We Are All America

[gumboot]

A rather fascinating thing is happening at the moment in my country, and I thought it might trigger an interesting discussion about globalism. I apologies for the long post, but some background is needed to properly introduce the topic.

For those wanting to get to the meat of it, the brief summation is that, parallel with the US's current intelligence scandals, New Zealand is having it's own little intelligence scandal. The interesting thing is that the rhetoric being used in New Zealand is increasingly informed by, and invoking, issues that are more relevant to the US issue than the NZ issue.

Some background;

Like most western countries, New Zealand has a range of government organisations that perform different intelligence gathering tasks; the Security Intelligence Service (SIS - Counterintelligence and government security advisory) the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB - Signals Intelligence), New Zealand Police (law enforcement), and New Zealand Defence Force (military intelligence).

Also like many western countries, New Zealand has laws in place restricting the powers of these organisations, and in particularly limiting the circumstances in which they can conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens and residents. Of particular relevance, the GCSB (our equivalent of the NSA) is prohibited from spying on New Zealand residents and citizens.

As a result of an ongoing extradition case in relation to Megaupload founder "Kim Dotcom" (who is a New Zealand resident) it was discovered that the GCSB has historically been providing intelligence support to other government agencies in the belief that their restriction on spying on NZ citizens and residents didn't apply if the work was being conducted for an agency that did have authority to spy on NZ citizens (such as the Police with a phone-interception warrant).

When this matter became public an investigation was held that identified 88 instances where the GCSB had supported other agencies. The investigation concluded that no other breaches of law had occurred (other than Kim Dotcom), but that the GCSB could not legally support other agencies based on current legislation.

The government suspended all such support, but has hurried through legislation amending the way the GCSB operates so that they will be legally able to conduct surveillance on behalf of agencies that are legally permitted to do so. The argument behind this is that New Zealand is a small country, thus it makes sense to share government resources. Otherwise the Police, SIS, and NZDF (all of whom, under specific circumstances, are permitted to conduct surveillance on New Zealand residents and citizens) would have to each invest in their own signals intelligence infrastructure, at considerable cost.

A lot of people are opposed to the legislation and/or opposed to the way it has been so quickly put together. There have been protests, and extensive social media campaigns as well as strong campaigns by the mainstream media.
Fair enough, no surprises there. We're a democracy, that's how it's supposed to work.

But

What's interesting is what many opponents have been saying, and what the rhetoric is that the popular movement is pushing out, and not just the general population, but opposition parties in government and leading academics, the mainstream media, and so on.

This issue in New Zealand is not one of mass surveillance or unwarranted surveillance. It's quite different to the various intelligence scandals currently stirring in the US, where the government has found to be trawling data on a huge scale, and is seeking to justify it.

Yet these are the concerns and issues that are too often raised in opposition to the GCSB law change. There is a common effort to try link the two issues.

To my mind, there's two possible explanations for this. Some opponents of the bill are simply ideologically opposed to surveillance in all forms, and will automatically oppose any intelligence-related legislation. I can see people with that sort of agenda deliberately misrepresenting the issue in an effort to spread suspicion and fear in the population. It is, in essence, a strawman, exploiting the much bigger issue in the US and trying to imply the NZ issue is the same.

But that doesn't explain the scale of misrepresentation. Those people described above are vocal, but they're still a minority. Most people understand a need for some sort of surveillance.

It almost seems that a large percentage of people don't seem to grasp that we're a different country to the US, and that their intelligence issues are completely unrelated to ours. There's a sort of blind assumption that it's the same issue, as if we're all a single giant monolithic entity. They're bombarded daily with international media covering the US intelligence issue, simultaneously with local media covering the NZ issue.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing in their country, where political or social issues in one country have been conflated with related (but distinctly different) issues in another country?

 

[Childlike Empress]

"Completely unrelated"? Really, gummi? Even you must be aware that your country is one of the "five eyes" by now.

Kim "Dotcom" used to be the laughing stock of the German hacker scene but that was a long time ago and what he does now is quite positive, namely exposing the sycophants that run your beautiful country for what they are.

Interesting recent in-depth interview here.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Thanks for sharing. This is the first I've heard of NZ's surveillance controversy. Apologies that I cannot answer your question, because I reside in the US. None-the-less I hope you are able to find my comments useful. As a side note, I find it amazing how information spreads in communities, states, countries and now globally.

It is my understanding that the Patriot Act (passed in 2001 as a result of 9/11) was the first law that allowed the various US law organizations to legally share intel. After it's passing there was a group that had similar criticizes that NZ citizenss' are voicing.

In order for me to form an intelligent decision on this now legalized cross-agency cooperation, I'd need to understand why a law was passed that strictly prohibited some agencies from certain spy tactics, while allowing other agencies permission. And to see why those concerns are no longer valid.

