John
Key is openly contemptuous of democratic procedure as he shows opne
contempt for Select Committee. We are well on the way to becoming a
surveillance society.
Russell
Norman displeased with Key at committee hearing
Greens
co-leader Russel Norman says John Key was disrespectful during a
hearing of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Tuesday
3
July, 2013
.
The
committee was hearing submissions on legislation which would allow
the Government Communications Security Bureau to monitor New
Zealanders.
Dr
Norman told Morning Report Mr Key appeared to be just going through
the motions and simply acted as a timekeeper.
He
said members of the committee should be using the submissions to
scrutinise the legislation and hear different perspectives.
Kim
Dotcom due before committee
Internet businessman, Kim Dotcom appears before the Intelligence and Security Committee on Wednesday when he makes a submission on legislation expanding the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau
3
July, 2013
.
The
bill was introduced after it became clear the GCSB had illegally
monitored Mr Dotcom on behalf of the police at the beginning of last
year.
Green
Party co-leader Russel Norman, says there will be much interest in
his appearance.
Other
submitters this afternoon include former Green MP Keith Locke,
Internet NZ and TechLiberty, an internet freedom group.
Govt
urged not to rush spy legislation because of Dotcom
The
Government has been urged not to rush spy legislation through
Parliament because of embarrassment over Kim Dotcom.
The
Intelligence and Security Committee began hearing submissions on
Tuesday on legislation which would allow the Government
Communications Security Bureau to monitor New Zealanders.
Lawyer
Rodney Harrison, who made a submission on behalf of the Law Society,
criticised the haste with which the bill is being pushed through
Parliament.
Dr
Harrison said the Government should not be reacting to the Dotcom
case.
He
said it's clear the Government lost face with the United States and
he wonders whether the bill is being rushed through in response.
An
academic specialising in security studies predicts there will be
increasing intrusions on people's privacy.
Jim
Veitch, a defence and security academic, told Morning Report, that if
law and order breakdowns in the Middle East move to South East Asia,
New Zealand will be have to be prepared to deal with it.
On
Kim Dotcom’s appearance at Parliament tomorrow
Gordon
Campbell
July
2nd, 2013
Ironic
that in the same week that
Kim Dotcom will appear before a Parliamentary committee to defend the
right of New Zealanders to live free from surveillance from the GCSB,
Edward Snowden is seeking asylum in Russia. (Reportedly, Russian
leader Vladimir Putin has said that Snowden is welcome to asylum, so
long as he stops his revelations about the surveillance activities of
the Obama administration.)
Thankfully,
Dotcom still seems willing to fight for the principles at stake here,
however that may impact on his own battle to avoid extradition.
That’s pretty admirable, given that the extradition decision will
ultimately involve the discretion of a Minister in the same
government with whom Dotcom will be locking horns tomorrow.
The
battle lines are pretty clear. For months, Prime Minister John Key
has been trying to turn down the political thermostat on his plans to
confer on the GCSB as an organization (and himself as its Minister)
vastly expanded powers to spy on New Zealanders. According to the
government’s spin, the 180 degree change to the GCSB’s role ( as
set out in the new, proposed legislation currently before Parliament)
is merely a bit of parliamentary housekeeping of an allegedly unclear
legal situation.
That
spin is blatantly untrue. Section 14 of the existing law and the
bipartisan will of Parliament at the time it was passed are crystal
clear on this matter – the GCSB was forbidden to carry out domestic
spying, which was to remain the sole province of the SIS. Yes, the
very same National Party that made such a fuss about the Nanny State
while in Opposition is now expanding the ability of the surveillance
powers of Big Government. And, in the process, the GCSB that
unilaterally broke the law meant to govern its activities is being
rewarded by having those transgressions legalized.
Hopefully,
Dotcom’s appearance tomorrow before the Intelligence and Security
Committee will see Dotcom challenge John Key’s attempt to restrict
the freedoms enjoyed by all law-abiding New Zealanders. Given the
rogue nature of the agency in question, Dotcom might usefully explore
some of the GCSB’s existing activities as well as its proposed new
powers. For instance, it would be useful to know :
1.
In the past ten years has the GCSB carried out, or abetted the
electronic surveillance of any of the business firms or diplomatic
embassies of New Zealand’s trading partners in Asia and the South
Pacific – such as Japan and China, Indonesia etc? If Key tries to
hide behind the refusal to comment on “ operational matters”
Dotcom can point to two reasons why the question needs to be
answered. These include this week’s revelations that US
intelligence services has been spying on the
European Union mission in New York and its embassy in Washington:
One
document lists 38 embassies and missions, describing them as
“targets”. It details an extraordinary range of spying methods
used against each target, from bugs implanted in electronic
communications gear to taps into cables to the collection of
transmissions with specialised antennae.
