New Zealand Parliament Votes To Extend Spying Powers

pinkstuff writes "Amid protests and much opposition New Zealand parliament has just passed a bill which allows the The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) greater spying powers."

Comments

Keeping up with the Joneses

[LordLucless]

Obviously post-Snowden, they realise how much they need to catch up to the American standard.

Re:Keeping up with the Joneses

[pinkstuff]

It is actually the American standard... The NSA is likely subsidising the GCSB

Codename?

[gmuslera]

US have a lot of names for their surveillance programs, which one will be the one from New Zealand? The Eye of Sauron?

Re:Codename?

[somersault]

I'd go with Rocks

Re:Codename?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheep?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheep
Description: 1,2,4,5,6,7 etc applies here.

Public opinion doesn't matter

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

For a long time, governments of modern democracies have been rather afraid of public opinion and the press, and have avoided doing things that would result in protests and opposition.

Then at some point they realized they could bribe the press, and that the public's opinion doesn't really matter, nor does it amount to much or lead to much violence in a society of over-fed TV addicts. Today's protesters are all bark and no bite, and the powers-that-be know it full well. So they do whatever the fuck they want without even trying to be discreet about it.

That's where we're at right now. Welcome to a new form of tyranny, in which dictators are "democrats" who resort on soothing words and the complicity of mass-media to pussify the populace and keep it in check. Violence and outright dictatorship is so yesteryear...

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[GameboyRMH]

I wonder if it had something to do with better security at public events and better investigative techniques. As recently as around WW1 it was common for unpopular politicians to be assassinated and the killer could get away with it without too much trouble. Over time it became harder to kill politicians and get away with it, until we're in today's situation where there are anti-sniper teams around these appearances, the buildings the politicians reside in are armored and it's practically impossible. They're safer from the angry masses than the 1700s French aristocracy could have ever dreamed of. They have nothing to fear.

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[GameboyRMH]

It certainly shouldn't be, but maybe it was acting as a hackish fix for a very flawed democracy and giving a better outcome than the system would have had without it. Now we have no way to address overwhelming public disapproval, especially in the face of limited alternatives (another big flaw in current democracies).

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[kilfarsnar]

Yeah, but we don't have a democratic process. I'm not sure about New Zealand, but the US is a plutocracy now.

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[Type44Q]

Then at some point they realized they could take over the press, and that the public could be manipulated more effectively than ever before

FTFY.

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[davecb]

This is what Plato wrote about, and the Romans invented a cool variant on: "bread and circuses". The latter led to / supported tyranny, the Empire.

Plato observed a cycle in Greek city-states: aristocracy to timocracy, to an oligarchy, to a democracy, to tyranny and thence back to aristocracy.

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[whoever57]

You must not be familiar with the concept of voting, and the law.

You must not be familiar with how the 2-party state really works.

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[dkleinsc]

For a long time, governments of modern democracies have been rather afraid of public opinion and the press, and have avoided doing things that would result in protests and opposition.

When would that have been, exactly? The first US president to shove an unpopular policy (a whiskey tax) down the throats of the masses was George Washington - leading to one of the 2 times in US history that an American president has actually commanded troops as president. The French revolutionary governments were so unpopular that they decided to scrap the whole thing and put Napoleon in charge. The Italians, Germans, and Romanians tried it in the 1920's and bungled it so badly that many thought the fascists were an improvement.

Democracies are probably more responsive to their people than dictatorships, but that's not saying much. An interesting point someone made recently: In order to become president of Iran, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected ayatollahs. In order to become president of the US, a candidate has to be accepted by the unelected Wall St tycoons. How different are those systems, really?

Re:Public opinion doesn't matter

[pinkstuff]

OP here. New Zealand has a Proportional Representation based governement. This makes it less of a two horse race as every vote counts. Quite minor parties will have representation in government. There are also quite small spending caps for campaigning leading up to elections. For the most part it works quite well, and I still believe it is one of the most truely democratic countries.

This is what makes all of this so much worse, it is the first time in living memory there has been such strong public opposition to a bill and it has been passed anyway. A recent poll suggests 89% of New Zealanders oppose the bill.

There is more than meets the eye here, the way the Prime Minister is forcing this through is very fishy to me, it seems like he is being pushed into it. Here is a quote from a recent press conference:

“Prime Minister, numerous legal jurors have informed us publicly that they disagree with you wholeheartedly, that you are taking broad powers, which would allow you to invade privacyand you are saying that all those people are wrong” a journalist said to Key. “Correct,” the Prime Minister said before immediately interrupting the rest of the question by asking, “Is this a question buddy?”