My first thought was, why not just have one giant super agency that does everything, but I can most certainly see the dis/advantage to having many individual agencies operating with different leadership. So nix that idea, because one giant agency does not equal many agencies that are allowed to share intel.

As an added bonus: If you google "Pressure cookers" and "backpacks," the police may visit your home.

 

[gumboot]

"Completely unrelated"? Really, gummi? Even you must be aware that your country is one of the "five eyes" by now.

I'm well aware of that. What's your point?

Kim "Dotcom" used to be the laughing stock of the German hacker scene but that was a long time ago and what he does now is quite positive, namely exposing the sycophants that run your beautiful country for what they are.

Kim Dotcom's only interest is in trying to undermine the extradition case against him. While I am very much opposed to the US's attitude to extradition in recent years, Kim Dotcom ran a multimillion dollar business engaged in copyright violation. The US are after him for it, and he's just trying to save his own ass.

 

[gumboot]

In order for me to form an intelligent decision on this now legalized cross-agency cooperation, I'd need to understand why a law was passed that strictly prohibited some agencies from certain spy tactics, while allowing other agencies permission. And to see why those concerns are no longer valid.

Well, the general idea behind it originally is the the GCSB is set up to intercept large scale radio and satellite communications globally, sweeping them for anything of note. It's generally accepted that is an inappropriate way to monitor your own citizens, so it's thought it's best to keep this sort of activity to a separate government agency that isn't involved in law enforcement and so on.

The activities of agencies permitted to conduct surveillance on citizens is quite different; it's targetted at specific individuals for specific reasons, and requires a warrant.

I think it's pretty broadly accepted that general surveillance of citizens is bad, but that surveillance of specific individuals (such as criminals) may be required from time to time.

Where you run into problems is where law enforcement and other permitted surveillance agencies find themselves on rare occasion needing to intercept things like radio and satellite communication, but they don't themselves have the equipment to do this.

The two options are to either provide these agencies the appropriate equipment, or to allow exemptions to the agency that already has said equipment, allowing them to provide surveillance support to the other agencies.

My first thought was, why not just have one giant super agency that does everything, but I can most certainly see the dis/advantage to having many individual agencies operating with different leadership. So nix that idea, because one giant agency does not equal many agencies that are allowed to share intel.

I think the general idea is that the merging of "internal" and "external" government agencies is a sign of a authoritarian regime. The military and the police are preferably kept separate.

What I find kind of interesting about this is that New Zealanders appear to have no objection to the military being used to assist the police with law enforcement matters.

I wonder if what's driving this is that New Zealanders have a very long-standing distrust of the GCSB, which goes back to the nuclear weapons fallout over the ANZUS treaty. To this day many New Zealanders are adamant that the GCSB is actually an American agency, parading as a New Zealand agency. It's all rather bizarre.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

New Zealand's intelligence assets?

You mean the Crebain?

 

[Navigator]

The small fluffy American pet = NZ

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm well aware of that. What's your point?

I was illustrating that your wordy post and especially the title and the second-to-last paragraph is quite clueless, but given that you are aware of it, now it seems it's just more of the usual disinfo you're known for.

 

[Orphia Nay]

It almost seems that a large percentage of people don't seem to grasp that we're a different country to the US, and that their intelligence issues are completely unrelated to ours. There's a sort of blind assumption that it's the same issue, as if we're all a single giant monolithic entity. They're bombarded daily with international media covering the US intelligence issue, simultaneously with local media covering the NZ issue.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing in their country, where political or social issues in one country have been conflated with related (but distinctly different) issues in another country?

I'm certain I've seen this sort of thing from Australians, but I just can't think of a particular example at the moment, sorry. Not much help, I know. [/subscribe]

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What's interesting is what many opponents have been saying, and what the rhetoric is that the popular movement is pushing out, and not just the general population, but opposition parties in government and leading academics, the mainstream media, and so on.

The Opposition party and the News Media have their own agendas, which are to get more votes/viewers. Criticizing the government and sensationalizing issues is their stock-in-trade. Sometimes it actually helps, more often it doesn't - but they don't care either way. The people are sheep who will believe anything the News Media tells them (after all, "why would they lie?"). What most people don't realize is that everything they are feeding us is for one purpose only - to get more advertizing dollars.

It almost seems that a large percentage of people don't seem to grasp that we're a different country to the US, and that their intelligence issues are completely unrelated to ours.

The particular issues are irrelevant, all that matters is that people who are outraged are more likely to sit through the ads and/or vote for the Opposition in the next election.

NZ and the US are actually not that different. Both countries are consumer societies, and we are both being force fed outrage by organizations who are aren't at all interested our best interests - only their bottom line. I fear that the result will be weakened defenses against our enemies, and we will all suffer the consequences.

They're bombarded daily with international media covering the US intelligence issue, simultaneously with local media covering the NZ issue.

