Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003’

The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill

23 February 2014 9 comments

.

I lied  get over it!

.

In an on-going series, we will look at the half-truths; mis-representations; omissions; and outright lies, told by Dear Leader John Key.

1. The GCSB Bill

Background

Last year, upon revelations that the GCSB had illegally spied on 88 New Zealand citizens, Key  legitamised that law-breaking by passing the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill into law.

The official governmdent narrative was that the GCSB law was badly flawed; vague; and confusing.

Either in ignorance, or another of his pathetic lies, John Key maintained this fiction,

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.”

Acknowledgement:  John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance

The proposition that the  2003 GCSB Act was “ not fit for purpose and probably never has been” is not supported by reality. In fact, the law was  crystal clear with it’s wording and intent. Section 14 of said Act stated with unambiguous 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.

Source: legislation.govt.nz – Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

Conclusions:

  1. John Key wilfully mis-led the country, and in this blogger’s opinion, lied about the effectiveness of the law.
  2. The actual purpose of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was to legalise the GCSB’s illegal spying activities.
  3. Not only did the Amendment head off potential court action, but it legitamised ongoing spying on all New Zealanders, despite the original intentions of the Act  that this would never happen.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?

Verdict: outright lie.

 

 

.

*

.

References

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

Newstalk ZB: Govt data casts doubt on PM’s job comments

TV3: Key accused of spreading TPPA ‘mistruths’

NZ Herald: Toby Manhire – Chameleon Key delivers a masterstroke

Fairfax media:  Demystifying the GCSB bill: Spies and lies

Previous related blogposts

The real reason for the GCSB Bill

The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right

The GCSB Act – some history…

The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do

The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?

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

.

*

.

John Key is really hoping that dudes like me don't vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Audrey Young, Two Bains, old cars, and… cocoa?!?!

.

Audrey Young on the GCSB…

.

It seems that the Herald’s Audrey Young is the only journalist in the entire country who has not bought into the Official Party Line that the GCSB Act 2003 is “vague” or “flawed”.

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.

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

She’s 100% correct of course.

The law is about as explicit as it can get, without adding crayoned drawings for the terminally dense,

.

Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 - section 3-14

Acknowledgement:  Parliamentary Counsel Office: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

.

Specifically,

Section 14 states,

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

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.

Which makes other journos look lazy or incompetant or both, when they repeat  government rhetoric about “vagueness” or “not fit for purpose” without checking the facts for themselves.

If  Audrey Young can present the facts, then so can every other journalist worth his/her salt.

Lift your game, people.

See previous related blogpost:  The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!

.

A Tale of Two Bains…

.

The latest on the David Bain saga, and the Third Degree report on TV3 which presented damning evidence which showed Robin Bain as the most likely killer of the Bain family,

.

Complaint laid against TV3 over 'biased' Bain report

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Complaint laid against TV3 over ‘biased’ Bain report

.

Funnily enough, I cannot recall this group of obsessive-compulsives laying a similar complaint with TVNZ when Bryan Bruce (who I have much respect for, for his work on child poverty) hosted an episode on the Bain family, where he made it clear that he did not believe Robin Bain committed murder/suicide (see: The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain).

But I guess for these folk, that’s not bias, eh?

Over the years there have been many programmes presenting both sides of the case.

For one side to lay a complaint of “bias” is therefore just a little cheeky. More to the point, it illustrates a kind of growing “cult” mentality for some in the  Pro-Robin/David Did It camp.

They remind me of Creationists and Climate Change Deniers.

Not healthy.

.

Old cars…

.

Something that caught my eye last week was this item in the Dominion Post,

.

Ageing-car-fleet-seen-as-added-danger-on-roads

Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Ageing car fleet seen as added danger on roads

.

It occurs to me that much like trucking figures are being used as indicators of  macro economic growth, our nationwide  car fleet can be an indicator of the economic well-being (or otherwise) of ordinary New Zealanders at street level.

