be only your right if you are on the ‘right’ side.

In case anyone has missed the point, Dita DeBoni’s column is a direct warning to the citizens of this country.

When the security apparatus of the State – in this case the New Zealand Police – can access private and confidential details without a search warrant, then we have reached a truly frightening stage in our nation’s developing history.

The only place where police have had such unimpeded access to the private information of citizens has been – up until now – the province of military junta-controlled regimes; Soviet-style “people’s republics”; and various banana republic dictatorships. Think of Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, Papa “Doc” Duvalier – it’s a very long list. (And I haven’t even gone through the entire 20th century!)

Though New Zealand is not *yet* a One Party state – which is only one national “crisis away, before a “state of emergency” is declared – we have taken a further step toward the nightmarish society envisioned by C.K. Stead in “Smith’s Dream/Sleeping Dogs“. (That nice man, Prime Minister Volkner, had such a horrid time caused by those nasty terrorists. Why couldn’t they just all get a proper job?)

It might well be that the release of Nicky Hager’s private information to the police was an inadvertent slip-up by an ill-informed Westpac employee. Or it could be that there is now a nascent culture developing in New Zealand of fawning, unquestioning obeisance to Authority.

In a space of thirtythree years, we have gone from massive street protests and struggle against an increasingly authoritarian National government led by Robert Mudoon – to meekly accepting increasing State surveillance and seizure powers.

And in just seven years, we have gone from this;

– to this;

Yes, in just under a decade, National has taken New Zealand from complaining about reduced shower flows and ecologically-sound lightbulbs (!!) being “Nanny Statish” – to mass surveillance of the population; increased powers for spy agencies and police; forcing telco’s to keep client information for the State; and warrantless search and seizures.

In my youth, I visited my parents’ homeland whilst it was still under communist rule, and within the ‘sphere of influence’ of the Kremlin.

I can say, with a fair degree of confidence tinged with sadness, that New Zealand has moved closer to being a South Pacific replica of a former Soviet ‘satellite’ state. Only the Gulags are yet to be built. (Our Australian cuzzies have them already at Christmas Island and elsewhere.)

I can think of no other way to see this country. We have spy agencies monitoring New Zealanders; spying on our Pacific neighbours and trading partners; and harassing journalists who are critical of this government’s actions. Phil Goff’s political career was almost destroyed by National’s abuse of the powers of the SIS.

What else do you call a country where police can gain access to a citizen’s private information – without arresting him – and with no warrant? The term, I believe, is Police State.

If National Party supporters are “relaxed” about this, then I have this piece of advice for them; remember that governments change. Sooner or later, Labour will be in office.

And the Labour Prime Minister, with perhaps a few scores to settle, will have all the powers of search, surveillance, warrantless seizures, that John Key has gradually amassed since 2008.

Laws like these;

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (aka Customs and Excise Amendment Act 2014)

There may even be a new Minister for the GCSB and SIS. Perhaps Phil Goff. Or David Cunliffe.

Then the shoe will be on the other foot (the Left one). At that point, National and it’s supporters may start to regret the encroachment of State power into our lives.

I believe light bulbs and shower nozzles will be the least of their worries.

.

References

TVNZ: Dita DeBoni – Privacy right is not a right when not ‘right’

National Party: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state

NBR: Ferguson confirms ‘mass surveillance’, Key reiterates GCSB acting lawfully

NZ Herald: Warning as second part of spy bill passes

NBR: ‘Undemocratic’ Search and Surveillance Bill made law

Fairfax media: Spy bill passes into law amid wide criticism

Newstalk ZB: PM won’t confirm Pacific spying

Fairfax: Private data deserves greater respect than Westpac showed Nicky Hager

Techdirt: New Zealand Spy Agency Deleted Evidence About Its Illegal Spying On Kim Dotcom

Yahoo News: English didn’t know GCSB spied illegally

NZ Herald: GCSB report: 88 cases of possible illegal spying uncovered

Other Bloggers

Kiwipolitico: Confronting executive branch excess

Kiwipolitico: Some questions about the Stephenson case

No Right Turn: An unwarranted demand for information

No Right Turn: The banality of intrusion

The Daily Blog: Police plotted to arrest and spy on Nicky Hager – the most interesting parts of 1 year on from Dirty Politics

The Daily Blog: What mainstream haven’t mentioned about Westpac corporate narking on Nicky Hager

The Daily Blog: News release on behalf of Nicky Hager concerning privacy breach by Westpac

The Daily Blog: Why what the Police are doing to Nicky Hager is so extraordinary

The Standard: Technology and the law – and going after Hager

The Standard: Angry at Westpac

The Standard: Dirty Politics was in the public interest

The Standard: “A creeping authoritarianism from the current government”

Previous related blogposts

Parliamentary spies and games – some bad numbers

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

It is 1984. It is ALWAYS 1984

National’s disdain for democracy and dissent

Those who love Big Brother

Welcome to new glorious People’s Republic of New Zealand

From the Horses mouth

Today’s irony was brought to you courtesy of former ACT MP and Govt Minister, Rodney Hide

Weekend Revelations #2 – Michelle Boag has a whinge

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 November 2015.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: GCSB, Nicky Hager, police, privacy, SIS, spying

The Mendacity of Ms Una Jagose, Spymaster

9 October 2015 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Intro.

Background.

15 September 2014

Despite being labelled a “fizzer” by some National-aligned critics, and a media expecting ‘fireworks’, the “Moment of Truth” event presented information that raised the public’s awareness of state surveillance and data collection in this country;

…that the Government Communications Security Bureau was involved in the mass surveillance of New Zealand citizens, and that the National government and Prime Minister John Key were aware of it […] NSA leaker Edward Snowden accused Prime Minister John Key of misleading the public over the country’s spying activities…

One mass-surveillance system referred to was XKEYSCORE, which investigative-journalists on The Intercept described as;

The NSA’s XKEYSCORE program, first revealed by The Guardian, sweeps up countless people’s Internet searches, emails, documents, usernames and passwords, and other private communications. XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers.

These servers store “full-take data” at the collection sites — meaning that they captured all of the traffic collected — and, as of 2009, stored content for 3 to 5 days and metadata for 30 to 45 days. NSA documents indicate that tens of billions of records are stored in its database. “It is a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world,” an NSA briefing on XKEYSCORE says. “At field sites, XKEYSCORE can run on multiple computers that gives it the ability to scale in both processing power and storage.”

Our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, has consistently refused to confirm of deny whether or not the GCSB uses XKEYSCORE. Equally critically, Key refused to confirm or deny whether or not the spy bureau obtains information from the American NSA, which does employ XKEYSCORE.

15 March 2015

However, seven months ago, investigative journalists Nicky Hager and Ryan Gallagher, working with the Herald on Sunday, released a damning report which presented clear evidence that the New Zealand government was indeed collecting private information using XKEYSCORE;

For the first time, New Zealanders can learn about people their government has targeted as part of its role in Five Eyes, a surveillance alliance that includes New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

The secret document, dated from January 2013, shows some of the names and other search terms that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) entered into the internet spying system XKeyscore . XKeyscore is run by the US National Security Agency and is used to analyse vast amounts of email, internet browsing sessions and online chats that are intercepted from some 150 different locations worldwide.

GCSB has gained access to XKeyscore through its partnership in Five Eyes, and contributes data to the system that is swept up in bulk from a surveillance base in Waihopai Valley.

John Key’s assurances that New Zealanders are not under mass surveillance, nor mass data-collection being used, is also questionable after a recent TV3 The Nation’s interview with the GCSB’s acting director, Una Jagose.

As well as XKEYSCORE, there is another programme that Key confirmed was being used by the GCSB – “Cortex”;

“We’ve never undertaken mass surveillance, we have got a programme called Cortex running over specific entities providing cyber protection.”

However, there are indications that Cortex is not merely the benign “cyber protection system” as has been made out.

It may well be a cleverly disguised ‘Trojan Horse’ – a possibility recently raised by fellow blogger, Martyn Bradbury and others.

The Present.

On 3 October, the GCSB’s acting director, Una Jagose, was interviewed by Patrick Gower.

Image acknowledgement: TV3 – The Nation

Whether by clever persistance or sheer dumb luck, Gower managed to elicit some intriguing responses from Jagose on the ‘Cortex’ programme.

Gower first asked who is under attack by “cyber threats from overseas”. Jagose responded;

“We focus our attention on New Zealand companies that are holders of information, assets of importance to New Zealand, so nationally important infrastructure companies and some key government departments. So, yes, we’re definitely seeing attacks there.”

Gower then pointedly asked; “So what you’re talking about – banks, telecom companies, those kinds of things?”

