Hard News: Vision and dumbassery
532 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
pompous lecturing
Do your homework.
So, you don't appear to be able to recognise a genuine attempt to engage in reasonably good faith (my second, in case you were keeping score), and your response is, to say the least, unecessarily aggro and combative.
I'm done with you. I look forward to when you step over the line and get banned again. Probably won't take too long.
-
Spin
The Second paragraph, of Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher’s piece New Zealand Launched Mass Surveillance Project While Publicly Denying It states:
Documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show that the government worked in secret to exploit a new internet surveillance law enacted
Exploit, not violate
completion of Speargun was “awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013
Why was there a delay? What benefit did the passing of this law serve in rubber-stamping mass surveillance of New Zealanders?
What significant events occured in July 2013 beyond the release of the full Xkeyscore revelation on the 31st followed by confirmation of its veracity by Former NSA Chief Michael Hadyn just a week later?
Does the NSA really operate a vast database that allows its analysts to sift through millions of records showing nearly everything a user does on the Internet, as was recently reported? Yes, and people should stop worrying and learn to love it, according former NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden.
In that period, July 22nd also saw the release of this story:
Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly said she knew nothing about American surveillance activities in Germany. But documents seen by SPIEGEL show that German intelligence cooperates closely with the NSA
So in a very short period we had evidence and certifiable verification that Xkeystroke existed and – as shown on Snowden’s XKeystroke maps – was located in New Zealand.
And then the bill was very noisily passed
At a Moment of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0\Truth, following Grenwald’s a lengthy and wry rebuttal of Prime Minister Key, Snowden began his presentation by declaring:
"I think one of the key things to get out in the beginning, is to say, when The Prime Minister is making these statements about there is no mass surveillance, peopple can disagree what it’s about and what it’s not, you’re always entitled to your own opinions not your own facts.
[1:03;17]
In a subsequent interview with Glenn Grenwald Russell Brown asked:
So what drives that growth?[of intelligence agencies]
I think that one of the things that has happened is that military structures in general have insulated themselves from the political process. And the kinds of claims that are made to justify their growth, whether putting people in fear of terrorism or other kinds of threats, are very powerful tools. No politician wants to be seen as making the country less safe, or to be vulnerable to claims that they stood in the way of the security of citizens. And these agencies are very good at manipulating public discourse to make sure that they’re continually fed greater authority and greater budgetary support – and just generally allowed to operate without much interference from political officials.
Why was John Key such a focus of Moment of truth? Chancellor Angela Merkel repeatedly denied having had knowledge of NSA activity. What has compelled this adolescent and internationally derided response to the emergence of this story?
What prompted Herald journalist Derek Cheng to claim the day before Moment of Truth, on September 14th, on Twitter:
"John Key told me in private that they are granting Dotcom residency despite pushback from officials about his criminal past.” #rpt
What was Key’s role in the alleged pressure applied by the Government to fastrack Dotcom’s residency application:
In the documents, an SIS agent wrote to another on October 22, 2010, saying: “INZ [Immigration NZ] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO [Nigel Bickle] is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some ‘political pressure’ to process this case."
When comparing the 2003 GCSE Bill with it’s amendment there are numerous changes. Greenwald’s document implies that at least some of the changes must be prerequisite to implementing SPEARGUN. But which?
Promininent criticis of the bill have found faults with the law vis a vis Mass Surveillance, Blogger No Right Turn:
(and again, no warrant on a New Zealander for intelligence purposes is lawful) is a crime. So, GCSB staff trained in XKEYSCORE: congratulations, you’re all criminals.
Thomas Beagle of Tech Liberty NZ provides a detailed throrough analysis of the bill:
Section 16 of the GCSB Act also allows certain forms of spying without a warrant or access authorisation. However, the bill adds section 16(1A) which says that this cannot be done for the purpose of intercepting the communications of New Zealanders. (See the notes below about metadata and incidentally gained intelligence.)
