Thursday, August 1, 2013


I see that Comrade Wussel Norman has extended his call for an enquiry into the SIS/GCSB to include even the need for these two organisations of State.

Well, I guess you would have to expect that from the supposed 'ex' Communist.

As the Greens seem to be leading Labour's policy development I will be interesting to see whether the 29% mob will fall into line.

Don't think Helen Clark would like that even though she precipitated the current nonsense through her deeply flawed GCSB Act 2003. 


gravedodger said...

When did the 4X wetback abandon his communist beliefs, must have missed that.

Jigsaw said...

Labour and the Greens seem to have adone an amazing job of convincing the public that GCSB bill is a something that National suddenly dreamed up and not something deeply flawed that was left over form Helen Clark in 2003. It's actually mostly the power of the media who simply fail in their job of informing. Local paper had the headline of the protest in Tauranga -- 50 people!

Noel said...

One wonders where the civil libertarian's have been.

Back in 2010 technicians had 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 those 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.

The only time GCSB has to be called is for snooping on satellite communications.

I'm not sure who approves those interception warrant but would hope it is a Judge as per the rules for other warrants.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... under the (soon to be old) GCSB Act 2003 the Director applies to the responsible Minister (currently the PM) for an interception warrant (clause 17(1) of the Act refers).

In applying for a warrant the Director is required, pursuant to Clause 17(2) of the Act, to depose, on oath, that the provisions of Clause 17(3) apply.

That's where it all went wrong in the case of

Clause 17(3)(d)(1) of the Act limits the issue of warrants to a "foreign person". Tdc had NZL residency.

One other comment. John Key said yesterday that he had signed off on warrants on person(s) believed to be connected with Al-Qeada undergoing training in Yemen.

The only thing surprising in this is that I would have been very surprised if he hadn't. NZrs are naïve about international terrorism. They think our location at the bottom of the world makes us somehow immune.

Like it or not I certainly have no doubt there are 'crazies' in NZL and if I were an Al-Qeada operative looking for a soft target to make a point then little old NZL would be right up there on my list.

That is why we need the SIS/GCSB and that is why Norman is a dickwit.

Paulus said...

Will anybody ask her as she is back in New Zealand in a few days preaching to all and sundry about her role in the corrupt UN (two well suited).

Noel said...

"John Key said yesterday that he had signed off on warrants on person(s)..."
I suspect most Kiwis have no problem with police and other agencies utilizing all interception systems if it enables a prosecution of those intent on harm.

What many I have spoken to recently do not want is a signing off of interception warrants by anyone other than a Judge.
History has shown they are usually without political bias and habitually require good evidence for the warrants too be signed off.

But will John Key relinquish that responsibility?

Many Hamiltonian's are aware they should be wary of some of their local mosque members.

The Veteran said...

Noel .... below is an extract from the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report on the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill reported to Parliament on 25 Jul 13 as it relates to your question.

Judicial authorisation of warrants

Section 15B (inserted by clause 14) provides for a joint authorisation system for the application of, and issuing of, an interception warrant or access authorisation where warrants are sought about New Zealanders.

Applications would be required to be made jointly to the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants who would jointly issue the warrant or authorisation.

We considered whether this proposed framework would be strengthened by the use of judicial warrants. We were not however persuaded to change the system proposed by the bill for authorising warrants or access authorisations.

We believe the system proposed to be sound and provides a strong focus on the relevant legal requirements.

The Commissioner of Security Warrants was introduced in 1999 as a co-approver of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Services’ domestic warrants alongside the Minister for the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The Commissioner’s role is to advise the Minister on NZSIS applications for warrants concerning New Zealanders, and to jointly issue the warrants.

Section 15B (clause 14) proposes to
extend the involvement of the Commissioner to include interception warrants or access authorisations if the authority is required by the Bureau for the purposes of intercepting the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. This extension mirrors the framework in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Act 1969.

Privileged communications

As an added safeguard for New Zealanders, and to avoid any debate, in those cases where the Commissioner of Security Warrants
is involved, we recommend inserting new section 15C (clause 14) to prevent the Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants from issuing an interception warrant or access authorisation if the
communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents to
be intercepted or accessed are privileged.


Government Communications Security
Bureau and Related Legislation
Amendment Bill 9 New section 15C(2) (clause 14) describes a privileged communication as one that is, or would be, privileged in proceedings in a court of law under sections 54, 56, 58 or 59 of the Evidence Act 2006.

This provision is modelled on section 4A(3) of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969.

Noel said...

Nah doesn't inspire confidence.
Regardless that the current commissioner is an ex High Court Judge it's the pollies that determine who is appointed.

We might as well have special politically appointed Judges for all those other warrants.

And whose definition of "privileged" communication applies?

The Veteran said...

Noel ... tell you what doesn't inspire confidence ... a GCSB Director who deposes, on oath, that the warrant to be issued in respect of was in accordance with the provisions of the GCSB Act 2003.

Re your comment on 'privilege'.

Clause 15C(2) of the Bill makes that quite clear.