At this point, Jagose became less than forthcoming;

“Well, those parts of the infrastructure, the nationally important, those sorts of things. We actually don’t talk about who they are or specifically what types of organisations they are, because revealing that also reveals to an adversary where we might have our best and richest sources of data that they might be interested.”

Which is interesting, as foreign cyber attackers would already be aware who their targets are in this country. Jagose would not be revealing anything that foreign cyber attackers would not already know.

The only people kept in the dark – us.

As Gower continued to interview Jagose, it soon became apparent why she was reticent in revealing who was being targetted by so-called “foreign cyber attacks”.

Gower followed up by asking a natural-enough question; “who is trying to get this information? Is it individual criminal organisations, or is it countries?”

Jagose replied;

“…At best it’s criminals. It’s often foreign-sourced sophisticated malware that we’re seeing…

[…]

… it could be industrial espionage. It could be IP theft. It could be just having an in to important sovereign communications or discussions by government agencies, policies, positions governments might take, positions companies might take.”

Then, she made this startling admission;

“We don’t spend too much of our time trying to track down who did that, because, in fact, we want to use our time and our technology protecting networks and systems.”

Pardon?!

“We don’t spend too much of our time trying to track down who did that…”

Jagose repeated the statement in the next response she gave to Gower – though the TV3 reporter did not appear to comprehend the implications of her candid admission;

“Well, again, I say we don’t spend our energy looking at— attribution is really difficult. It is apparently a very technical and difficult thing to work out where did that come from, who’s doing it and why are they doing it? We spend our energy on defence.”

In effect, the GCSB’s “new role” has moved from intelligence gathering (ie, finding out who is supposedly – and I use that word deliberately – launching “cyber attacks” against us) – to one of being a State-funded-and-operated, quasi-Norton Anti-Virus agency?

Is this credible?

When did National decide to go into business to offer a rival service to MacAfee, AVG, Norton, et al?

That is not a rhetorical question, as National released two Cabinet Minutes related to “Project Cortex”. The first, labelled “1”, is dated 28 July 2014, the other (labelled “4”) is simply dated “2014” (though Key refers to the document as having been written in July 2014). Both outlined a business case for “Cortex”, including costings and assessment by Treasury – though all dollar figures had been redacted.

Cabinet Minute 4 takes great pains to point out;

2. The proposal takes into account the amended GCSB Act and necessary warranting procedures, and will in all cases operate with the consent of the participating entities.

In fact, Cabinet Minute 4 refers to “consent” from organisations and entities no less than eight times. Someone was at pains to make the point to whoever was going to read the document. Which would be unusual, as normally Cabinet Minutes are almost never made public.

Cabinet Minute 4 also makes several curious statements;

27. There will be no ‘mass surveillance’, and data will be accessed by GCSB only with the consent of owners of relevant networks or systems.

By coincidence, a press statement from John Key dated 15 September, 2014 – two months after Cabinet Minute 4 was supposedly written shortly after a Cabinet Meeting held that year – quoted Dear Leader as stating;

“I can assure New Zealanders that there is not, and never has been, mass surveillance by the GCSB.

“In stark contrast, the Bureau actually operates a sound, individually-based form of cyber protection only to entities which legally consent to it,” Mr Key says.

Paragraph 27 of that Cabinet Minute – supposedly written before the “Moment of Truth” on 15 September 2014 – sounds remarkably similar to Key’s 15 September 2015 press statement – a year after “Moment of Truth”.

It almost seems as if Cabinet Minute 4 was prepared at some later date, knowing that it would be eventually be released to the media and the public to counter the “Moment of Truth”. Which is ridiculous… the author(s) of that Minute could not have known – in advance – that the Minute would eventually be released by National. That would mean that the document was written well after the Cabinet meeting, and was re-worded to take into account revelations by Edward Snowden on 15 September last year.

That would mean the document was a fraud.

Ridiculous… right?

Interestingly, Cabinet Minute 4 also makes this curious statement at two different points;

7. GCSB is not proposing to procure or develop bespoke systems. No material level of software development is required of GCSB or a second party. The proposal is to procure then integrate capability components already available and tested over several years [redacted],

41. GCSB is not proposing to procure or develop bespoke systems. No material level of software development is required of GCSB or a second party. The proposal is to procure then integrate capability components already available and tested, [redacted]. The hardware and software components range from widely available commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems, through to single-source COTS, to systems only available through government-to-government agreement. All of the technology has been in use for some time, [redacted].

As The Intercept website asked,

The Cortex documents [Cabinet Minutes] refer to the use of technology that “has been in use for some time.” What technology is this?

What is the Cabinet Minute referring to when it states; “ components already available and tested over several years ” and “capability components already available and tested“?

“Available” where?

“Tested” by whom?

“In use for some time” by who?

The document throws up more questions than answers. Unfortunately, despite Key’s claims to the contrary, this is not an open and transparent government that readily shares information.

So which “consenting organisations” will use Cortex? And will clients and staff be made aware that their electronic communications may be intercepted by the GCSB?

Cabinet Minute 4 states;

18. The foundation of the preferred option is a malware detection service delivered to [redacted] consenting organisations. [redacted] of the [redacted] organisations will be government agencies. The other [redacted] will be drawn from a list of approximately [redacted] organisations of national importance developed by DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office (NCPO) and approved by ODESC on 7 June 2013. The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure.

However, we do not know who those “consenting organisations” are. It is a secret. Remember Jagose’s first response to Gower during the 3 October interview;

“We actually don’t talk about who they are or specifically what types of organisations they are, because revealing that also reveals to an adversary where we might have our best and richest sources of data that they might be interested.”

Note that Paragraph 18 above refers to the “National Cyber Policy Office” (NCPO). The NCPO is an arm of the Security and Intelligence Group. That Group, in turn, is part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC);

Note the address of the “National Cyber Policy Office“: Pipitea House, 1-15 Pipitea Street, Thorndon (arrow 1). Which happens to be the same building housing the GCSB.

Then note something called “Connect Smart” (arrow 2), which is described as;

Connect Smart is a new Government-led initiative, delivered in partnership with the private and NGO sectors, to raise awareness of cyber security issues and promote ways to protect yourself, your business and others online.

“Connect Smart” sounds remarkably like the supposedly top-secret list described by Cabinet Minute 4 as, “organisations of national importance developed by DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office (NCPO) and … The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure”.

“Connect Smart” was launched on 16 June 2014 (just prior to Cabinet Minute 1 supposedly written on 28 July 2014), by Communications and Information Technology Minister, Amy Adams.

Adams warned about;

“The common thread that unites cyber threats is their capacity to cause damage; ranging in scale from the distress experienced by an individual who has had their identity hacked, to the economic damage that sustained industrial cyber espionage can cause to a country.”

She further stated;

“A range of departments are involved – from those at the front end, such as Police, Department of Internal Affairs, and the National Cyber Security Centre, through to those grappling with the policy implications of cyber security, led by the National Cyber Policy Office.

This year, the NCPO will be working on a number of major policy initiatives:

A refreshed and comprehensive national Cyber Security Strategy to make sure we are coordinated and resourced across government to address this challenge;
A targeted inter-agency cybercrime plan;
An assessment of the economic balance of cyberspace for New Zealand;
Testing the Government’s response to a significant cyber incident; and
Consideration of the options for a national cyber mechanism to improve the coordination, effectiveness and efficiency of the Government’s response to cyber incidents. “

It sounds as if Adams is referring to… Cortex?

So who are the “Connect Smart” Partners? They are;

Hewlett Packard
Spark NZ (formerly Telecom)
ASB
Facebook
ANZ
Datacom
Microsoft
Dimension Data
Marsh
International Underwriting Agencies Ltd
Internal Affairs
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Vodaphone
Aura Information
Mako Networks
Ministry for Primary Industries
RSA
Symantec
NZ Post
Inland Revenue
EQC
Nga Pu Waea
NCSC
North Harbour Business Association
RealMe
Mastercard
NZ Police
Transpower
University of Auckland
Yahoo NZ
ZX Security
Google
IPENZ Engineers NZ
ACC
Air New Zealand
British High Commission
Consumer
Financial Markets Authority
Institute of IT Professionals
Internet NZ
Kiwibank
KPMG
Massey University
Privacy Commissioner
PWC
Senior Net
VISA
Dept of Conservation
Xero
1st Tuesday
Journey Church
Duo
Digital Journey
Institute of Directors
University of Waikato
Unitech
Scots College
Greater East Tamaki Business Association
Commission for Financial Literacy
Delta Insurance
Neighbourhood Support
Westpac
Ministry of Education
BNZ
Waikator District Health Board
NZ Foreign Affairs & Trade
Waitemata District Health Board
Business NZ
Crimestoppers
MPA
Longitude 174
University of Canterbury
VMWare
Trademe
Insurance Council of NZ
Weta Digital
High Tech Youth Network
AJ Park
Noel Leeming
Our School
NZ Transport Agency
NZ Bankers Association
University of Otago
Gallagher
Chartered Accountants
AIG
ARC Solutions
Secure Safe
Safestack
Paymark
Quantum Security
NZ Customs Service
Room 9
NZ Trade & Enterprise
SSS IT Security Specialists
Statistics NZ
NZ Health IT
Crombie Lockwood
Snap
Lock It
Connect
Computercare
Meredith Connell
Network Box
TUANZ
Stay Smart Online
Sovereign
NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS)
Eagle Technology
Plan B
Naki Cloud
Pentech
Liverton Technology Group
Price Me
Mila XAG
Need A Nerd
KD Consult
Senate SHJ

(I have listed all companies, in case the website suddenly disappears, or that particular page is taken down.)