With the caveate:
Metadata – There are a number of places in the bill that put limits on intercepting “private communications”, but in the past the GCSB has interpreted that as only including the actual call, not the related data (e.g. when, who, how long, etc). Does this mean that the GCSB still thinks it can collect this metadata without a warrant or access authorisation? The bill is silent on this issue.
Here, I’m suggesting that It’s this “private communications” that deserves some attention. in the Preliminary Provisions of the 2003 Act, Section 4 defines:
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</q>
This is the same in the latest Reprint as at 26 September 2013.
So what has changed? A Stuff Poll entitled What do you think of claims Kiwis have been misled about mass surveillance? [jpg below] surveyed a total of 1639 votes. The findings:
-This is an attack on our privacy
725 votes 44.2%
-I don’t believe it
215 votes 13.1%-In the age of terrorism it’s an unfortunate necessity
699 votes 42.6%Only 13.1% polled disbelieve these claims presented By the Guardian, Edward Snowden, Glenn Grenward, Michael Hadyn, Kim DotCom, Laila Harre and Julian Assange to the New Zealand public. The impact of these revelations as presented to New Zealanders at 2 very high profile webcast town hall meetings a year apart, on countless blogs, in News stories by widely respected journalists, and by World Leaders have confirmed, to most, the veracity of these facts.
So tangible is this new technology, that when we look back at the definition of “private communication” in both the 2003 GCSB Bill and it’s amendment we find that we now live in a world where the use of digital communication devices strongly qualifies as
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
It is no longer legally “private communication” and therefore (b) below is rendered redundant, as a matter of progress, no longer protected:
Section 16 amended (Certain interceptions permitted without interception warrant or computer access authorisation)
(1) In the heading to section 16, delete ““computer””.
(2) In section 16, before subsection (1), insert: (1A) This section—
“(a) applies to the interception of communications for the purpose of the Bureau’s functions in sections 8A and 8B; but
“(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.”
(3) In section 16(1), delete ““foreign””.
(4) Replace section 16(2) with:
“(2) The Director, or an employee of the Bureau, or a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may, without an interception warrant, or, as the case requires, without an access authorisation, intercept communications by using an interception device or by accessing an information infrastructure, but only if—
“(a) the interception does not involve any activity specified in section 15(1); and
“(b) any access to an information infrastructure is limited to access to 1 or more communication links between computers or to remote terminals; and
“(c) the interception is carried out by the Director or with the authority of the Director for the purpose of performing the Bureau’s function in section 8A or 8B."8A Information assurance and cybersecurity
8B Intelligence gathering and analysis
If we are the 86% of polled citizens that trust in the veracity of the surveillance claims, then we can’t also claim that our digital communications are safe from interception. But if we as citizens don’t believe these claims, we go online and don’t reasonably expect to be spied on, then any surveillance undertaken of us is due to our own recklessness.
I’m no lawyer though, and I’d rather not speculate as to the personalities involved in this issue 2 days out from an election.
-
Stuff.co.nz Poll [17/9/14]
-
Jake Starrow, in reply to
Engaging in good faith does not mean accusing me of making "bald-faced statements" and "only at this party to annoy people."
That is patronising and pompous.
Try again. -
where's that "plonk" button?
-
No soup for you, Rich! One year! :)
-
Boil the discussion down, pick out the facts from the resultant mess.
- GCSB not allowed to intercept the private communication of NZers.
- GCSB shares information with 5eyesLogically, JK could be factually correct. GCSB might not be doing the actual surveillance. But I haven’t heard any statements that show they are not using the data? JK as usual, acting like the alien shape-shifter he is.
I’m not the cleverest here and I might have missed a comment or two, but shouldn’t the questions, delivered to our country’s CEO/CIO oops PM, be along the lines of
“Is the GCSB, and/or other Government departments, monitoring New Zealand’s electronic data? If so, list the methods used.”