Along
with traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern
countries, the list of targets includes the EU missions and the
French, Italian and Greek embassies, as well as a number of other
American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and
Turkey.
And
moreover, in section 7c of
the rewritten GCSB legislation one
of the stated objectives of the GCSB is “ to contribute to the
economic wellbeing of New Zealand”. OK…if so, doesn’t this
section 7c place on the GCSB a virtual obligation to eavesdrop on our
trading rivals to this country’s economic advantage? How is the
GCSB meant to draw the ethical and practical boundaries in defending
or promoting New Zealand’s economic wellbeing
– as opposed to defending its physical security?
2.
With that prospect in mind, Dotcom might care to ask… did the GSCB
engage in (or abet) any electronic surveillance of the TPP trade
talks in Auckland last December, on behalf of the NSA? Those trade
talks involve the global framework for the IP, copyright and Internet
freedoms that are central to the Dotcom case.
After all, the purpose
of the NSA bugging as revealed last weekend in Der
Spiegel was similar to what the US might well have
wanted to know about the various TPP negotiating stances:
….the
aim of the bugging exercise against the EU embassy in central
Washington is to gather inside knowledge of policy disagreements on
global issues and other rifts between member states.
The
prospects for a new trade pact between the US and the European Union
worth hundreds of billions have suffered a severe setback following
allegations that Washington bugged key EU offices and intercepted
phonecalls and emails from top officials. The latest reports of NSA
snooping on Europe – and on Germany in particular – went well
beyond previous revelations of electronic spying said to be focused
on identifying suspected terrorists, extremists and organised
criminals.
So…
it is time for Key to front up, and to confirm or deny whether the
GCSB and its brother agencies in the US did spy on the trade
delegations at the TPP. Given the NSA’s track record, it would be
astonishing if it hadn’t tried
to eavesdrop on the Auckland gathering. If so, the question really
becomes, does Key think the GCSB should be helping – or hindering –
such attempts? In the light of the Snowden revelations, should the
Key government be treating the NSA as a friend or enemy of New
Zealand’s interests, when it comes to our trade relations with
Asia?
3.
A further theme for Dotcom to explore ? As a relative newbie to New
Zealand, he might care to know why the National Party of John Key so
different from the National Party of Simon Power and Wayne Mapp
– both
of whom in Hansard in 2003 supported
the need for section 14 of the current GCSB Act, and its express
prevention of the GCSB from spying on New Zealanders. Were Power and
Mapp wrong to do so – or is Key trying to say they were too stupid
to grasp the full implications of Section 14?
4.
With that sea change in approach in mind, Dotcom might also care to
ask tomorrow… isn’t Key, with his new law, really up-ending the
entire thrust of the current law regarding the GCSB ? The preamble to
the new, proposed Bill cites the existing purposes of the GCSB in
this fashion :
The
Act currently provides for 3 core functions of GCSB:
•
information assurance and
cybersecurity:
•
foreign intelligence:
•
co-operation with and
assistance to other entities.
Parliament
in 2003 never intended that the third item – ‘the co-operation
and assistance to other entities’ bit – should drive a bulldozer
right over the top of the clear intent (in section 14) that such
assistance should not result in the GCSB being engaged in spying on
New Zealanders. Yet that is exactly what John Key has now chosen to
legalise. The ‘assistance’ has become a Trojan Horse – and
under its guise, Key is now giving the agency carte blanche to spy on
New Zealanders. It is a mystery. Why has Key come to embrace the
Surveillance State so dramatically – given that he fought the
elections of 2005 and 2008 as the alleged opponent of the creeping
powers of the state?
5.
One could go on and on. The oversight mechanisms set out in the new
legislation are as ludicrously cosmetic as ever. There will be no
genuine independence for the new Inspector-General, either in his or
her budget or investigative functions, or when it comes down to any
enhanced ability to communicate with the public whose liberties the
I-G is allegedly protecting. Instead of having one blindfolded
watchdog stumbling around in the dark, there will be two such
worthies in future. They will still
(a)
have no genuine independence
(b) no expertise in the human rights
laws and cyber-intelligence measures that are in flux around the
world
(c) and no independent research, or investigative staff to
keep them abreast of the developments in these areas. How does Key
expect the I-G and his or her deputy to effectively monitor measures
about which they are ignorant? As always, the I-G is an oversight
body set up to fail.
What
I’m getting at is that there are a few matters of substance at
stake tomorrow, beyond the sheer personal drama of Dotcom’s
confrontation with Key. And yes, it is weird that it should fall to a
wealthy German to uphold the kind of freedoms that a previous
generation of Kiwis fought to defend between 1939 and 1945. I hope
the elderly supporters of Winston Peters get that irony.
Posts