“The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure” – the DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office’s description of their supposedly secret list of clients.

The “Connect Smart” list certainly meets that criteria – including the Security Intelligence Service. And Amy Adams’ 16 June speech appears to confirm it.

So do the staff and clients of these companies, organisations, and government departments know that they are most likely part of the Cortex programme run by the GCSB?

Are they aware that their electronic communications may be collected and stored by the GCSB?

Are they aware their communications could be read, as Jagose confirmed to Patrick Gower;

Gower: What does the analyst do if there’s a personal email there?

Jagose: Well, the analyst is looking at it not for its content but for what the email and the traffic tells us about the fingerprint or the adverse attack that is occurring. So that’s what they do with it.

Gower: But the analyst can see the content if they want to?

Jagose: Yes.

Gower then asked the all-important question;

Gower: Yeah, but I would be told, would I, by the company that they’ve now put Cortex on?

Jagose: You’ll be told that your communications will be screened or may be screened for cyber defence purposes.

Gower: Right. How do you get told that?

Jagose: In terms and conditions of use, for example.

I scrutinised the Terms and Conditions of Spark NZ – one of the country’s largest companies that deals with thousands of employees, contractors, and customers. Is there any reference to Cortex with Spark’s Terms and Conditions?

Answer: no.

There is, however, this brief reference to handing over information to the government;

The Operator and Spark Digital reserve the right to disclose end user information that it believes, in good faith, is appropriate or necessary to take precautions against liability; to protect the Operator and Spark Digital and others from fraudulent, abusive, predatory, or unlawful uses or activity; to investigate and defend against any third party claims or allegations; to assist government enforcement agencies; or to protect the security or integrity of the Platform.

That paragraph is at the end of the Terms and Conditions statement, at the bottom of the page. How many people will have waded through the entire document to spot it? Who even bothers to read Terms and Conditions?

And by itself, just how informative is the brief statement, “to assist government enforcement agencies“?

It is a meaningless statement.

One cannot escape the conclusion that Una Jagose has attempted a ‘snow job’ of New Zealanders. If so, it remains to be seen how effective she has been.

Meanwhile, it is unclear what the true purpose of the ‘Cortex’ programme really is. Can we trust anything that we are told about it by National?

Answer: no.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.

Addendum1

Def: “Bespoke”

Of goods, especially clothing) made to order.

(of a computer program) written or adapted for a specific user or purpose.

Addendum 2

Questions posed by The Intercept on XKEYSCORE and Cortex;

We are currently researching a number of other stories related to GCSB, and I expect we are going to shine more light on the agency’s activities in this sphere in the near future. In the meantime, Key and the GCSB face a mounting number of important questions that they have until now managed to dodge.

Here’s a few for starters:

Why did you inform the public that the GCSB Amendment Bill would not lead to an expansion of powers when at the same time you were planning the Speargun mass surveillance initiative?

Why was phase one of the Speargun project completed if it was, as Prime Minister Key has claimed, something that never made it past the “business case”?

Why were New Zealanders not informed about the Cortex project until the government’s hand was forced by disclosures based on documents from Snowden?

How much data is collected on a daily basis by GCSB under the Cortex project, and how does the agency ensure this data does not “incidentally” include the content or metadata of citizens’ communications?

The Cortex documents refer to the use of technology that “has been in use for some time.” What technology is this?

Is any information collected by GCSB under Cortex — or any other program that accesses internet data — shared with the NSA and/or other Five Eyes agencies through systems such as XKEYSCORE?

Does GCSB have access to XKEYSCORE and, if so, for how long has this been the case?

Does GCSB use its access to internet data streams — under initiatives like Cortex or similar — to launch active/offensive cyber operations that involve hacking computer systems to collect information?
When will you declassify documents detailing the Speargun project and showing that it was not completed?

.

References

Radio NZ: ‘Moment of Truth’ on world stage

The Intercept: Xkeyscore – NSA’s Google for the World’s private communications

Radio NZ: Key silent on spy programme

NZ Herald on Sunday: Revealed – The names NZ targeted using NSA’s XKeyscore system

TV3 The Nation: Interview – GCSB Acting Director Una Jagose

TV3 The Nation: Interview – GCSB Acting Director Una Jagose (transcript)

Beehive: Cabinet Minute 1

Beehive: Cabinet Minute 4

Beehive: PM responds to incorrect surveillance claims

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: National Cyber Policy Office

Connect Smart: Partners

Spark NZ: Terms and Conditions

Other bloggers

No Right Turn: The GCSB’s PR campaign

Public Address: Crowdsourcing Project Cortex

The Daily Blog: Martyn Bradbury – GCSB begin marketing campaign to con NZers

The Daily Blog: Chris Trotter – Revolution In Pipitea Street: The Listener celebrates the Baby-Boomer takeover of the SIS and the GCSB

Previous related blogposts

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

The “man ban”; animal testing; GCSB Bill; and compulsory miltary training

Nigella Lawson, GCSB, Christchurch re-build, and Malcolm Burgess on Campbell Live

The Fletcher Affair – a warning for Labour

TV3 – Campbell Live’s GCSB Public Vote

John Key’s “pinch of salt” style of telling the truth

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 October 2015.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Connect Smart, Cortex, Edward Snowden, Five Eyes, GCSB, Moment of Truth, National Cyber Policy Office, NCPO, TV3's 'The Nation', Una Jagose, Waihopai Spy Base

National Minister refers to PM as “Wild Eyed” Right-Winger!

23 May 2015 Frank Macskasy 2 comments

It’s not often that Ministers of this increasingly desperate and inept government make a statement that is unerringly accurate – but on Friday 15 May, on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, GCSB Minister, Chris Finlayson did just that. Minister Finlayson painted a picture of Dear Leader John Key that every critic of this government would agree with.

Interviewing the Minister, Guyon Espiner asked;

@1.38:

Espiner: “Ok, when this become public in the NZ Herald,

one comment was that this was a back-ward looking

anti-American bunch of plonkers. That’s what these guys

are, they’re not interested in the future of New Zealand,

or making it stronger, they’re just opposed to the

government. Do you agree with that view?”

Finlayson: “Oh look you always get that kind of wild

eyed stuff from the right, just as you get the —“[drowned out by cross-talk]

Espiner: “Well that was from John Key I was quoting.

That was John Key, your prime minister who said that.”

Finlayson: “And you get the wild apocalyptic comment on

the Left. The fact of the matter is that there are lot of

people who are —” [drowned out by cross-talk]

Full interview:

(Alternative Link)

Finlayson put his foot in it. The tendency of National ministers to react badly to any form of criticism has become more deeply ingrained the longer they are in power. They are unable to listen to alternative views, treating all criticism as a verdict of failure.

A prime example of this kind of aggressive defensiveness was highlighted by the “wild apocalyptic” abuse meted out by John Key to visiting US journalist, Glenn Greenwald;

“There is no mass surveillance of New Zealanders by GCSB, and there never has been mass surveillance of New Zealanders by GCSB. Now in the fullness of time we’ll respond to Dotcom’s little henchman [Glenn Greenwald], but mark my words, he’s wrong… Lets understand what’s going on here; Kim Dotcom is paying Glenn Greenwald to come to New Zealand a week before an election and he’s trying to influence New Zealanders.” – John Key, 13 September 2014

“Dotcom’s little henchman is wrong. I’m probably not going to jump in front of what information he’s got. It’s up to the henchman to go and deliver that information I suppose, but mark my words, he’s wrong. I’m right and I’ll prove I’m right.”– John Key, 13 September 2014

“This is what happens when you hack in to illegal information, when you wander down to New Zealand six days before an election trying to do Dotcom’s bidding – what happens is you get half the story.” – John Key, 14 September 2014

“People got really wound up about me calling him Dotcom’s little henchman. I would have a modicum of respect for the guy if he had the guts to turn up here six months before the election, or six months after. If this loser [Glenn Greenwald] is going to come to town and try and tell me, five days before an election, staying at the Dotcom mansion with all the Dotcom people and being paid by Dotcom, that he’s doing anything other than Dotcom’s bidding – please don’t insult me with that.” – John Key, 15 September 2014

Previous comments by John Key to Nickey Hager, Jon Stephenson, and others who dare critique this government is indicative of the Right’s sensitivity to dissent.