-
I have a few questions, asked in good faith.
Given the amount [or is that the thread] of Key-knocking, Key-criticism, Key-reviling, Key-patronising, Key-negativity, Key-accusations etc that permeate nearly each and every post on this site, either directly or indirectly, could somebody please tell me what would make a man who currently leads a party that rates at about 25% in most polls, a man who had approximately half the Labour caucus disapproving of his choice as leader, fit to lead this country?
I've scoured recent responses to all the topics related to the upcoming election and nowhere, as in NOWHERE, can I find one affirmation as to what would make Cunliffe a competent, credible, stability-sustaining leader.
I would have thought given the monumental amount of Key-bashing, somebody at some stage would have detailed the merits of Cunliffe as the only possible alternative to take command.
Anybody able to oblige? Anybody? -
Mr Cunliffe has chosen to run a positive campaign, prior to all of the dirty politics revelations, it would seem that he has avoided all the trouble Key and his followers have got themselves into by their bad behaviour.
At this point given Mr Key's past dealings with that vile Slater person and his complete inability to tell a story that doesn't change every day I don't see there's any way he could make a credible PM candidate.
Did you see what I just did? I just proved Cunliffe was the only viable candidate, and I didn't actually need to discuss Cunliffe's party or its policies, Key's many character flaws, combined with the make up of the various parties in the NZ MMP landscape make Cunnliffe the only viable PM - I'm not going to vote for his party because all I have to do is make sure he can form a coalition
Key convinced me last week that likely the best thing I can do for my country on Sat is vote for for IM, and I'll likely vote for them or the Greens, either way that's a vote against John and his continual eroding of my personal privacy
-
mark taslov, in reply to
You want some more spin? I got a bunch;
a. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if he does any flagrantly lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other non-consenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed
If you expose yourself in the knowledge that people may witness it, then you can be charged with lewdness.
If you, log onto the internet, then you can reasonably expect to be spied on by the NSA using XKeystroke and therefore going on the internet is the same as exposing yourself, because you’ve already been given the crash course in NSA capabilities. by The media, the net, Snowden, Greenwald, It was bought to your attention by the class clown and his foreign buddy.
In this XKeyscore/ NSA surveillance climate, accessing your device offers you the same level of protection from interception as would walking down the middle of the road offer protection from getting hit by a car.
You no longer qualify for the legal protection from interception as would say 2 people in a forest, :
The GCSB can’t legally intercept communication between two people in a forest because People in the forest can reasonably expect not to be monitored in a forest.
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.
But the Bill could be read to states that is there is a perception of risk or surveillance, this communication no longer meets the Bill’s given definition of *private communication*
a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person
is not *private communication*
Grenwald said in his interview with Russell that most intelligence groups are generally quite independent from political machinations, Key might know nothing about the extent to which the magic loophole is being exploited.
And then the train crashes
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
Key convinced me last week that likely the best thing I can do for my country on Sat is vote for for IM,
BTW I sat down in the pub on Tuesday night with a bunch of coders, all people who deal with security in one way or another and I basically made this same point, every single person at the table said they'd come to the same conclusion
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other non-consenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed
Err, not quite sure what the point of your lewdness post is? Are you saying the NSA/GCSB are non-consenting observers?
-
mark taslov, in reply to
You are a consenting provider, because you know the basic premise from 2 massively elaborate media extravaganzas, a year apart, drilling it in like primary school. Bringing some of the biggest names in the business/ country to ensure you and everyone you know gets the message, proving to you, beyond reasonable doubt that the internet can’t be deemed safe from surveillance
your base r us. .
They didn’t have to change the law, they only had to redefine reasonable expectations of privacy in the digital domain by showing you how shit *really* is. The whole media blitz, is churching to make sure everyone gets it
The simplicity of the moment of truth, 3 slides? was designed to have maximum emotional impact, and left in no uncertainty as to the supreme and total power the NSA and FYES has over your electronic life, Knowing how it works isn’t as important to them as knowing you know that now you belong to them anytime you’re online etc.