In April, John Key boasted of “strong economic growth” in 2012,

We’re seeing some great results. We achieved 3% economic growth in New Zealand last year, which is higher than most developed countries, and business confidence is increasing. Over the weekend, I met Christine Lagarde from the International Monetary Fund while in China, who said she believes our economic plan is “very stable and it’s also very promising“.”

Acknowledgement: Scoop Media –  John Key: Growing our economy

Yet, if our car fleet is getting old, and fewer are being scrapped, then that indicates that the gains are not trickling down to workers.

According to Statistics NZ,

Annual growth in the labour cost index (LCI) salary and wage rates eased for the third consecutive quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today.

  • In the year to the March 2013 quarter, salary and wage rates (including overtime) increased 1.7%. This includes a 0.4% rise in the March 2013 quarter.

  • Private sector salary and ordinary time wage rates increased 1.8% in the year to the March 2013 quarter.

  • Public sector salary and ordinary time wage rates rose 1.5% in the same period. This rise in the public sector came from increases in central government (up 1.5%) and local government (up 2.1%).

  • In the March 2013 quarter, 13% of all surveyed salary and ordinary time wage rates increased.

  • Of the 13%, the median increase was 2.4%, the lowest in 12 years.

  • 56% of the surveyed sample increased in the year to the March 2013 quarter.

  • Of the 56%, the median increase was 2.9%, the lowest in 21 months.

Acknowledgement: Stats NZ – Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): March 2013 quarter

Note the statistic buried amongst the fifures above: “In the March 2013 quarter, 13% of all surveyed salary and ordinary time wage rates increased“.

The corollary to that is that 87% had no increases to their  salary and ordinary time wages.

Little wonder that our car fleet is aging. People cannot afford to buy new (or even newer second hand) vehicles.

Wherever the wealth is going, it’s not trickling down to the 87%.

So much for Key’s pledges in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, to boost New Zealander’s wages. Add that one to his list of lies; broken promises, and dashed expectations.

.

And we told them the wealth would trickle down

.

The Price of Cocoa…

.

Three cans of cocoa tell an interesting story.

Can A is the oldest, with an expiry date of April 2011. The can measures 110mm (H) x 75mm (D). It contained 200g net dry cocoa powder.

We purchased Can B sometime  in 2011 (?). The expiry date was March 2012, so it’s the second oldest can.

Interestingly, it also contained 200g net dry cocoa powder. However,   whilst the contents remained the same as Can A – the dimensions of the can inexplicably increased; 130mm (H) x 75mm (D). Same diameter as Can A – but 20mm taller. Contents remain the same net weight.

.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

.

A month ago we purchased Can C (expiry date, March 2015). The dimensions of this can is the same as Can B: 130mm (H) x 75mm (D). But this time, the contents decreased from 200 to 190g net dry cocoa powder. Ten grams less.

.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

.

So the up-shot? The can-sizes have gotten bigger – whilst the contents has reduced by 5%.

On 9 June, I emailed Nestle to find out what was going on,

Kia ora,

It has recently come to my attention that two cans of Nestle Baking Cocoa measure 110mm X 75mm, whilst the other measures 130mm x 75mm.

Both contain 200g net  cocoa powder.

The smaller can measuring 110 x 75 has a “best before” date April 2011.

The larger can, 130×75 has a “best before” date March 2012.

It appears that you have increased the SIZE of the can, whilst the contents remain the same.

Is there a reason why the size of the cans  was increased, by 20mm in height?

And can you confirm that the price stayed the same; increased; or reduced; when the change was made from a 110mm height to 130mm height?

(The email was sent prior to purchasing Can C.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I received no reply from Nestle.

Unfortunately, I never retained the receipts for Cans A and B, otherwise I could compare prices. But what’s the bet that the retail price probably increased?

So next time Dear Leader stands before the Press Gallery and claims credit for his government policies resulting in  low inflation or a drop in food prices – just remember; there are lies; damned lies, Prime Ministerial utterings, and statistics.