So, the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society and the general population don't want the bill to pass, and yet it does (just).

First world problems.

[sd4f]

Living in the first world is starting to make me feel slightly enslaved. More or less my existence is limited by what our elected overlords have deemed permissible. I think now I get the futurama quote of "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I certainly don't like living in a state of Australia where the constitution states that the parliament can make a law for whatever reason it wishes (with a couple of minor exclusions).

This form of representative democracy is in effect tyranny and more importantly treasonous, it is slowly relegating us to serfdom

Re:First world problems.

[Kell Bengal]

The real question is what are we going to do about it? I'm getting increasingly interested in the political process - I've written my MP and the opposite candidate about my views on these things. I've told them my vote is contingent on a roll-back on policies such as this (along with airport scanners).

I'm starting with the soap box, and the ballot box will soon follow. We'll see how many boxes it takes until we see change. Part of the problem with the West is that we've lost the realisation that change is possible and is driven by public choice. We get the government we deserve, and I am damned well going to make my vote in September count.

Catch up on what the neighbours are watching

[dbIII]

Q: Do they get a gun?
A: No, the army has got the gun this week and it's the turn of the police next week.

To be a bit more serious they are probably only catching up on what Australia and the US are getting out of NZ communications via the Australian company Telstra that owns most of the NZ communication networks now. Telstra have already admitted that they give US agencies access to their networks without a warrant.

Re: Catch up on what the neighbours are watching

[oob]

Telstra was only ever a minor player in the NZ telecommunications market.

And last year, they sold the entirety of their operation to Vodafone New Zealand.

Re:A proposition...

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for Bradley Manning, and I said nothing because I am not in the army.
Then they came for Julian Assange, and I said nothing because I am not a hacker.
Then they came for Edward Snowden, and I said nothing because I am not a defence contractor.
Then they came for the Guardian, and I said nothing because I am not in the media.

Then they came for me. And there were no whistle blowers left to say anything.

So much for retiring there

[dywolf]

*removes New Zealand from Top 5 places I want to retire to*

Re:So much for retiring there

[GameboyRMH]

He just values his privacy and liberty, quaint old concepts that had to be sacrificed for safety in our safer-than-ever world, I know.

NZ is still in my top 5 list of desirable locations but it's been accelerating down for a while now.

Re:Apparently they have a reason

[VortexCortex]

So what. Fuck 'em. Life is a bit dangerous, time to accept that and stop pissing away rights and stop jumping at every shadow the government points at. The terrorists don't actually do much damage, just spread fear; Hence the name... You're far more likely to die in an auto accident or of heart disease... Where's all the fear of automobiles and fast food? War is what causes damage, that and all the stupid fear-mongering.

Protip: There were no WMDs. The Red Scare was just fear. A Threat Narrative is what's used to manufacture consent, it doesn't have to be truthful, just scary. The governments and media are the biggest terrorist, depending on what word you use to mean "the spread of terror to achieve political goals". So, yeah, you can't turn on a TV without seeing a terrorist. Big Fucking Deal.

It makes you wonder?

[kurt555gs]

Who does all this spying serve? Really. Who?

Let's just cut to the chase...

[meta-monkey]

Can we just pass a law already that everybody has to walk around naked except for an always-on camera that sends its feed directly to government servers?

Well, not "everybody," of course. That would be ridiculous. Our wise government officials should be exempt from this law as their privacy is critical for national security.

Re:Apparently they have a reason

[GameboyRMH]

Once you travel to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or a few other such places for any reason, you immediately become one of the most suspicious people on the planet. Few things could raise a bigger red flag. The "terrorists" are probably just middle-easterners visiting their families on vacation.

Re:A proposition...

[Safety Cap]

So why were you endangering national security?

Every time you use teh interwebs, you are endangering national security.

Every time you leave the house, you are endangering national security.

Every time you stay at home, you are endangering national security.

---

Consider that they are tracking everyone.

Which means everyone is a suspect.

And they wouldn't be suspects if they weren't guilty.

---

Q. What do you call an innocent civilian?
A. A criminal who hasn't broken the law yet.

Re:Apparently they have a reason

[sl4shd0rk]

You're far more likely to die in an auto accident or of heart disease... Where's all the fear of automobiles and fast food?

Indeed. About 3000 people have died from terrorism *since* 2001 10 times more people die (PDF warning) *each year* by suicide. The numbers and justifications for all this "yeahbut think of teh terroristss!!" malarkey is just that. Malarkey. Malarkey based on irrational fear, scooped up and eaten by a drama staved public.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:A proposition...

[davester666]

Q. What do you call an innocent civilian?
A. A criminal who hasn't been convicted yet.