. -
Angela Hart, in reply to
Mark, I think you've nailed it. Back in the days of landlines we had a reasonable expectation that a telephone call was a private communication (unless it was a party line ;-) ). Perhaps we no longer have that with mobile calls, certainly for the meta data aspect, if not for the content. We've been told for a while now not to consider e-mails private, so what is considered private communication is arguably more limited than most of us realise. At the very least there is a substantial argument that in the legal sense private communication excludes e-mail, non encrypted internet services and meta data.
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.
It seems to me that Angela Merkel, John Key, the supposed watchdogs and others in positions of power may in fact have little idea what their intelligence agencies are actually doing or how they do it. Who then, really holds the reins of power? -
izogi, in reply to
Given the amount [or is that the thread] of Key-knocking, Key-criticism, Key-reviling, Key-patronising, Key-negativity, Key-accusations etc that permeate nearly each and every post on this site, either directly or indirectly, could somebody please tell me what would make a man who currently leads a party that rates at about 25% in most polls, a man who had approximately half the Labour caucus disapproving of his choice as leader, fit to lead this country?
I’m not sure how many people I speak for, but I think that even for those who don’t put blind faith in David Cunliffe, they’re more than happy to look beyond him to the composition of the governrment and the people in it. A government, what it does and how it acts, goes far beyond the Prime Minister. For me, right now, I have much more trust in a Labour-led government, including the partners it’s likely to work with (even where I disagree with them) to actually pay attention to the rules when it governs.
The National Party has chosen to brand itself almost entirely on John Key. It wants people to only speak about Key and how likeable he is or isn’t, because that simplifies the entire campaign into either ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Virtually everything about it, and discussion about it, is him, when he’s really only the figurehead. People complain about missing out policy debate, but I can’t imagine the National Party really wants to talk about policy – most of its campaign barely goes beyond a broadcast of “trust us, we’re great economic managers and we know what we’re doing”.
Really, though, can I ask you which particular part of the National Party you support?
Do you support the old guard, with the likes of Bill English and Nick Smith? Maybe they’ve had the odd controversy over their careers, dealt with it and been embarassed by it, but generally they’re good followers of rules like the Cabinet manual and the laws which require integrity in how they do stuff.
Do you support the Crusher Collins faction? Barging through red tape. Who needs processes and laws when you’re at the top? Just get it done!
Do you support the faction where Simon Lusk and friends decided that banking on a separate extreme-right party (like ACT) is hopeless because people never vote for it, so instead they’re sliding their own hand-picked far-right candidates onto the National List and into safe seats? eg. Probably Todd Barclay and Chris Bishop, both tobacco lobbyists being virtually guaranteed places in the next parliament.
Or do you support John Key? Not a faction, just a single “trustworthy” guy at the top, supposedly holding it all together (or keeping it apart), and with plans to retire to his holiday home in Hawaii some day soon?
Really though, this election has become hugely polarised, compared with nearly anything in living memory, and people wonder why.If you ignore the factions within National which are all fighting to do it their own way, a major reason New Zealand’s population has become so divided over the past six years is that this government has been ultra-exclusive of everyone who doesn’t agree with it.
This government has made record use of Urgency and Supplementary Order Papers for completely inappropraite reasons, to step around expert input, community involvement, and overall avoiding good and robust lawmaking in the name of “getting things done”.
It’s also ignored repeated warnings from the Attorney General about breaches of the Bill of Rights in pending legislation, and passed those laws anyway. This is a horrible thing: The BORA is meant to define the most fundamental rights which government should never revoke from people of NZ, yet the current government has ignored it as an inconvenience.