Mix all four together and you get a “drop in inflation and food costs less”.

And thus it came to pass…

“As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a “categorical pledge” were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.” – George Orwell,  ‘1984’

Doubleplusgood!

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 July 2013.

.

.

= fs =

The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!

.

Continued from: The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?

On TV3 News, this remarkable piece of “journalism”,

.

GCSB

“The law is so opaque it’s open to interpretation.”

Acknowledgement: TV3 News

.

The media in this country are asleep at the wheel. Or drugged. Something.

Their lazy interpretation of events  (when they even bother to cover stories of national importance – see:  Poisoned Legacy: Why is the News Media and the Left so bad at defending our freedoms?) has gone beyond incompetance – and is now firmly in the land of mis-information.

A prime example of various new media was Tova O’Brien on the evening of Wednesday 22 May 2013 on TV3 News. At about 6.5-6.10pm (and later that evening), she covered the on-going story of Paul Neazor’s report into the GCSB.

O’Brien stated matter of factly,

“The GCSB’s been cleared of breaking the law, but only just. The law ‘s so opaque it’s open to interpretation.The Prime Minister won’t won’t release the report into the spying on those eightyeight New Zealanders because it’s top secret, leaving the Opposition to continue to openly interpret it’s findings.”

Rubbish.

Has she or her news team actually read the f*****g Act?!?!

They can’t have. Otherwise they would know the following parts of the law,

.

Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states,

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

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.

Furthermore, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;

Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
  • (1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—

    • (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
      • (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
      • (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
      • (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
    • (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
    • (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
      • (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
      • (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.

Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
  • The purpose of this Part is,—

    • (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
    • (b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.

.

The law surrounding the GCSB is most certainly not “opaque”. It fairly strait forward to anyone with a Primary School grasp of the Queen’s English.

What part of  “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 do journos not understand?!

FFS!! It’s there in black and white!

The only people who’ve been seriously promoting the meme that the Act is somehow “vague” or “unclear” are the Prime Minister – not exactly noted for being 100% honest with the public – and his appointed minion, GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher.

I’ll point out here and now, this isn’t directed at O’Brien. She simply happens to be the most recent case of sloppy journos who have obviously not bothered to look up the relevant act – because otherwise they would be fully aware that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is actually fairly damned clear and unequivocal. I’ll print the relevant section again – In. Big. Red. Letters.

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 most dangerous aspect of this sloppy journalism is that the public will take people like O’Brien, or at TVNZ, or the Dominion Post, or NZ Herald, or any number of radio stations at face value. The public will not be bothered to look up the relevant legislation.

And why should they? Aren’t we entitled to have a degree of faith in the media to know what the heck they’re talking about?

Evidently not.

Each time I catch some lazy journo pushing the government-orchestrated meme that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is “unclear” or “vague” – I’ll be on their sad arses pointing out their laziness and sloppy journalism.

This is serious shit, people. National intends to pass laws allowing even more invasion of our privacy; more spying; and increased State power.

If it was Labour doing this, the MSM would be baying for blood and screaming “nanny state!”. But when it comes to National and it’s right wing agenda, all we get is mis-informed “news” that is not based in any reality I’m familiar with.

Jesus, all I’m asking is that the media get their story straight.

When did that ever become something we have to ask for?

It’s simple. Do your job.

For one last time,

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?!

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 May 2013.

 

.

.

= fs =

The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do.

.

spy vs politician

.

Question: Is the GCSB staffed and managed by people for whom english is a second language?

The reason I ask is that I’ve been hearing over and over again that the Act covering the Government Communications Securitry Bureau (GCSB) is somehow, “vague”.

For example Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said,

It highlights the fact that the legislation for GCSB is probably legally flawed right from the start. The law is likely to need to change.”

This “vagueness” in the law – the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 – is supposedly ‘unclear’ and ‘confusing’, which resulted in the Bureau illegally spying on 88  New Zealander permanent residents and/or citizens (see:  Legality of spy operations called into question).

