Hard News: Vision and dumbassery
532 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 Newer→ Last
-
well maybe not an arrow, maybe more like a boomerang
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Another day in the sheltered workshop coming up Paul?
Fuck you. I've banned this, your third account here and that comment says to me that I should have done so much sooner. Don't come back.
-
I'm back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
It's fast looking like a job for the....
New Zealand Harassment Act 1997
Section 3: Meaning of Harassment
…….a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified act
directed against that person on 2 separate occasions within 12
month period (may not be the same person as long as the pattern is
directed against the same person).
Section 4: Meaning of Specified Act
……watching, loitering, preventing, following, making contact
(whether by telephone, correspondence or any other way), giving,
leaving, bringing attention to any offence material, entering,
interfering with property, that would cause a reasonable person to
fear for his/her safety.[from NetSafe ]
or any more recently enacted cyber-bullying laws.Definitely one to tell the police about, as they show serious and escalating anti-social tendencies and bigotries.
Is that PreCrime Unit up and running yet?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
like a boomerang
Dingo!
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
My workmates really loved the impact I kept making.
It must be a barrel of laughs at that carwash
-
I'm glad to be part of this non-abusive group of left wing snobs.
Even though sometimes we slip into abuse, we pretty much always own up to it and apologise.
I wonder whether he'll show his coworkers how low he was prepared to go for fun.
-
What kills me is that he wasn't even very good at being a troll. If he hadn't done such a stupid megaflounce he could have kept baiting everyone for months or years while dancing on the line of acceptability. But no! Bad at arguing AND bad at trolling. Poor guy.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Given a combination of IP(s) from posts and his claims to be a member of our friendly auckland media elite, it wouldn't be too hard to pin down who exactly it is. Although OGH's comments about going back to sports commentary imply he probably already knows.
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
it wouldn’t be too hard to pin down who exactly it is
I for one would love to know. It would be satisfying to troll-bait his den and see if he really enjoys anonymous posters.
-
through the 'ringer'...
Sadly if the trolls win in the shire election
the fallout will be unbearable, if not Orcwood,
it'll be back down into the caves for us...Here's a wee reminder of shelter etiquette:
from boingboing
-
jack starrow, in reply to
Don’t worry your twisted selves. I have no intention of ever evr contacting this site ever ever again. It’s too dmn depressing. And remember, th abuse I’ve received far outweighs ny givn back. Nw ll lnk rms nd hm.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Just like John Key. My word is my bond!
I have no intention of ever ever contacting this site ever ever again
What's that,
3 hours since you said farewell forever,
the first time?Cold turkey is a bitch, isn't it...
Dude needs help.
But what a waste of carbon...
Send in the Worms! -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Send in the Worms!
There is a season, worms, worms, worms
And a time to every purpose under heaven. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
dancing on the line of acceptability
That's still one of my favourite songs of the 80s.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
dancing on the line of acceptability
That’s still one of my favourite songs of the 80s.
But the video! Man, those haircuts ...
-
When our annoying troller named 'jack'
Promised us he'd never come back
Our 'twisted selves' all really knew
He was hitting refresh despite his adieu
To see if anyone had noticed his lack -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
There is a season, worms, worms, worms
It's those early Byrds that reap...
;- ) -
Emma Hart, in reply to
I wonder whether he’ll show his coworkers how low he was prepared to go for fun.
And his kids. Remember that day when he had kids?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Remember that day when he had kids?
Back when I went to school the expression was "having kittens".
-
BenWilson, in reply to
To Ben Wilson for sharing the Internalized Really Complicated Situation in his head as he works out
You know we can't change the government with our ghost votes.
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
You know we can’t change the government with our ghost votes.
Want a chip bro?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
This sits strangely with the cup of tea affair, arranged as PR, in a public place, surrounded by journos but with an angrily claimed expectation of privacy from the PM himself.
Spurred by Russell’s mention of equivocations so I thought I’d come back to this as I didn’t pick up on teapot tapes yesterday. I’ve just been reading up on Stephen Price Andrew Geddis and Stephen Price’s Rebuttal. And the legal principle seems very similar, and is especially interesting now that the charges against Bradley Ambrose have been dropped and he was only issued a warning and that no charges were laid over Dot Com’s illegal spying, both related to intent.
So looking back at the GCSB Bill in order to fix(?) it. Preliminory Prevision 4 (interpretations)(2003-2013):
private communication—
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so
Part (b) here serves no purpose than to undermine rights of privacy. In many situations my communications may be intercepted by private citizens, as was the case with the teapot saga, but this definition cornily implemented under Helen Clark is a regulation for a Government apparatus, and it *could* (that’s the key) be interpreted to mean that if I am in circumstances where I can not *guarantee* interception won’t occur then I lose the right of privacy from the GCSB.
Au Contraire Ms Clark – Enabling the GCSB to distinguish between a New Zealand citizen or resident’s private communication or grotesquely and brazefuckingly public communication like this in no way serves the interests of the New Zealand people. Because communication in and unto itself is and never has been a threat to the security of the democratic (by definition) Government. In no circumstances should New Zealanders’ communication be subject to classification for the express purpose of enabling exploitation by the New Zealand Espionage industry.
And then onto section 16 which deals with the GCSB’s right to intercept communications without a warrant.
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting the private communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
replace with:
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting all communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
And then you can kindly go about your business.
None of this was new in the 2013 law change. though the notable shift in section 16 was that with your new Iphone, the limitation to ‘computers’ was removed.
The most important issue here – and this goes back to the Kim DotCom’s case – is that the police are never going to independently press charges against the GCSB and the ability of the private citizen to detect cases of GCSB interception is next to zero so the openness of “private communication” means it’s exploitable with regards to the greater public (now fully informed of Xkeyscore), contestable by Kim Dotcom (impending civil test case) and beyond the reach of the 88 other New Zealanders whose spying the Kitterige report uncovered.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting all communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
Obvious rejoinder from weasel spy : we didn’t take all the communications, only some of them. Perhaps the word “any” would suit better.
Edit: Or even just "the", for simplicity's sake. Although it leaves up to definition how you determine ownership of a communication - how much do I have to say for it to be considered "my" communication instead of the Australian on the other end? Or is it mine if I only listen?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
That may be right, I’m not lawyer and I left my grammar in 1996 but we need to remove any exploitable loophole for the *circumstance* in which NZer's is collected here because this section deals with interception without a warrant. Hopefully there’s some legal mind in New Zealand who can accomplish that.
I feel like a cup of tea.
WRT to your edit, there are sections in the bill for the disposal of incidentally collected communication. but again if there’s no warrant out on you then they should not be intercepting your communication.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.