"The Greater Good...."
BrianNZ
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203448/NZs-cyber-spies-win-new-powers
New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced giving
police and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) officers the power to
monitor all aspects of someone's online life.
The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance
capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts,
email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social
networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.
In preparation, technicians have been installing specialist spying
devices and software inside all telephone exchanges, internet companies
and even fibre-optic data networks between cities and towns, providing
police and spy agencies with the capability to monitor almost all
communications.
Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person
or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the
past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet
activity. It can even monitor a person's location by detecting their
mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.
Police say in the year to June 2009, there were 68 interception warrant
applications granted and 157 people prosecuted as a result of those
interceptions.
Police association vice-president Stuart Mills said the new capabilities
are required because criminals were using new technologies to
communicate, and that people who weren't committing criminal offences
had little to fear.
However, civil liberties council spokesman Michael Bott said the new
surveillance capabilities are part of a step-by-step erosion of civil
rights in New Zealand.
Police Minister Judith Collins responded to questions from the Sunday
Star-Times about the new surveillance capabilities, saying: "I support
the rule of law." In last year's budget she approved extra police funds
to subsidise companies wiring surveillance devices into their
telecommunications networks.
The measures are the consequence of a law, the 2004 Telecommunications
(Interception Capability) Act, which gave internet and network companies
until last year to install devices allowing automated access to internet
and cellphone data.
Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear had earlier 2005 deadlines, and new
cellphone provider 2degrees installed the interception equipment before
launching last year.
Official papers obtained by the Star-Times show that, despite government
claims that it was done for domestic reasons, the new New Zealand spying
capabilities are part of a push by United States agencies to have
standardised surveillance capabilities available for their use from
governments worldwide.
Ad Feedback
While US civil liberties groups unsuccessfully fought these surveillance
capabilities being used on US citizens, the FBI was lobbying other
governments to adopt them. FBI Director Robert Mueller III told a senate
committee in March last year that the FBI needs "global reach" to fight
cyber-crime and terrorism and that co-operation with "law enforcement
partners" gives it "the means to leverage the collective resources of
many countries".
Auckland lawyer Tim McBride, author of the forthcoming New Zealand Civil
Rights Handbook, says our politicians had let down New Zealanders when
they yielded to the foreign pressure and imported US-style surveillance
into New Zealand. He said "monitoring email, internet chatting and
Facebook is like the police and SIS planting bugs in every cafe and
park. It would probably help solve a few crimes, but the cost is just
too great".
The 2004 New Zealand law, which mirrors laws overseas, requires the
content of any communication plus "call associated data", such as times,
phone numbers, IP addresses and mobile phone locations, to be able to be
copied and sent to the police, SIS or Government Communications Security
Bureau (GCSB) at the time of transmission or "as close as practicable"
to that time. In practice, a specialist said, this means someone's email
can be "at the agency within one or two minutes of it actually being on
the wires".
When the police and SIS were pushing for the interception capability law
they argued repeatedly that it would not "change or extend in any way
the existing powers". But civil libertarians say that the invisibility
of electronic surveillance reduces the opportunity to challenge it. A
technician familiar with the developments said the previous surveillance
technology dated from the early 1980s when the Telecom phone system went
digital. Police bugged individual phones and could request suspects'
call logs.
More recently police had taken a warrant to telcos and gone away with
printed emails, but did it rarely as there were problems using the
evidence in court.
"This is the first big jump from there," said the technician.
"They've never had the powers to force ISPs to build in spying
capabilities before now. I imagine law enforcement is very excited about
this."
don (Calgary)
>Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person
>or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the
>past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet
>activity. It can even monitor a person's location by detecting their
>mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.
At face value, I am not sure I would have a problem with the revision.
Granted there is always the potential for abuse but executed properly
law enforcement still needs a warrant.
I just had a call this morning from some woman fishing for my credit
card information. A couple of years ago I had my debit card hacked.
Criminals are using the latest technology and enforcement agencies
should be provided with the opportunity to use the same technology to
track the criminals.
Subject to the proper checks and balances being in place, I have no
problem with giving the cops a few new tools to help them catch the
bad guys.
BrianNZ
Going by recent court cases here some (a minority, but thats all it
takes) cops have no problems lying, accessing data they shouldn't be,
coercing witness's and giving false statements.
You , of all people, should be able to see how 'misunderstandings' and
'interpretations' can lead to wrong conclusions being jumped to.?