Which also happens to highlight Key’s sheer hypocrisy earlier this year when he had the gall to defend freedom of speech and the right of the media to question;

“The targeting of journalists going about their daily work is an attack on the fourth estate and the democratic principles of freedom of speech and expression, which must be strongly condemned.” – John Key, 8 January 2015

Indeed, Mr Key.

Perhaps condemning “targeting of journalists going about their daily work” and on “the democratic principles of freedom of speech and expression” would sound more credible if we started closer to home? And by ministers of this government?

Otherwise, Mr Key begins to sound like “wild eyed stuff from the right“, making “wild apocalyptic comment[s]”, to his own Ministers.

The truth, as always, slips out.

.

Postscript1

Previous instances of critics coming under sustained public attack by this government:

July, 2009

Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers

Personal WINZ details released to the media by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, to discredit both women after they criticised National for canning the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to pay her way through University).

May, 2011

Jon Stephenson, journalist
John Key derides Stephenson’s research into NZ activities in Afghanistan: “I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”

September, 2011

Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
John Key dismisses Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan: “I don’t have time to read fiction,” quipped the Prime Minister, adding that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1300 footnotes to referencing documentation.)

October, 2011

Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
Criticised John Key on Radio NZ. Subsequently banned/ “uninvited” from returning to Radio NZ as a panellist for the Afternoons with Jim Mora segment.

November, 2011

Robyn Malcolm, actor
Criticises the John Key led National government for it’s failures at a Green Party campaign launch, and is, in turn, vilified by the ‘NZ Herald’, and by one-time National Party aspiring-candidate, Cameron Brewer.

November, 2011

Bradley Ambrose, journalist/photographer
Investigated by police after complaint laid by the Prime Minister, over the “Teapot Tape” affair. Ambrose investigated and interviewed by Police. Media office raided. Property seized. Eventually, no charges laid. Government considered seeking costs of $13,669.45 from Ambrose – but eventually decided not to.

March 2012

ACC Claimant, Bronwyn’s Pullar’s personal details are leaked to the media and to a right wing blogger, who has been given her full files, emails, etc. ACC Minister, Judith Collins, and her office are implicated.

November 2012

Dr Mike Joy, environmentalist, scientist, academic. Attacked by both John Key and right wing “media relations/publicist”, Mark Unsworth, for daring to tell the public the truth about New Zealand’s polluted waterways. On 21 November, Unsworth sent a vicious email to Dr Joy that showed the state of mind of Unsworth to be bordering on unhinged.

March, 2013

Annette Sykes, lawyer, activist, President of Mana Party

When Annette Sykes criticised the appointment of sportswoman Susan Devoy to the role of Race Relations Commissioner, Minister Judith Collins responded with “Annette Sykes is a stupid person”.

May, 2014

Katie Bradford, Parliamentary Press Gallery, and TV1 journalist. Judith Collins makes allegations to a TV3 journalist, that Ms Bradford asked the Minister to intervene on behalf of her (Bradford’s) husband to join the police force. This is refuted by Ms Bradford as untrue. Collins later apologises.

September, 2014

John Key refers to to visiting US journalist, Glenn Greenwald, as Kim “Dotcom’s little henchman” and a “loser”.

References

Radio NZ: Morning Report – GCSB Minister responds to Greens claims

Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald

TV3 News: Key hits back at Greenwald’s claims of mass surveillance

The Guardian: New Zealand PM deceiving public over spying claims, says Glenn Greenwald

NZ Herald: Kiwis’ data lodged with NSA – Greenwald

John Key: New Zealand condemns Paris shooting

Previous related blogposts

When spin doctors go bad

State Media Bans Dissident!

Taking responsibility, National-style

Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)

A Question to Hugh Rennie, Counsel for the NZDF

Why a Four Year Parliamentary Term is not a Good Idea – Part Rua

“One law for all” – except MPs

Hypocrisy – thy name be National

The slow disintegration of a government; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 18 May 2015.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Chris Finlayson, dissent, GCSB, Inspector General GCSB

Today’s irony was brought to you courtesy of former ACT MP and Govt Minister, Rodney Hide

1 May 2015 Frank Macskasy 8 comments

Either Rodney Hide is taking the piss, or Karma has well and truly caught up with one of the National Government’s previous political flunkies;

In case the story mysteriously disappears, here is the full text, from the NZ Herald;

The state apparently has me under covert investigation.

It began two weeks ago. My Christchurch friends and colleagues were served, some at home, some at work. They were summonsed by a senior insolvency officer who explained they could be apprehended should they refuse. Such notices are a detention, an arrest without charge.

The guys are motor mechanics, engineers and motor engineers.

They turn up the following Wednesday as ordered, each at separate times. The deputy official assignee swears their oath.

They are interrogated by private investigators from a firm called InDepth Forensics, Hamilton.

I have the recordings.

On Thursday I email and ring the PI firm. “Why are you investigating me?” They hang up.

I email and leave messages for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment manager Mandy McDonald.

She won’t return my calls.

On Friday I go to the MBIE office in Christchurch. The boss can’t answer my questions: she doesn’t know what’s happening. She says she will speak to her solicitor and get back to me. She doesn’t.

I ring Minister Steven Joyce’s office. I make no progress.

I return to MBIE’s office on Monday. I’m refused an appointment. I’m told the deputy official assignee “only administered the oath”. But the deputy official assignee signed the recording as “interviewer”. I’m asked to leave. I refuse.

I wait quietly in the foyer for 2 hours.

Joyce’s staffer emails: But because the “Official Assignee [is] an independent body, and also under Hon [Paul] Goldsmith’s responsibilities, I do not think I can assist you further.”

Goldsmith is in Paris explaining how he’s making “it easier for businesses to increase productivity and innovate”.

I ring the Institute of Private Investigators. Useless. I email the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority. Ditto.

I complain to the Privacy Commissioner. I don’t hear back.

I provide a two-page summary for local MP Nicky Wagner. She rings. Finally someone is taking my complaint seriously.

On Tuesday I drop in a letter to the Christchurch MBIE. Now there’s security. The guard tells me he’s there to see his girlfriend. I tease him.

Keith’s still there an hour later. He admits he has been called because of me. He wants to know if I will be back.

Tuesday night. Wagner must have kicked butt. Mandy McDonald sends a clearly hurried email. She assures me I am not under investigation. It’s taken nearly a week.

But why the questioning under the detention powers?

The next day I get a letter from another MBIE staffer warning me that reporting the content of their examinations of my friends and colleagues would render me liable to a year in prison plus a $5000 fine. But, according to the email from McDonald, I’m reporting a non-investigation.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, Rodders. That’s what John Banks kept telling us. That’s what John Key kept telling us. So obviously, the extension to the powers of the GCSB, SIS, and other government departments – which was supported by ACT – should be a non-issue, right?

Really, Rodney, you’ve been part of the growth of the Surveillance State in this country and now you complain that you’re being surveilled?

Really?

Well, my little cherubic, Right Wing mate, you oughtn’t. It was inevitable really. After all, in the early days of the USSR, the nascent totalitarian State’s security arm (Cheka/NKVD/KGB) devoured many of the high-ranking Communist Party officials. They fell foul to their own pernicious State power.

Welcome to reality.

When Dear Leader’s security thugs throw you in jail for whatever transgression you’ve incurred against the State, remember to remind your cell-mates that you were partially responsible for the following laws increasing the power of the State;

Search and Surveillance Act 2012

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

Eventually, it all catches up with those in power – an intimate lesson Rodney has learned.

I bet he never thought it would happen to him?

Karma. I love that gal.

References

NZ Herald: Rodney Hide – Why am I under investigation?

Additional

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

Parliament: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

Previous related blogposts

Citizen A: Kim Dotcom/GCSB special with Chris Trotter & Phoebe Fletcher

Nigella Lawson, GCSB, Christchurch re-build, and Malcolm Burgess on Campbell Live

Dear Leader, GCSB, and Kiwis in Wonderland (Part Toru)

The “man ban”; animal testing; GCSB Bill; and compulsory miltary training

David Cunliffe announces Labour Govt will repeal GCSB Bill!! **Updated**

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

TV3 – Campbell Live’s GCSB Public Vote

A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part tahi

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 April 2015.

= fs =

Categories: On A Lighter Note, The Body Politic Tags: ACT Party, Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, GCSB, Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, Rodney Hide, Search and Surveillance Act 2012, SIS, surveillance state, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Latest Horizon Poll – Who paid for survey questions on mass surveillance/data collection?