Tread on people like this instead of including them and they’ll do more than just disagree with you. They’ll start to hate you. National's making sure that everything National is actually about John Key. And people who somehow haven’t been affected can’t understand why others “hate John Key” so much.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
“Is the GCSB, and/or other Government departments, monitoring New Zealand’s electronic data? ...”
I would add "or analysing metadata of New Zealanders" and "what is the source of that data?"
-
mark taslov, in reply to
I guess the NSA? Whatever that is? Answerable to? Greenwald said it’s largely independent of the political machine, and that interview I pasted on my first interview with former NSA Chief Michael Hadyn is one of the most bizarre elements in all of this. Also written by the author Ryan Gallagher who coauthored Greenwald’s most recent piece on New Zealand.
What really stuck out for me was that waiting until July 2013 for the law to pass *before* implementing SPEARGUN. That sounds so incredibly sensitive and ethical. With that much power why would Fyes wait for anything (and waiting is merely one spin of the events here – based on Snowden’s anecdotes) but it seems that the end game was to change the climate, an internet/e-comm land grab in plain sight, and with considerable assistance from local personalities. I see they’ve begun the process in Australia too this morning.
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
You are a consenting provider
OK, thanks for that, got you now. So, I can reasonably expect my communication to be intercepted, interpreted and forwarded to the relevant authorities? Then, here I go:
Fuck off John Key, take your smug, weasily and morally bankrupt bunch of mates and Just. Fuck. Off. This is my country, where I was born, where I choose to live, where I will die. I'm proud to be a New Zealander: fair, friendly, open, inclusive and caring. I'm proud that as a nation, we can stand up to anyone for what we believe to be correct, be it nuclear weapons or sport. I don't want us to be mini-America, sub-Britain or China-lite. I don't want gated communities to keep the desperate poor at bay. I want a real job, making real stuff for real people who need it. I won't be voting for you or any of your frankly weird mates this Saturday.
Quite a good system this Speargun really.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Hehe, authorities, not really, unless John Key is in the habit of Xkeyscoring himself
Also, even if you edit and delete that now, even if you never even saved it, it’s all being keylogged.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Really though, this election has become hugely polarised, compared with nearly anything in living memory, and people wonder why.
It feels to me a lot like 1981. Lots of people really angry about the government, and lots of people scared of the angry people. Slightly less of them, but slightly better distributed under FPP to deliver Muldoon one last chance to fuck shit up, which he then did, royally.
-
izogi, in reply to
It feels to me a lot like 1981.
Yeah it could be. I was 2 years old for most of 1981 so didn't really appreciate what was happening at the time and couldn't comment. :)
-
Oh no people were much angrier in '81, we'd been out having our heads beaten by the cops all winter, just for trying to point out that what rugby was doing in our name: supporting a racist murderous regime
-
A letter home…
…from Bizarro EarthI think things are adrift, slipping, slipping, slipping…
Just recently I seem to have passed through some tenebrous brane into unfathomable dimensions – by some rabbithole topsy turvy tumble.
Why, in my febrile state I could have sworn a page back someone was here extolling Sarah Palin as a visionary leader for either remote Alaska or the USA Empire itself!!
Lately our village is besieged by itinerant proselytisers for the failing death cult, persistent in their self-denial, beyond the point of rational reasoning, their brazen form of interlocution is chilling in its disassociation and dissonance – hellbent as they are on saving our sorry souls from the madness ahead, only they, the illuminated, the anointed, can see.
Bless them for their good intentions, but clearly they are ‘tinkers’ not ‘thinkers’ – pushing tired barrows of tawdry goods with which they hope to win us over.
All brighteyed and assertive, if not bellicose, they strike out for the democratic right of small self-invited children to wave their dead cat repeatedly at the dinner table, after being told, repeatedly, “we saw the cat, we appreciate it is dead, its interest and novelty has passed, please now keep your cat to yourself and remove it from the table” …
One such spleen vendor has recently processed about the village like some Cerberus, each head proclaiming a vision at odds with perceived reality, dexterously sinister-shaming the left with a faux even-handedness.