Proper checks and balances are crucial with this kind of 'big brother'
surveillance systems.....but who carries out these checks and
balances?.....the same people doing the surveillance?
It's not just our guys being given access...
don (Calgary)
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:02:42 +1300, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person
>>> or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the
>>> past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet
>>> activity. It can even monitor a person's location by detecting their
>>> mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.
>>
>> At face value, I am not sure I would have a problem with the revision.
>> Granted there is always the potential for abuse but executed properly
>> law enforcement still needs a warrant.
>>
>> I just had a call this morning from some woman fishing for my credit
>> card information. A couple of years ago I had my debit card hacked.
>>
>> Criminals are using the latest technology and enforcement agencies
>> should be provided with the opportunity to use the same technology to
>> track the criminals.
>>
>> Subject to the proper checks and balances being in place, I have no
>> problem with giving the cops a few new tools to help them catch the
>> bad guys.
>
>
>Going by recent court cases here some (a minority, but thats all it
>takes) cops have no problems lying, accessing data they shouldn't be,
>coercing witness's and giving false statements.
There are bad apples in every profession. If it is a big problem in
your country maybe allowing the good cops the ability to use the
latest technology will help them cull out the rotten fruit.
>
>You , of all people, should be able to see how 'misunderstandings' and
>'interpretations' can lead to wrong conclusions being jumped to.?
>
>Proper checks and balances are crucial with this kind of 'big brother'
>surveillance systems.....but who carries out these checks and
>balances?.....the same people doing the surveillance?
Obviously I am not aware of the checks and balances in place in your
country, but if they are lacking, making corrective measures to them
might be a better focus for reform than limiting the cops access to
the latest technology.
>
>It's not just our guys being given access...
>
>"Official papers obtained by the Star-Times show that, despite
>government claims that it was done for domestic reasons, the new New
>Zealand spying capabilities are part of a push by United States agencies
>to have standardised surveillance capabilities available for their use
>from governments worldwide."
Overbearing US security measures are an entirely different and much
larger topic. Canada is currently working through several security
issues with the US. Some I agree with and others I don't. I would have
to know more about this particularly issue before I would comment on
the value added by the measures. I don't find the premise particularly
scary or oppressive though.
S'mee
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203448/NZs-cyber-spies-win-new-powers
Nothing says you have a right to privacy..you don't. EVERYBODY is
spying on you and everyone else as an aside you really need to buy
some new socks, yours are full of holes...we wont go into the state of
your underware. <shudder> 8^) Remember ducky, peace is war!
Sean_Q_
I agree that it sucks but be glad you're not living in
an Islamic republic where you could get decapitalized
with a scimitar merely for possession of a Barbie doll.
Does NZ have an RIP act like Blighty? If not you can get
some privacy by hiding behind encr-- oops I better not say
any more, the NeuSeelandSicherheitsHauptAmt might be monitoring
this forum.
SQ
'06 xxx S40 / '85 xxxxx MT-11 / the usual you-know-whats
BryanUT
It is for the children.
I'd rather be free than safe. Even as an avowed "liberal" I don't
trust the state to do the "right thing". Especially when it comes to
dissidents or free thinkers.
S'mee
If you actually believe you have privacy...I've got this bridge I need
to sell and for you I could let it go at a relatively low, low price.
Mind, it's a one time only offer. We haven't have real privacy for
decades if not more.
Beav
"Sean_Q_" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:_VO%m.219$nR4...@newsfe01.iad...
> BrianNZ wrote:
>
> I agree that it sucks but be glad you're not living in
> an Islamic republic where you could get decapitalized
> with a scimitar merely for possession of a Barbie doll.
Any bloke in posession of a Barbie doll fucking *deserves* decaptalizing.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
S'mee
> "Sean_Q_" <no.s...@no.spam> wrote in message
>
> news:_VO%m.219$nR4...@newsfe01.iad...
>
> > BrianNZ wrote:
>
> > I agree that it sucks but be glad you're not living in
> > an Islamic republic where you could get decapitalized
> > with a scimitar merely for possession of a Barbie doll.
>
> Any bloke in posession of a Barbie doll fucking *deserves* decaptalizing.
Why would you take all of someones captial for owning a barbie? I mean
he or she could be collecting them for the "value" an original "NIB"
barbie is worth some serious capital. 8^)
Stephen Cowell
"S'mee" <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote
Coincidentally, I just got through watching 'Team America' again
last night... the sex scenes were researched using Barbie and Ken,
according to the 'making of'. Important stuff.
__
Steve
.