So how vague is the Act? Specifically Part 3, Section 14,

.

Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 - section 3-14

Acknowledgement:  Parliamentary Counsel Office: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

.

Section 14 states,

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

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.

Let’s dissect that paragraph,
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau …”

That’s fairly clear; we start of  by identifying who is covered by this paragraph,

  •  the Director
  •  employees,
  •  or anyone acting on behalf of the Bureau

“… may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person…”

Again, fairly clear; the people mentioned above cannot “intercept[ing] the communications of a person…”

And the “punch-line”,

“…(not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident”.

So, if you’re a “a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident”, you cannot have your commmunications intercepted by “the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau“.

That’s not only clear, but it’s not even written in ‘legalese’!?

The GCSB believed that they were allowed to spy on behalf of Police (or OFCANZ, to be specific).

But nowhere does the Act allow the GCSB to spy on behalf of the Police. In fact, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;

Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
  • (1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—

    • (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
      • (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
      • (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
      • (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
    • (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
    • (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
      • (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
      • (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.

Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
  • The purpose of this Part is,—

    • (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
    • (b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.

Both paragraphs emphasise over and over again two words; foreign and international.
Coupled with Paragraph 14, it seems to this blogger (and I have zero legal training, except watching old ‘Perry Mason‘ tv programmes in my youth) that the law is fairly clear in,
  1. Meaning
  2. Intent
  3. Wording

Whatever possessed the GCSB to believe that they were allowed to spy on behalf of  OFCANZ?

For the GCSB to claim that they “believed they were allowed to spy on behalf of others such as the Police or SIS” is akin to saying they were allowed to spy on NZ citizens only on every other day, except Sunday. Ridiculous.

This is not about a “vague” or “unworkable” law.

This is about a government department that had minimal oversight and attempted to get away with flouting the law.

What  “oversight’ there was consisted of  an aging, retired judge who works part-time – and an even more apparently  feeble-minded Prime Minister who has severe memory-retention problems and seems to take little interest in what the GCSB is up to.

The GCSB has been caught out in a “matesy” relationship with OFCANZ – due in part to the ‘glamourous’ work being undertaken at the behest of the United States’ FBI, regarding Kim Dotcom. The GCSB simply didn’t want to be left out of the “action”.

This was a bunch of “boys” with high tech gear; truckloads of money; and no one watching what they were getting up to.

No wonder they broke the law in their spying.

They thought they could get away with it.

Why?

Why not. Because, after all,  who watches the Watchmen?

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 May 2013.

.

.

= fs =

The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?

.

GCSB logo

.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, has released his report and three problems arise immediatly.

1.

According to a TV3 report,

“While the Government has been cleared of privacy breaches, the report found the law is “unclear” and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, has recommended improving the Act and the “precision” of their paperwork.”

Acknowledgment: TV3 – GCSB cleared of wrongdoing in NZ cases

That comment above was not from Mr Neazor’s report. It was a paraphrase by GCSB Director Ian Fletcher.
The actual report has not been released – National refuses point-blank to make it public.

The TV3 report continued with this,

“There are two recommendations from the Inspector-General, which are for more precise legislation and some improvement in the precision of the GCSB’s paperwork, the latter relating to the recommendations in the GCSB Compliance Review,” says the GCSB Director Ian Fletcher.

Mr Neazor found that there are particular “uncertainties” surrounding meta-data.

“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,” Mr Fletcher said.

Acknowledgment: IBID

The NZ Herald reported,

“Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor has cleared the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) of illegal spying on New Zealanders.”

The Herald story goes on,

“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.

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.

Acknowledgment: IBID

From the Dominion Post,

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) “arguably” did not break the law in the cases of 88 Kiwis, the spy agencies watchdog says.

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor investigated after an internal review found the foreign spy agency may have have unlawfully spied on New Zealanders.

After the report, the Government moved to change the law to make it legal for the bureau to conduct surveillance on Kiwis on behalf of the police, the Defence Force and the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS).

The bureau has not released Neazor’s findings, instead issuing a statement.

Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – GCSB ‘arguably’ didn’t break law – Neazor

The Dompost report continued with this comment,

“The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear,” the bureau said.

And this,

Neazor had decided “there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear”.

Acknowledgment: IBID

And TVNZ gave us this,

The Government’s spy agency, the GCSB, has been cleared of illegal surveillance in cases involving 88 New Zealanders.

[…]

“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.

“There are two recommendations from the Inspector-General, which are for more precise legislation and some improvement in the precision of the GCSB’s paperwork, the latter relating to the recommendations in the GCSB Compliance Review.”

Acknowledgment: GCSB cleared of illegal spying, though law ‘unclear’

The TVNZ report further stated,

Neazor said the interpretation of this kind of information in the GCSB Act is one of the unclear areas that needs defining.

Acknowledgment: IBID

Every comment on Neazor’s report emanates from the GCSB itself.

At no point was there any commentary from Neazor himself, and nor is his report publicly available. The Dominion Post’s statement that “the Inspector-General is of the view…” is not supported by any facts or evidence that I can see.

Effectively, Neazor has been gagged.

Only John Key and GCSB Director Ian Fletcher are issuing statements – a politician and a spy boss hired by the same politician.

The truly frightening thing? The media is not reporting on this curious anomaly.

National will be passing a law increasing the powers of the GCSB, to permit it to spy on New Zealanders. Until now, the law has been crytal clear on this issue; the GCSB is not permitted to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents.

2.

Another curious aspect to this problem? The constant, repeated meme  that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is somehow ‘vague’ and ‘unclear’.

I present to the reader the relevant parts of the GCSB  Act. Judge for yourself how clear or unclear the law is yourself;

Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states,

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

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.

Furthermore, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;

Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
  • (1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—

    • (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
      • (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
      • (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
      • (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
    • (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
    • (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
      • (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
      • (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.

Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
  • The purpose of this Part is,—

    • (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
    • (b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.

Three questions arise,

1. Is the Act really as ‘unclear’ and ‘vague’ as Ian Fletcher, John Key, and (supposedly) Paul Neazor claim?

2. Has the media checked the relevant legislation?

3. Is there a concerted, surreptitious  effort to depict the GCSB Act as “deficient”, so as to increase it’s surveillance powers?

I leave the reader to come to his/her own conclusions.

But one thing is abundantly clear; we are not being given the full truth on this issue, and the facts surrounding the law regarding the GCSB, are being fudged.

3.

John Key refuses to release Neazor’s report to the public.

Why?

If the report fully vindicates Key and National, then he would be climbing over dead bodies to get it to the media and public attention.

His decision to keep the report secret implies that it contains details which are critical of National and/or Key’s management of this entire affair.

Let’s not forget a recent report from the Auditor General on Key’s dealings with  Skycity. Key claimed that the Auditor General’s report  “cleared him”;

.

Key insists government vindicated

Acknowledgment: MSN News -Key insists government vindicated

.

The Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith, though, was quick to challenge Key’s assertion that he had been “vindicated”,

.

PM contradicted on SkyCity 'vindication'

Acknowledgment: TV3 – PM contradicted on SkyCity ‘vindication’

.

The Prime Minister long ago lost the trust of many New Zealanders. His willingness to bend the truth – and on occassion tell outright lies – means we cannot take anything he says at face value.

If Neazor’s report vindicates National, then Key should have no reason to with-hold it from the public.

The fact that he is keeping it secret suggests that the report contains findings which are  damning of Key, his government, and god knows who else.

There can be no other conclusion.

As for the mainstream media, their lack of deeper probing on this issue is an indictment on the state of investigative journalism (or lack thereof) in the country.

Even something as basic as informing New Zealanders of the content of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 has been lacking. Without this most basic of information, the media is derelict in it’s duty to inform us.

We expect politicians to be lying pricks.

We expect better from our news rooms.

.

*

.

Previous Related blogpost

The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do.

.

.

= fs =