Public Address | Cafe | Speaker: Not quite what you may think

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:17:37 +1300

is there anything stopping the SIS from listening in on lawyer-client conversations

Yes. Section 4A(3)(d) of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969.

But for whispering more generally see s 4H

Idiot Savant

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:24:37 +1300

There are also distinct interception powers under:
*the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969

So, caninformation gathered under that act be used in court?

And is there anything stopping the SIS from listening in on lawyer-client conversations then whispering in a policeman's ear?

Idiot Savant

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:22:42 +1300

I'm also interested in the "collective unlawful posession" charge too. Alleging unlawful (rather than unlicensed) posession may be a bit dodgy, and relies on drawing a long bow to an ultimate purpose while ignoring immediate ones, but saying its collective seems to remove the need for the police to actually…

Rich of Observationz

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:00:55 +1300

If a mobile telco or ISP has historic communications stored away, can an interception warrant access that data *before* the date of the warrant?

And can this be used to launder illegally collected information? E.g. NZSIS (or an overseas agency like GCHQ/NSA) listen to someones traffic and tell the police…

Kyle Matthews

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:37:43 +1300

(or an extended reply in the comments if people really want answers now).

Er. Duh. Need you ask?

Russell Brown

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:59:47 +1300

Dear Graeme,
I think it would be very helpful to post your original piece and this followup on Scoop with links back to this thread for further discussion.

I'm quite happy with that if Graeme is.

Alastair Thompson

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:45:34 +1300

Dear Graeme,

I think it would be very helpful to post your original piece and this followup on Scoop with links back to this thread for further discussion. It very usefully adds to what I distributed last night via the Sludge Report #180. Its not too late to correct if…

Graeme Edgeler

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:42:48 +1300

If not the TSA then what enactment would you think has been used to get the interception warrants

Damn, maybe I over-simplified this bit.

Search Warrants are granted under the Summary Proceedings Act. They can be granted by JPs, Court Registrars or Judges. The process, and legal standard for obtaining…

andrew r

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:53:44 +1300

See also Finlay MacDonald's concise piece in the SST (Sunday just gone) , particularly with respect to proposed amendments – which Graeme mentions- to the TSA that are concerning.
To date interception warrants are used most commonly to obtain evidence in the prosecution of Crimes against the Misuse of Drugs…

Jonty

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:43:44 +1300

Curious that the cops smash in the front of Peace Action Wellington's HQ a week after their involvement in the protest outside the Duxton against the arms dealers doing business inside. Maybe the cops got the time and place wrong?

Alastair Thompson

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:22:56 +1300

Thanks for this.

My question is this. If not the TSA then what enactment would you think has been used to get the interception warrants. The Arms Act? Is it normal for interception warrants to be used for extended periods i.e. 15 months?

Joe Wylie

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:19:09 +1300

That's the next post . .

Much anticipated. Thanks a lot Graeme & PA.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:21 +1300

If one has to be in a group which has either committed a terrorist act or been designated as a terrorist group, how the hell has anyone in the raids possibly fallen foul of our terror suppression laws?

That's the next post, tussock. I'll get back to you.

tussock

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:19:27 +1300

This doesn't really make sense. If one has to be in a group which has either committed a terrorist act or been designated as a terrorist group, how the hell has anyone in the raids possibly fallen foul of our terror suppression laws?

Are they suggesting someone in the happy…

InternationalObserver

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:55:38 +1300

1. There is a typo in the title.

Spooky how the human brain works – I read it as 'quite' until you pointed out the typo.
Obviously I'd make a great police witness: if the defendant says "I wasn't there your Honour!" I'd swear otherwise.

Bob Munro

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:24:44 +1300

Actually the more I stare at it 'qute' seems quite a nice word. Maybe we can find a use for it?

Richard Bol

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:37:46 +1300

I agree with Stephen. Hopefully some of the hysterical commentary surrounding the recent events will be toned down in the wake of this piece. Graeme's article is what we need more of – the explanation of technical details in a way accessible to the lay reader. Well done.

Michael Fitzgerald

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:37:00 +1300

As soothing as this piece is & it's great to get a bit of detail.
We all know the cops hit kids up for expired WOF and then let them off if they give finger prints/dna samples.

I call for Bomer to be charged under 5 (2) a "to induce terror…

Russell Brown

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:25:06 +1300

1. There is a typo in the title.

Yup. And for the time being, I can't get rid of the bugger, even though I've corrected the headline of the original Public Address post. I'll have to ask the lads to fix it in the morning ...

Stephen Judd

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:08:11 +1300

1. There is a typo in the title.
2. Thanks very much for this. It's the kind of sensible, useful background information I've been looking for in the *cough* mainstream media on this issue and so far failed to find.

Public Address

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:08:11 +1300

Discussion from blog post.