23 March 2015 Frank Macskasy 2 comments

A recent Horizon poll had the usual mix of political and business-oriented questions. It is usually fairly easy to get a rough idea who commissioned certain questions in a poll. In this Horizon poll, received on 19 March, it seems fairly obvious that a powerco and peer-to-peer/crowd-equity -under commissioned two sets of questions.

The last set of questions, though, related to the topical issue of mass surveillance and data collection.

Note the bottom of page 20. Someone is very keen to know how the public feel about John Key’s “management of the issue of the mass interception of personal data”.

Note the questions on the page below;

It will be interesting to know what the results are. And even more interesting to know who commissioned the questions relating to mass surveillance/data collection?

.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: GCSB, Horizon Poll, surveillance state

Letter to the editor – Time to milk a tragedy again, by our Dear Leader

17 December 2014 Frank Macskasy 4 comments

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Dec 16, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The Editor
Dominion Post

.

Once again, predictably, our esteemed Prime Minister has exploited a tragic situation for his own political ends.

I refer to his comments on Radio NZ, on 16 December, where he referred to the lone gunman in Sydney as the product of an “ISIS outreach programme”.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any ISIS or any other organisational involvement. Thus far, the gunman appears to have been a narcissistic, deranged individual facing criminal sex-related charges in Australia.

Then Key justified the increase of SIS/GCSB surveillance powers by referencing this lone gunman.

Though good gun-control laws help, no amount of legislation will ever fully curb determined, lone nutters, as David Gray in Aramoana in 1990 showed. Or Martin Bryant in Port Arthur in 1996.

If this is his justification for turning our country into a Police surveillance state, then we have been grievously misled.Shame on Key for exploiting this tragedy and mis-stating the facts for political opportunity.

I would have thought he had learnt his lesson from his Pike River Mine involvement and broken promises.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

References

Radio NZ: A tragedy for the Australian families – Key

= fs =

Categories: Global, The Body Politic Tags: Aramoana massacre, australia, GCSB, ISIS, john Key promises, Port Arthur massacre, SIS, surveillance state, Sydney siege, terrorism

Letter to the editor – From a warm beach in Hawaii, With Love

7 October 2014 Frank Macskasy 1 comment

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 7, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
Sunday Star Times

.

John Key has delegated responsibility and oversight of the SIS and GCSB to Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson saying,

“Mr Finlayson will operate within the framework I set and exercise ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB, including approval of warrants.”

The last person supposedly responsible for “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB” seemed to be “on holiday in Hawaii” when sensitive information was released by the SIS to a certain right wing blogger – or unaware that one of our spy agencies was illegally spying on New Zealand citizens.

It is reassuring to know that someone, at last, in this government will be “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB”

That will be a welcome change.

That will leave Mr Key with plenty of time to fulfill his role as Minister for Tourism – from a warm beach in Hawaii.

-Frank Macskasy

[name & address supplied]

References

NZ Herald: John Key unveils new Cabinet line-up

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Chris Finlayson, Dear Leader John Key, GCSB, Hawaii, SIS

Letters to the Editor – Spies, Lies, Five Eyes, and other matters on a Sunday afternoon

19 September 2014 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Sharing a few thoughts and observations with newspaper editors around the country…

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the Editor

.

The Editor

Sunday Star Times

.

Our esteemed Prime Minister refers to visiting Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, as “Dotcom’s little henchman”.

Mr Key knows a thing about “henchmen”. Rightwing bloggers Cameron Slater and David Farrar spring to mind.

After all, Key admitted to being in regular contact with Slater, and ex-Minister Judith Collins fed the extremist blogger personal details of civil servants (and god knows who else).

What was that about “henchmen”, Mr Key?

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor

The Listener

.

John Key claims that visiting internationally acclaimed, pulitizer-prize winning, investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, is on Kim Dotcom’s payroll;

“Let’s understand what’s going on here. Kim Dotcom is paying Glenn Greenwald to come to New Zealand a week before an election and he’s trying to influence New Zealanders…”

Aside from the fact that Mr Greenwald rejects Key’s allegations outright – how would the Prime Minister know?

Has he or the GCSB been spying on Mr Greenwald?

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Otago Daily Times <odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
Otago Daily Times

.

It’s disappointing to see the number of National Party supporters who so casually dismiss the growing power of the State to spy on us; collect data on our communications; and – as Jason Ede, Judith Collins, and Paula Bennett showed – to mis-use our personal information for political ends.

For many John Key supporters, the phrase “nothing to hide” rolls easily of their keyboards as they post their naive views on various on-line fora.

The irony is that many of them then sign off with an anonymous pseudonym.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Waikato Times <editor@waikatotimes.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor

Waikato Times

.

Our esteemed Prime Minister has employed the threat of “terrorists” in the past to frighten New Zealanders into accepting increased GCSB surveillance on our society.

The latest fear-threat is “cyber attacks” from off-shore, saying,

“Last weekend, Spark was brought to its knees because some people clicked on malware which brought the network down. Cyber risk is exponentially rising. This is about protecting secrets rather than getting secrets.”

Key has doggedly likened the GCSB to “a Norton anti-virus at a high level”, saying it works against malware.

I have anti-spyware and anti-malware on my computer, and (as far as I know), it’s function does not include spying on my activities, communications, movements, or contacts with other people.

Since when does malware protection demand surveillance over the entire population?

And why does he think we are gullible enough to believe it?

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: The Press <letters@press.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
The Press

.

Esteemed Prime Minister, John Key has contemptuosly dismissed pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald’s claims of mass surveillance by the GCSB. He insists,

“There is no mass surveillance of New Zealanders by the GCSB and there never has been. Mr Dotcom’s little henchman will be proven to be incorrect because he is incorrect.”

Are we to take Mr Key at his solemn word?

Is this the same solemn word where he recently dismissed another investigative journalist’s claims;

“Mr Hager’s making claims he can’t back up and they’re not factually correct.”

And,

“At the end of the day we’re five weeks out from an election, people can see that Nicky Hager’s made a whole lot of things up in his book, (they) can see he can’t back a lot of them up. People can see this is a smear campaign by Nicky Hager.”

Seventeen days after the launch of “Dirty Politics” , Judith Collins was forced to resign from her ministerial portfolios.

Whenever an investigative journalist uncovers something unpleasant about Mr Key’s government it always seems to be the Prime Minister who comes off second best.

Why is that, I wonder?

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Southland Times <editor@stl.co.nz>
date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor

Southland Times

.

Tribal politics appears to be a prime motivating reason for National supporters to be casually dismissive of concerns that the GCSB has been conducting mass surveillance and our esteemed Prime Minister has been less than upfront with the New Zealand public.

Key’s dogged dismissiveness of investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, reminds me of the PM’s equally dogged dismissiveness of Nickey Hager “Dirty Politics” expose, where Key categorically stated,

“Mr Hager’s making claims he can’t back up and they’re not factually correct… At the end of the day we’re five weeks out from an election, people can see that Nicky Hager’s made a whole lot of things up in his book, (they) can see he can’t back a lot of them up. People can see this is a smear campaign by Nicky Hager.”

And yet, Hager’s expose resulted in the sacking/resignation of one minister and a current Inquiry into how the SIS released sensitive information to rightwing blogger and National Party activist, Cameron Slater.

In case National supporters are still dismissive of Glenn Greenwald’s revelations, they might care to ponder the fact that governments change. The same surveillance used by a National-led government can be conducted equally by a left-wing government against it’s right-wing opponants.

I suspect that may motivate National supporters to suddenly sit up and take a closer interest in these matters.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

That should give Dear Leader’s media spin doctors a few issues to deal with.

References

Radio NZ: Revelations could cause ‘diplomatic blowback’

NZ Herald: He’s Dotcom’s little henchman: PM attacks journalist’s spy claims

NZ Herald: The GCSB does not conduct mass surveillance on Kiwis – Key

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 September 2014

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Cameron Slater, Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Dotcom, pseudonyms

September 15 RNZ interviews – and then the Moment of Truth

18 September 2014 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

Acknowledgement: Emmerson

15 September – Leading up to the Moment of Truth public meeting this evening, these Radio NZ interviews are worth listening to;

Alt link

And finally, the Moment of Truth…

(Scroll forward to where it begins at 21′ 54″)

Additional

Radio NZ: Key & Dotcom – the story so far (Time Line)

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 September 2014

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Dotcom, Moment of Truth, NSA, surveillance state, XKeyscore

Political joke of the week…

16 September 2014 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

NEWSFLASH: Dotcom email almost certainly a fake, says handwriting expert hired by the National party!