And it's working. We are becoming a global society. New Zealand has imported American media, American consumerism, American culture, even American racism. The details of our intelligence issues are different, but the sentiment is the same - and to our masters it doesn't matter so long as we keep buying stuff!

The real issue is not how intelligence is being gathered, but how we are being misled into believing that the government is not on our side. One day we may wake up and realize that we have been played, but by then it will be too late. There are known Al Qaeda agents in New Zealand right now. We need to continue monitoring these people and their associates, whether they are NZ citizens or not.

Today's terrorists operate internationally, so we need the tools to fight them internationally. I am quite happy with letting the government 'spy' on us in order to bring these criminals to justice. Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" but liberty without safety is worthless. Letting the government 'listen in' to our electronic communications is a small price to pay for being kept safe from terrorists and criminals. And let us remember who else is not on our side - the News Media and opposition political parties. They benefit if we suffer from more criminal and terrorist activity, not less!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

wat

 

[ServiceSoon]

Well, the general idea behind it originally is the the GCSB is set up to intercept large scale radio and satellite communications globally, sweeping them for anything of note. It's generally accepted that is an inappropriate way to monitor your own citizens, so it's thought it's best to keep this sort of activity to a separate government agency that isn't involved in law enforcement and so on.

If it's generally accepted that this is an inappropriate activity (I think I agree), why would it matter if it was being carried out by a separate gov agency or law enforcement? In either scenario it's considered unacceptable, but still occurring.

The activities of agencies permitted to conduct surveillance on citizens is quite different; it's targetted at specific individuals for specific reasons, and requires a warrant.

I think it's pretty broadly accepted that general surveillance of citizens is bad, but that surveillance of specific individuals (such as criminals) may be required from time to time.

I agree this is proper, and non-controversial. It was basically the law when the US was founded (4th amendment to US Constitution).

Where you run into problems is where law enforcement and other permitted surveillance agencies find themselves on rare occasion needing to intercept things like radio and satellite communication, but they don't themselves have the equipment to do this.

The two options are to either provide these agencies the appropriate equipment, or to allow exemptions to the agency that already has said equipment, allowing them to provide surveillance support to the other agencies.

I vote the latter, allow these agencies to contact GCSB for assistance. I am slightly confused. Why would GCSB need any exemptions if they are already reviewing this data on a massive scale? I would be very surprised if they were not storing this data, at least on a short-term basis (< 1 year).

I think the general idea is that the merging of "internal" and "external" government agencies is a sign of a authoritarian regime. The military and the police are preferably kept separate.

What I find kind of interesting about this is that New Zealanders appear to have no objection to the military being used to assist the police with law enforcement matters.

I wonder if what's driving this is that New Zealanders have a very long-standing distrust of the GCSB, which goes back to the nuclear weapons fallout over the ANZUS treaty. To this day many New Zealanders are adamant that the GCSB is actually an American agency, parading as a New Zealand agency. It's all rather bizarre.

Countries all have their quirks. Based on culture, history, etc. Considering the information that childlike empress was kind enough to share about five-eyes, I can empathize with NZ'ers concerns.

 

[Damien Evans]

I'm certain I've seen this sort of thing from Australians, but I just can't think of a particular example at the moment, sorry. Not much help, I know. [/subscribe]

Occupy Melbourne is an excellent example.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Occupy Melbourne is an excellent example.

Ah yes, thanks. I could remember Australian friends posting stuff from various American "Occupy" sites, but not that one at the time I posted in this thread.

 

[gumboot]

If it's generally accepted that this is an inappropriate activity (I think I agree), why would it matter if it was being carried out by a separate gov agency or law enforcement? In either scenario it's considered unacceptable, but still occurring.

Not with any NZ agencies. Neither the GCSB or law enforcement conducts widespread surveillance of NZ citizens. Nor is there any plan to do so. Essentially, some people are trying to claim that this is what the legislation amendment is for, but it isn't.

I vote the latter, allow these agencies to contact GCSB for assistance.

And that's what the NZ government has decided to do, hence the law change, which many people are upset about.

I am slightly confused. Why would GCSB need any exemptions if they are already reviewing this data on a massive scale?

They're not. They can only intercept and inspect international traffic that doesn't involve New Zealanders or citizens of the other five eye alliance states. Where communications or data of NZ or alliance citizens is inadvertently collected in data sweeps, they are required to discard the data.

Basically it breaks down like this:

OLD (CURRENT) RULES:
Non-citizen (including alliance citizens) Traffic - They can do what they like with it.
Citizen Traffic - prohibited from intercepting.

NEW (PROPOSED) RULES:
Non-citizen Traffic - they can do what they like with it.
Citizen Traffic - only permitted to intercept on behalf of other government agencies that are legally authorised to conduct intercept.