Semi-settled now, one, nominally ‘a straw joker’ and cornish patsy by the cut of the cloth and accent, has stuck around to this end.
To persuade us of their bonafides they have nailed their ‘theses’ to the site’s ‘door’ for all to embrace.As with all proclamations it is what is left out or between the lines that is most telling. Once winnowed, blowing out the subjective and conjecture, the following grains remain to be examined:
he was head-hunted to become a member of the parliamentary political party. he was head-hunted to become a member of the parliamentary political party, Key had no strong ties to the National Party.
Indeed, Whale Oil’s father began grooming him in the dying years of the 20th century
In 1998, on learning of his interest in pursuing a political career, the National Party president John Slater began working actively to recruit him.
Key has promoted a winning empathy with a public weary of hidden or partly-hidden agendas.
The tiny benighted village of Epsom springs to mind, and the insertion of a tame beadle. Plus the surprise chartering of Church and Guild schools from uncharted waters.
His task is to get things done.
But who for, and in whose interests – see this (make a cuppa tea)
Along the way he has shown the common touch which comes from his state-house background.
Two unquantifiable statements, echoing hollowly…
He has demonstrated the ability to compromise…
see above re Epsom and bad ACTors…
and Comalco and Warners have benefitted
from his pliability and largesse
(with a stroke down thru it
- akshully those were our $s)No other Prime Minister in our recent history has so effortlessly imparted this sense of trustworthy pragmatism to the same extent as John Key has.
This is where I must worry about ergot poisoning from the rough grains and breads the populace must survive on. don’t talk to me about the teeth!
John Key has yet to be proved to be anywhere near as culpable of the duplicity and dark dealings that they would have us believe.
Even the disciple can not bring themselves to say King John is not culpable of some dark-dealings and duplicity, the biographies all show him capable…
People closer to Key than I ever will be report how angry and let down he feels over the dirty politics play-out and he won’t allow Collins for example anywhere near any position of authority again.
With friends like that who needs enemas?
Loose-lipped gossips, big-noting braggadocio…… the positive impact he has had on foreign shores
Yes his stance on ’prosecution by drone and hellfire missile’ is well known.
I’m a true swinging voter.
Your Key’s in the bowl…
we’re all adults here,
please flush.I’m greatly influenced by the qualities and integrity, or not, of the party leaders. I voted for both David Lange and Helen Clark. My judgement was proven accurate as it has been with John Key.
Please show the working on this equation, otherwise I must again lament the presence of lead and other synaptic-dulling poisons into the learned environments.
Summary: Acolyte-lite
And ya do know that acolyte is just another name for henchman, right?At times it almost leads me to doubt the logic of the workings of the Grand Unified Field upon the chemystery of life, that such plagues are visited upon us, perchance the adversity strengthens us and our resolve…
Truth be told, I have fought hard for my
tenuous grip on the Village Idiot role.
I see no need for a new clown in town…
Will no one rid me of this vexing tinker?Mustn’t grumble, though.
Chores to do.I’ll leave this to be discovered in better times.
Zane Illiad,
Epic Adventurer in the Westlands
through the veil————————-
Thanks for the work out Jake…
I may still have time to panel-beat this into a SST short story entry.
Hope M. Night Shyamalan’s lawyers aren’t watching…
(apologies to Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E Howard too):- )
-
Dean Wallis, in reply to
Oh no people were much angrier in ’81, we’d been out having our heads beaten by the cops all winter, just for trying to point out that what rugby was doing in our name was supporting a racist murderous regime
The difference between '81 and now? Back In The Old Days the media actually did their jobs and reported what was going on and what the issues were. Both sides of the argument. I don't think Mike Hoskings was there to understand the rather large responsibility that comes with stage makeup and a news desk.
-
The fucking Flow Ian. More!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.