Site Meter

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

The royal baby

“After admitting they have illegally spied on NZ citizens or residents 88 times (PDF) since 2003, the government, in a stunning example of arse covering, is about to grant the GCSB the right to intercept the communications of New Zealanders in its role as the national cyber security agency, rather than examine the role the GCSB should play and then look at the laws.
 There has been strong criticism from many avenues. The bill is being opposed by Labor and the Greens, but it looks like National now have the numbers to get this passed. 
Of course, the front page story is all about the royal baby, with this huge erosion of privacy relegated to a small article near the bottom of the front page. 
Three cheers, the monarchy is secure, never mind the rights of the people. More bread and circuses anyone?”


Armchair Critic said...

Labour. Labor is an Australian party. Now that Peter Dunne has caved, the GCSB will be able to report, for each of us, whether we prefer bread, circuses, both, neither, or something else. Yay. I like that the people who say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" are often the same people who fear a Labour/Green government. They seem quite happy to repeat their mantra, all the while carving a a rod for their own back. The flaw in that argument is, of course, that left-leaning or liberal democratic governments are much less likely to use the state's security apparatuses against their citizens than their right-leaning and conservative counterparts.

Joe W said...

Agree with all of the above comment bar the last bit, which smacks of a bedtime story. Governments of any stripe will abuse power without oversight. Venezuela currently not only records private phone calls, despite it being illegal, they've also broadcast them on TV. Just because their Government's offside with Uncle Sam doesn't make it inherently morally superior.

Bioneer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bioneer said...

@Joe Armchair Critic's 'less likely' could be read as less likely to be used at all or less likely to be used as frequently

To counter the 'if you have nothing to hide' mob:

One – the surveillance may be used now to enforce laws that are just but it could also be used to aide unjust future laws.

Two – You may feel that you are 'clean' but the govt. may decide that something you are within your rights to do red-flags you as a threat > a long shot example: 'liking' a Greenpeace photo on facebook justifies surveillance of you as a criminal waiting to strike.

Three – If all behavior is monitored to stamp out illegality then constructive illegality (yes it is sometimes necessary) couldn't help society to progress e.g. interracial marriage & homosexuality or even claiming the world was round would never have been legalized if people had done what they were told.

Four – Privacy is a basic human need, are we to believe John Key should have no qualms about us filming him on the toilet? Why not?

Five - it's indicative that the govt. wouldn't suffer the same transparency that it expects from it's citizens.

(these headings come from an neat doc I cant re-find the link for).