However, to get back to the point of the thread, the way some people see it is:

OLD (CURRENT) RULES:
Non-citizen (including alliance citizens) Traffic - They can do what they like with it.
Citizen Traffic - prohibited from intercepting.

NEW (PROPOSED) RULES:
Non-citizen Traffic - they can do what they like with it.
Citizen Traffic - they can do what they like with it.

 

[gumboot]

Considering the information that childlike empress was kind enough to share about five-eyes, I can empathize with NZ'ers concerns.

The UKUSA Agreement applies only to foreign communications, which is defined as communications of governments or entities other than those of the USA and Commonwealth.

Given that the communication of New Zealand citizens does not fit the UKUSA Agreement definition of "foreign communications", the Five Eyes Alliance is irrelevant to the NZ issue.

Of course, the current US scandals indicate the NSA is willing to ignore laws restricting its monitoring activities, which is a legitimate area of concern for US citizens and citizens of Five Eye Alliance members (if the NSA has no qualms about violating the restrictions on monitoring their own citizens, why would they stop and violating restrictions on monitoring alliance citizens?), so the Five Eyes Alliance is very relevant to the US issue.

However there's no evidence at all of the GCSB similarly violating restrictions on it, thus there's no legitimate grounds for either NZ or other alliance citizens being concerned about the GCSB violating restrictions.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

However there's no evidence at all of the GCSB similarly violating restrictions on it,

Um...

Police launch probe into spying on Dotcom

It emerged Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) agents illegally snooped on Dotcom and van der Kolk in the run-up to the raid on his home.

They are both New Zealand residents which protects them from spying.

And Kim Dotcom becomes a darling of the New Zealand news media. What do they see in him?

As expected, the Opposition party are all over it:-
New Zealand Herald: Labour would repeal GCSB law - Shearer

Labour leader David Shearer says the proposed GCSB bill is "bad law" and would be repealed if the party was successful at next year's election.

Got to make hay while the sun shines!

Neither the GCSB or law enforcement conducts widespread surveillance of NZ citizens. Nor is there any plan to do so.

Of course not. However it is understandable that people might think they do, when news reports are ambiguous:-

TV3 News: GCSB bill back for another stage

The contentious legislation which allows the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on New Zealanders is due for its committee stage today.

Is it simply that they don't have enough time to report the news properly, or a deliberate attempt to make it sound more controversial?

However, to get back to the point of the thread, the way some people see it is:...

Non-citizen Traffic - they can do what they like with it.
Citizen Traffic - they can do what they like with it.

Yes, but where did they get that incorrect notion from? Funny how the same ambiguous phrase turns up in different places, almost like a meme...

Stuff Nation: Why you should care about GCSB bill

New Zealanders are about to face a new low as John Key's cabinet rushes through an amendment that would allow the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to spy on New Zealanders...

The old argument, "If you have nothing to hide, why does it matter?" You absolutely have a lot to hide. They will know what websites you visit and what kind of porn you like. Want to be categorised as sexually deviant? They will know....

You think the Government doesn't really care about your racist or not so racist views on Māori culture. All that politically incorrect nonsense you hear at work, at the pub, at the marae? Surely the Government doesn't care. Think again, it's all being recorded and they will be there ready if you do something wrong.

 

[gumboot]

Um...

Police launch probe into spying on Dotcom And Kim Dotcom becomes a darling of the New Zealand news media. What do they see in him?

The GCSB was monitoring Kim Dotcom on behalf of the New Zealand police, under the legal advice that warrants issued to other government agencies to conduct surveillance extended to them as well. New legal advice suggests that this is questionable (it's important to note that the legal advice is not that it's illegal, rather than it's a grey area as it hasn't been tested in court). As a result of this new advice such surveillance has been suspended until legislation is amended to remove any legislative ambiguity as to the legality of such surveillance.

Of course not. However it is understandable that people might think they do, when news reports are ambiguous:-

TV3 News: GCSB bill back for another stageIs it simply that they don't have enough time to report the news properly, or a deliberate attempt to make it sound more controversial?

I'm going to go with the latter. It's worth pointing out that New Zealand is serviced by some of the worst journalism on the planet...

Yes, but where did they get that incorrect notion from? Funny how the same ambiguous phrase turns up in different places, almost like a meme...

Stuff Nation: Why you should care about GCSB bill

What's most bizarre about this is the number of respected, trusted figures who are coming out at stating things about the bill that are simply not true. And I'm not just talking politicians or journalists (half truths and outright fabrications are the standard MO for them), but human rights campaigners and even legal experts.

The text of the bill is available at the NZ government legislation website, and it's pretty clear in black and white that it does nothing like what some of these people are claiming it does.

It's honestly like half the country has totally lost their mind. And I'm convinced that's a result of people blindly absorbing media information about the NSA spying scandal and wrongly applying it to the New Zealand instance. I can't think of a single other explanation.