= fs =

Categories: On A Lighter Note, The Body Politic Tags: Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Hollywood, Kim Dotcom, spying

Letter to the Editor – Key makes up any old sh*t, again

16 September 2014 Frank Macskasy 2 comments

From a Fairfax story on 13 September, about visiting investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald,

It was time to take Key to task on his lying BS…

.

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Sat, Sep 13, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor

Dominion Post

.

Key recently alleged;

“Lets understand what’s going on here; Kim Dotcom is paying Glenn Greenwald to come to New Zealand a week before an election and he’s trying to influence New Zealanders. The problem is, he’s got the story wrong.”

Only problem (for Key) is that Greenwald has rejected the PM’s claims, and stated categorically that he has not been paid by Kim Dotcom, nor anyone else. If he has, Key has not provided any evidence to support his allegations.

Once again, our esteemed prime Minister has been loose with the facts and appears to be making stuff up as he goes along, hoping no one will notice.

It is hard to understand why Key expects people to believe him when he throws unsubstantiated allegations all over the place.

On 13 August, when Nicky Hager released his expose on Dirty Politics surrounding the Beehive Ninth Floor, Cameron Slater, Judith Collins, and other sundry dubious characters, Key casually dismissed it;

“Mr Hager’s making claims he can’t back up and they’re not factually correct.”

Seventeen day later, Judith Collins was forced to resign her ministerial portfolios.

If anyone is “making claims they can’t back up and are not factually correct”, it appears to be the Prime Minister.

-Frank Macskasy

.

[address and phone number supplied]

References

Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Dotcom

Dom Post journos get it wrong – again!

13 September 2014 Frank Macskasy 4 comments

Yet again, journalists who are experienced, professional, and supposedly well-informed have made a mistake about the pre-amended GCSB Bill. From the above article written by Tracy Watkins, Stacey Kirk, and Michael Fox stated,

The Government changed the law in the wake of revelations the GCSB may have spied illegally on more than 80 New Zealanders.

The law at that time supposedly prohibited them from doing so.

“Supposedly”?!

One. More. Time.

The GCSB Act 2003 was very specific in restricting the Bureau from spying on New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. Section 14 of the Act stated with unambiguous, crystal clarity;

14Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

The law at the time could not have been any clearer. (Unless it was written in big red crayons!)

Key’s Official Party Line that the GCSB Act 2003 was “vague” or “flawed” was accepted almost without question by many journos too lazy to actually get on the internet and look up the law (as it stood at the time) for themselves.

There were exceptions though.

Audrey Young from the NZ Herald knew the Act very well, and said so in no uncertain terms;

The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders.

But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.

Another journo was Tracy Watkins from the Dominion Post;

“The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.”

The same Tracy Watkins who put her name to the more recent story above, “Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald” which suggested “the law at that time supposedly prohibited them from doing so”.

I can only assume Ms Watkins did not read that part of the story before putting her name to it.

Sloppy work.

References

Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald

Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

NZ Herald: Spying on NZ: More power to watch us

Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM

Previous related blogposts

The Growth of State Power; mass surveillance; and it’s supporters

Audrey Young on the GCSB

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Audrey Young, GCSB, GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, privacy, Tracy Watkins

Nothing to hide, eh?

13 September 2014 Frank Macskasy Leave a comment

From today’s Fairfax report on the visit of world-renowned investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, and Key’s abuse thrown at the man, there were 712 comments posted, before Fairfax closed posting.

A few of the comments were by John Key’s fanboys, like this muppet;

Who noticed something laughable about Mark000007‘s post?

Check out his first two sentences,

“I really wouldn’t care if the government is ‘spying’ on me, I’ve got nothing to hide”

Nothing to hide, eh?

I wonder if that’s why he uses a pseudonym?

References

Fairfax media: Key dismisses GCSB spying claims from Greenwald

Previous related blogposts

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: GCSB, privacy, pseudonyms

Letter to the Editor – Our PM insults a world-reknowned investigative journalist

13 September 2014 Frank Macskasy 6 comments

Our esteemed Dear Leader must be in full panic mode when he insults a visiting investigative journalist of the calibre of Glenn Greenwald;

Key went on to say,

“When you hack into people’s information and you steal it, sometimes you get part of the information but not all of the information.

Now, in the fullness of time we’ll respond to Dotcom’s little henchman, but mark my words, he’s wrong. There never has been mass surveillance and there is no mass surveillance.”

Which prompted me to pen this letter to the New Zealand Herald;

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Sat, Sep 13, 2014
subject: Letter to the Editor

.

The editor

NZ Herald

.

John Key is becoming more Muldoonesque with each erupting scandal. His latest attack on visiting American investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, is simply beyond the pale.

Key says,“Now, in the fullness of time we’ll respond to Dotcom’s little henchman, but mark my words, he’s wrong. There never has been mass surveillance and there is no mass surveillance.”

Since when in a visiting journalist anybody’s “henchman”?

This is not the first time Key has abused investigative journalists who have uncovered unpleasant activities by this current government.

In May 2011,John Key derided Jon Stephenson’s research into NZ secret activities in Afghanistan by attacking the journalists’ reputation and character;

“I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”

In September 2011, Key attacked another investigative journalist, Nicky Hager, for his expose on New Zealand’s covert military activities, in conjunction with the CIA, in Afghanistan.

John Key dismissed Hager’s book;“I don’t have time to read fiction,”

That “fiction” Key referred to contained 1,300 footnotes of referencing documentation in Hager’s book.

In August this year, Key again attacked Nicky Hager, for his expose in dirty dealings between Key’s office, a right-wing blogger, Judith Collins, and other right-wing extremists. Key was again dismissive;

“Mr Hager’s making claims he can’t back up and they’re not factually correct.”

And,
“At the end of the day we’re five weeks out from an election, people can see that Nicky Hager’s made a whole lot of things up in his book, (they) can see he can’t back a lot of them up. People can see this is a smear campaign by Nicky Hager.”

If Hager’s book was “factually incorrect” and little more than a “smear campaign” – one has to ask the PM what prompted Judith Collins to resign 17 days after the launch of “Dirty Politics” and all it revealed?

John Key’s track record of transparency with the public has left much to be desired and attacking journalists who dare speak the truth says more about the PM’s character than the targets of his unwarranted attacks.

Thus far, Jon Stephenson, Nicky Hager, and Glenn Greenwald have a better track record at telling the truth than Mr Key.

-Frank Macskasy

[address & phone number supplied]

Every time Key behaves like this, whether it be with Nicky Hager, Jon Stephenson, or now Glenn Greenwald, he is abandoning his elevated position of a non-political Prime Minister and becoming just another politician in the eyes of the public.

Key will lose popularity.

National will lose support in the polls.

And National will lose on 20 September.

More importantly – is this the kind of sleazy government that Winston Peters wants to associate with after 20 September? Because there is much, much more to come out.

References

Radio NZ: PM says Greenwald’s claims are wrong

NZ Herald: PM attacks journalist over SAS torture claims

NZ City: John Key trashes Nicky Hager’s book

Radio NZ: Prime Minister stands by minister and staff

Previous related blogposts

The slow disintegration of a government; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5…

Other blogs

The Standard: Greenwald on the GCSB

The Paepae: John Key working the phones “at length”

The Daily Blog: Where does Key get off abusing a Pulitzer prize winning Journalist like Glenn Greenwald when he calls a far right hate speech blogger regularly?

The Daily Blog: Dear mainstream media – regarding Key’s promise to resign if GCSB exposed doing mass surveillance

Special mention

The Jackal: John Key Naked

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Glenn Greenwald, Jon Stephenson, Nicky Hager, surveillance state

When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar

19 August 2014 Frank Macskasy 2 comments

As the sh*t storm over Nickey Hager’s book, Dirty Politics engulfs the National Party; Key’s teflon coating is being scoured away by the nova-like searing heat of public glare; Cameron Slater is shown to have been the weapon-of-choice for the government’s dirty tricks campaigns; Judith Collins is embroiled (again) is claims of mis-using her ministerial position; SIS information was leaked to Slater; etc, we have David Farrar – blogger for the National Party – now making this incredible (and somewhat incredibly stupid) public post on Facebook;

To quote in cut-and-pastable text;

“For reasons I’ll make clear tomorrow, but should not be hard to guess, I need to do a security check of my home and office. I need to check for bugs, implanted software and the like.

Does anyone know of a good but reasonably priced firm that can both check for physical bugs, but also check laptops, computers, phones etc for any electronic nasties?

I’m rather sad and angry that I have to do this, but it seems it is necessary.” – David Farrar, Facebook, 14 August 2014

W.T.F?!?!

Farrar hasn’t spelt it out, but I’m guessing that he’s not pointing the finger at the GCSB/SIS/Police/NSA for needing to do a “security check of [his] home and office” and needing “to check for bugs, implanted software and the like”?

