Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom and the GCSB
97 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
And the agency most likely to want to monitor NZ ISP traffic is the SIS, not the GCSB.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
The GCSB is subject to all New Zealand law, although specific exemption provisions are contained in some legislation (for example the Privacy Act, the Public Finance Act, and the Radio Communications Act). Other more general exemptions are contained in the Human Rights Act and the Public Records Act.
Now I guess I need a lawyer. Seems to me the Privacy Act and Public Records Act would be the laws deciding whether or not the GCSB can check somebody’s citizenship or residency status without knocking on their door and politely asking.
The exemption to the Privacy Act is on national security grounds, and relates to releasing information, not gathering it. As we've seen with people trying to use the Privacy Act to find out what information about them is stored with the SIS, sometimes even revealing that there is or isn't a file can be called a risk to national security. So there's an exception to the general principle that people are entitled to know if any organisation holds information about them, and what that information is if it is held. Oh, and the right to correct that information.
And even with that exception the Privacy Act still applies to Immigration and DIA. Just because the intelligence services have some exemptions to the applicability of the Privacy Act doesn't mean anyone they contact to request information is similarly exempted.
The Public Records Act relates to archiving and releasing of work generated by government-funded bodies, and the exemption here is, again, national security. They're not exempted from archiving (there are employees of the National Archives who hold Top Secret security clearances, and there are secured storage facilities for classified archives) but the rules about release don't always apply. Again, this is about information going out not information coming in. Everyone else is not affected by the exemption.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
-
I have a new post, which answers a couple of question people have asked in the comments:
http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/kim-dotcom-questions-and-answers/
-
David Hood, in reply to
Best of British to you breaking into the SSL VPN that I sometimes tunnel across WiFi, to give one example of wireless traffic that you would not call insecure.
Yes. But I would make the distinction between the WiFi access point and the separate encryption of traffic traveling via it (which is why I tend to use a VPN routinely when traveling, but generally do not when I am at home).
In reality, I can think of several easier ways for the GCSB to obtain the sort of information they were apparently asked to obtain than gaining access to the local wireless access point. -
people shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it was the Police who initiated this investigation.
I think you will find it was the FBI that initiated the investigation and you can “Bet your sweet bippy” the police were all over themselves with “Gosh darn it, we’re in the “Big Time” now, wait till I tell Mum”
In other news…
"Man investigated for knowing too much about stuff"
This morning a Mr M. Pool was…."Man under watchful eye of punctuation police for over use of quotation marks"
-
DexterX, in reply to
“Big Time” now, wait till I tell Mum”
and no one tells the PM.
-
Neazor's report is out. The verdict is that changes to immigration law got people confused about Dotcom's actual residence status. The visa he was granted in 2009 wouldn't have qualified him for protection, it seems, but a subsequent law change altered that status.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
It looks a bit like "somebody" was intercepting Kim Dotcom's traffic without a warrant.
That could only happen either with telco collusion, or by cutting a fibre. I'd rather discount the latter. Alarms would have sounded, TDR would have been employed and the unauthorized gear would have been found. Especially since this appears to be a divert, not a passive optical tap.
-
Interesting - the plot thickens. Wonder what the source is inside Gen-I.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
well, well well…
It looks a bit like “somebody” was intercepting Kim Dotcom’s traffic without a warrant.
Not to mention the gamers will be miffed, if that extra latency means the difference between fragging and getting fragged.
-
I find it very hard to believe that the GCSB would put in interception devices inline that show up as hops in a traceroute. That would be a monumentally stupid way to do it.
Far more likely it was just a bit of mess-up in a routing table, which happens. -
Sacha, in reply to
And no surprises here, despite all denial.
and importantly:
Some studio executives raised general intellectual property issues in relation to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.
gee, who would have thought?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That's possible.
But one could also imagine that GCSB were too tight to buy proper gear (like a Netquest or similar lossless monitoring device, fibre taps, etc).
Also, if Dotcom was paying for expensive corporate fibre service (as he was) even Telecom could have sorted out routing issues quite easily.
-
The SIS was involved as well. I wouldn't just assume GCSB were the agency at the centre of this latest piece of publicity.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Also, if Dotcom was paying for expensive corporate fibre service (as he was) even Telecom could have sorted out routing issues quite easily.
You'd think. I don't know what to make of this.
Have sysops been gossiping today?
-
Interesting news http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10886031
I think the activity that various people upthread 8 months ago considered unthinkable *was* actually happening.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Hager's revelations years ago about the extent of Echelon's activities should make this no surprise at all.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Hager’s revelations years ago about the extent of Echelon’s activities should make this no surprise at all.
Indeed. And I seem to remember that a bit before Hager's book Echelon was reported quite extensively in the continental European press, particularly allegations it had actually been used for industrial espionage to give US businesses a head start on their European competitors, but hardly got a mention in the Anglo-Saxon media.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
allegations it had actually been used for industrial espionage to give US businesses a head start on their European competitors
Nah, of course that would never happen. These people a respected professionals, like Financiers and currency traders.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I think the activity that various people upthread 8 months ago considered unthinkable *was* actually happening.
Under non-existent legislation, however. GCSB didn't have any particular legal mandate (or constraint) at the time this testing apparently happened. The case for needing real oversight just keeps on getting stronger and stronger.
-
The up ya Echelon...
I would've liked to be a fly on the wall at the meeting of the 'five eyes' countries Attorney Generals in Auckland recently (though judging by their inherent levels of paranoia, I'm sure it would've been 'bug-free' on all levels).
Last week it was revealed that the US AG, Eric Holder, sanctioned surveillance of a Fox journalist's emails.
The US is running scared from its own people.
They need to learn that if ya don't do bad shit ,
ya don't have to worry about getting caught...Eye Spy, more Cosby, less Culp-ability...
The big chill starts here...
"The president has put together an organization with data the likes of which we’ve never seen before...”...and The Drone Arranger rides off into the sunset...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.