I’m also guessing that he’s making a snide reference to alleging that Nicky Hager or an accomplice has bugged his home?

And I’m also guessing that Farrar, the National Party’s blogger-of-second-choice, is hoping that the media will pick up on this – an extremely clumsy attempt at deflection – by running a counter story/smear against Hager.

Pathetic, Mr Farrar, absolutely pathetic. Also throw in desperation mixed with a bit of juvenile dramatics.

Is this your best defense after being found out?

Anyway, Farrar is a fine one to be complaining bitterly about being “bugged” (even if we were to take him even minutely seriously). After all, Farrar supported the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill which, which finally passed on 21 August 2013, against massive public opposition;

“These are good changes. I had talked on TV about one area of concern being the proposed ability for the Govt to add other agencies onto the list of agencies the GCSB can assist with interceptions. Having Parliament, not the Government, make any changes is desirable.

Despite these significant changes, Labour appears to still be voting with the Greens against the bill. Ironic as it was a Labour Government that caused this problem with their 2003 law change.

Dunne and Banks have shown how you can have a constructive role in improving legislation.” – Kiwiblog, 24 July 2013

Or this;

“What I think is important is that the GCSB can’t just help the SIS with any old request. That their assistance is limited to cases where the SIS has gained a warrant due to security concerns. Let’s look at the SIS Act for the criteria. That:

the interception or seizure or electronic tracking to be authorised by the proposed warrant is necessary for the detection of activities prejudicial to security

And what does security mean:

the protection of New Zealand from acts of espionage, sabotage, and subversion, whether or not they are directed from or intended to be committed within New Zealand:

(b)the identification of foreign capabilities, intentions, or activities within or relating to New Zealand that impact on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:

(c)the protection of New Zealand from activities within or relating to New Zealand that—

(i)are influenced by any foreign organisation or any foreign person; and

(ii)are clandestine or deceptive, or threaten the safety of any person; and

(iii)impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:

(d)the prevention of any terrorist act and of any activity relating to the carrying out or facilitating of any terrorist act

So it is important to recall that the 88 cases cited in the Kitteridge report, all had warrants authorised under the SIS Act because they met one or more of the criteria above. The issue is not that they should not have legally had their communications intercepted – but whether the right agency did the interception.

If you do not amend the law, then there will be no reduction in the number of NZers who have interception warrants issued against them. The only difference is the SIS will do the interception directly, rather than use the GCSB.” –Kiwiblog, 15 April 2013

And this,

“Yet Labour and Greens are opposed to the GCSB doing what it did under Helen Clark – assist the dSIS. The problem is the law passed by Clark does not make it clear if the clause saying it will not monitor NZers over-rides the clause saying it can assist other agencies such as the SIS.

She rejected that the Government Security Communications Bureau routinely spied on New Zealanders as that was “not part of their remit”.

And still will not be, despite the hysteria. In fact the bill will provide greater transparency than in the past over what work the GCSB does do.” – Kiwiblog, 4 August, 2013

Plus this bit,

“What is being proposed is that the GCSB can continue to do the actual interception on their behalf as they have the expertise. If the bill fails, it won’t mean a single less domestic interception. It will just mean interception infrastructure will be duplicated and exist in multiple agencies, rather than one.” – Kiwiblog, 25 June 2013

And,

“The Inspector-General has said that basically on balance of probabilities he does not believe their actions have been outside the law – but again, that it is not absolutely clear.

A recent review of compliance at the GCSB by Rebecca Kitteridge found difficulties of interpretation in the GCSB Act. Following the Prime Minister receiving that report, cases involving 88 New Zealanders were referred to the Inspector-General. All were cases where the GCSB had been asked to help another agency.

Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General found that all of the cases were based on serious issues including potential weapons of mass destruction development, people smuggling, foreign espionage in New Zealand and drug smuggling.

Nothing to worry about then!

15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.

It is worth noting that this is over around a 10 – 12 year period, so we are not talking a huge amount of activity.

Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General is of the view that the interpretation of “communication of a person” is one of the issues where there are uncertainties in the interpretation of the GCSB Act, when it comes to metadata.

An example of metadata is the information on a telephone bill such as the time and duration of a phone call, but not the content of the conversation or identification of the people using the phone.

Now it is not good enough that interceptions happened when there was uncertainty over the law. The operations of the spy agencies must be beyond doubt legally. Hence the major changes being made to GCSB to ensure no repeat. But it is worth putting this into context, especially compared to the current scandals in the US with Associated Press and Fox news journalists having their communications intercepted to try and find out their sources on security issues.” –Kiwiblog, 21 may 2013

So after cheerleading National’s law-change to allow the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders, Farrar is now bitching that someone *might have* spied on him?!

Not for the first time, I remind certain right-wing politicians and apparatchiks that Karma is an implacable goddess, and not to be trifled with.

But if this is a cunning plan to deflect attention away from this crisis, that Farrar is trying to dangle in front of the media – well, it’s a damn, piss-poor amateurish attempt.

Farrar and his Tory mates need to understand one simple thing; this is a small country. Like Cunliffe and his ill-conceived plan for a Trust fund during his Party leadership campaign, secrets do not stay secrets for long.

If there is one thing that the media loves in this heightened commercial, competitive, ratings/advertisement-driven environment: it’s a sensational headline.

The National Party dirty-tricks team have generated many of those headlines. Now it’s their turn.

The only ‘bug’ that Farrar needs to concerned about is a slater.

References

Scoop media: Nicky Hager book launched today

Facebook: David Farrar

Kiwiblog: GCSB Changes

Kiwiblog: Labour and GCSB

Kiwiblog: Clark on GCSB

Kiwiblog: What if the GCSB bill doesn’t pass?

Previous related blogposts

Those who love Big Brother

When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater

The Mendacities of Mr Key #4: “Trolls & bottom-feeders”

The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources

Whalers go gunning for Whaleoil

Whaleoil Goes Porno

Other Blogs

The Standard: Cameron Slater dirties John Key (or vice versa?)

The Dim Post: Dirty politics

Public Address: Dirty Politics

Bowalley Road: Thank God For Nicky Hager!Gordon Campbell on Nicky Hager’s new book

Pundit: A crazy day in dirty ol’ NZ politics

The Jackal: National’s death by association

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 August 2014

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: David Farrar, Dirty Politics, GCSB, GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, National's dirty tricks, Nicky Hager

The Mendacities of Mr Key #7: What is Dear Leader actually saying here?

17 August 2014 Frank Macskasy 3 comments

Dear Leader Key has continually refuted knowing of Kim Dotcom until one day prior to the police raid on his Coatsville mansion on 20 January 2012, as he confirmed in Parliament eight months later,

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that he first heard of Kim Dotcom on 19 January 2012, the day before the police raids on Dotcom’s residence?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

He has been quizzed numerous times on this point., and each time he has given the same response; he only became aware of the impending Hollywood-style raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion the day prior to the event.

Now check out his response in this Youtube vid, posted on 25 November, 2012 – ten months after the raid – from a TVNZ Q+A interview;

Notice how Key frames his response to Kim Dotcom’s answers to the late Paul Holmes;

Holmes: “Do you you believe John Key has lied?”

Kim Dotcom: “Yes.”

Holmes: “Do you have evidence of this?”

Kim Dotcom: “Yes.”

Key responded;

“Ok, so the answer to both those questions is ‘no’. Um, he’s completely and factually incorrect. So to say that someone lies means that you have to deliberately mislead people. And there’s no way I have done that. My office has gone through every piece of correspondence my electoral office has had. Every piece of correspondence that I’ve had that could be anyway related to this area. Any meetings I have had. What my ministries have done that I’m responsible for. There is absolutely nothing there.”

Key did not reply with an outright “no”.

Instead Key referred to searches of his electoral office; correspondences, records of meeting, and ministeries.

He wasn’t searching his memory for previous knowledge of activities relating to Kim Dotcom.

He was searching files to ensure there was no evidence of previous awareness of activities relating to Kim Dotcom.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/misinformation?

Verdict: deflection/outright lie

References

Facebook Colmar Brunton: Who do you believe – Kim Dotcom or John Key?

TV3: Who knew what about Kim Dotcom

Scoop media: Key, Dotcom and Hollywood

Parliament: Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Actions and Prime Minister’s Statements

Youtube: A ‘Grumpy’ John Key On Q & A To Answer To Allegations That He Lied About Knowing Of Kim Dotcom

Additional

Youtube: How to spot a liar #2

Previous related blogposts

The Mendacities of Mr Key #6: When apologising to a victim of violence is not considered “serious”

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 August 2014

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: Dear Leader lies through his teeth, GCSB, Kim Dotcom

Online Voting – no longer a viable option post-2013

15 June 2014 Frank Macskasy 6 comments

There has been public debate recently on the prospect of employing online voting for local body and general elections. The suggestion is made to counter falling voting numbers, as the 2011 general election recorded the lowest voter turn-out (74.21%) since 1887.

But a recent ‘tweet’ by civil liberties advocate; professional techer; and co-founder of the blog, Tech Liberty, made this pertinent point about the wisdom of online voting;

Thomas Beagle has raised an important point.

The safety and inviolability of privacy in our voting system is integral to democracy. If there were to be even a hint or whiff that this privacy had been violated – the damage it would cause our fragile democratic system might not be repairable for generations.

We have already had assault after assault on our freedoms and privacy – especially since 2008. A few examples in a Roll of Dishonour include;

Ministerial mis-use of citizen’s private data for political purposes
And again, by the same Minister
Illegal spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau
A Prime Minister who readily admits to regular contact with a sleazy, far-right blogger
Said sleazy right-wing blogger has no hesitation in using private information to denigrate individuals
Said sleazy right-wing blogger has close contact with other National ministers
Leaks to right wing bloggers that serve ministerial agendas
Several pieces of legislation passed, increasing State surveillance powers

For a party that advocates getting the State our of lives, National has been working over-time to snoop, pry, mis-use private information; leak information for political advantage; and to increase the surveillance powers of government agencies.

As Keith Holyoake, a former National Prime Minister said in 1959;

‘The National Party believes in a property-owning democracy. … We believe in the maximum degree of personal freedom and the maximum degree of individual choice for our people. We believe in the least interference necessary with individual rights, and the least possible degree of state interference.’

One suspects that the spirit of Holyoake would be in utter despair at what his party has become since he uttered those words.

Since National has been in office, we have had legislation enacted that has vastly increased State surveillance powers in a way few thought possible in our once fiercely privacy-protective society;

Search and Surveillance Act 2012

On 1 October 2012, a new law came into effect,

“The Search and Surveillance Act, which was passed through Parliament in March, extends production and examination orders to the police and legalises some forms of surveillance.

It will let more government agencies carry out surveillance operations, allows judges to determine whether journalists can protect their sources, and changes the right to silence.”

Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

On 21 August 2013,

“… John Key introduced the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, which would extend the powers of the GCSB to enable it to collect information from all New Zealanders for the use of other government departments including the New Zealand Police, Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service.Under the bill, the GCSB will have three main functions. Firstly, it will continue to collect foreign intelligence but it will not be allowed to spy on New Zealanders. Secondly, it will give the GCSB a legal mandate to assist the police, Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service. Thirdly, it will extend the GCSB’s cyber-security functions to encompass protecting private-sector cyber systems.^“

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

“The technical Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Bill will compel telecommunication firms to assist intelligence agencies in intercepting and decrypting phone calls, texts and emails. ..

[…]

The bill has two parts – interception and network security. It replaces other legislation and is a partner to the Government Communications Security Bureau bill, passed earlier this year.

It compels telecommunications firms and online service providers to give “surveillance agencies” (the police, Security and Intelligence Service (SIS) and the GCSB) access to their clients’ communications.”

The rise of State power and increasing surveillance is simply unprecedented in our history.

We now have at least four state agencies that can pry into our lives; the Customs, Police, SIS, and GCSB. Add WINZ, the IRD, Immigration, et al to the list, and it becomes apparent that this country has become a Westernised, consumer-driven, version of the former East Germany.

We even have our own Stasi-like para-military that raids villages out in the back-blocks, away from prying eyes of the public and media;

Armed par-military police, during the 2007 Urewera raid.

In five years we have become a quasi-police state.

In April 2013, the Kitteridge Report revealed that up to eightyeight New Zealanders had been illegally spied on by the GCSB.

A month later, in May 2013, not only was no one held to account and not prosecuted;

“…it could not be established that any GCSB staff had the necessary criminal intent to illegally intercept private communications in this case, and GCSB staff cannot be criminally liable”.

– but a subsequent whitewash determined;

“The Inspector-General formed a view that there have been no breaches, although the law is unclear and the Inspector-General recommends amending it,” GCSB Director Ian Fletcher said in a statement.

Fletcher, Key, and other apologist for the GCSB’s law-breaking werelying. The law was not “unclear”. In fact, it was crystal clear that the Bureau could not spy on NZ citizens and permanent residents;

14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

The Dominion Post’s Tracy Watkins got it right when she wrote;

“The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.”

Amidst the increased surveillance by the various State agencies; the illegal mis-use of information; ministerial leaks to sociopathic bloggers like Cameron Slater; and previous illegal spying by the GCSB – the prospect of on-line voting is no longer feasible.

It is simply not safe to entrust the sanctity of the privacy of voting to an internet that is now more like an open postcard to the Police, SIS, GCSB, and god-knows-who-else.

We would have absolutely no way of knowing who was accessing our voting.

And if a State agency was caught illegally accessing New Zealanders’ voting records?

The Prime Minister would simply dismiss any such illegality with this kind of sophistry;

“In addition, the Act governing the [online voting process] is not fit for purpose and probably never has been.

It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known.”

So why should we trust a man who has condoned previous acts of illegal state spying on individuals?

He’s done it before.

References

Election Results: Party Votes and Turnout by Electorate

NZ History: Elizabeth Yates

Blog: Tech Liberty

Twitter: Thomas Beagle

Fairfax media: Paula Bennett accused of Muldoon-style bullying

TV3: Bennett accused of breaching privacy again

NZ Herald: GCSB report: 88 cases of possible illegal spying uncovered

Radio NZ: Key confessions over Whale Oil

Whaleoil: Know your Wharfies – Cecil Walker

Metro: Her Majesty

NZ Herald: Probe into email leak welcome, says Collins

Te Ara – Encyclopedia of NZ: National Party – Page 4 – Party principles

Legislation: Search and Surveillance Act 2012

NZ Herald: New police search and surveillance law in force

Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Wikipedia: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Legislation: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Fairfax media: Spying bill passes into law

TVNZ News: Spy agency could have illegally spied on dozens of Kiwis

Zdnet: NZ spy agency staff cleared in illegal spying probe

TVNZ News: GCSB cleared of illegal spying, though law ‘unclear’

Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 – Para 14

Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM

Additional

NZ Herald: GCSB spying illegal, but no charges laid

Other blogs

The Standard: Tape of ACC-Pullar meeting raises more questions

The Jackal: Judith Collins defamation fail

Tech Liberty: Submission – Telecommunications (Interception Capability & Security) Bill

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 June 2014.

= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: GCSB, Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, privacy, Search and Surveillance Act 2012, SIS, Stasi, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013, Urewera raids

National-ACT supporters – not the brightest lights in the night sky, eh?

30 May 2014 Frank Macskasy 3 comments

Reading some comments on the Campbell Live Facebook page, soon after the investigative story on the GCSB was aired on 20 May, I was struck by the sheer lack of informed comment by some right-wing Facebook users. Take for example, this statement was a user identifying himself as “Jack Peters“;

(Note: the profile appears to be fictitious and nothing more than a right-wing troll. According to his Profile, “Jack Peters” has ‘Liked” the Green Party, a somewhat clumsy attempt to smear the Greens by association with his blatant trolling.)

“Jack Peters” made a reference to “the GCSB was created under Helen’s [Clark’s] watch“.

This reminded me immediately of a story back in 2012, which linked right-wing/conservative/racist beliefs with low intelligence;

Following up on this story last year, Goal Auzeen Saedi (Ph.D), wrote in Psychology Today,

Hodson and Busseri (2012) found in a correlational study that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. They also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.

What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it for the Huffington Post as follows, “ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”

Why do I raise this point?

Because right-wing troll “Jack Peters” slammed critics of the Key government by stating that “the GCSB was created under Helen’s [Clark’s] watch“.

In fact, the GCSB was created by then-National Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon, in 1977, as the GCSB itself pointed out on it’s own website,

Created by a National government.

Powers increased by a National government.

Misinformed beliefs from National supporters.

Who then vote in the next National Government.

That, people, is what is commonly known as a vicious circle.

***

To view the Campbell Live story on the GCSB and the murky goings-on behind the scenes, I present a link here (click on the image to take you to the TV3 website);

It is, quite simply, one of the best bits of investigative journalism this blogger has witnessed for some time. Campbell Live and Maori TV’s Native Affairs are simply Must Watch tv.

***

References

Facebook: Campbell Live – Jack Peters

TV3: Key’s meeting with GCSB boss revealed

Facebook: “Jack Peters”

Daily Mail Online: Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

Psychology Today: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

Government Communications Security Bureau: History of the GCSB

TV3: Campbell Live – Key’s meeting with GCSB boss revealed

Previous related blogposts