schlek1 wrote:The cops need the power to act at short notice. An example of this would be some sort of serious incident out of normal working hours which requires attention NOW. Not at 8 oclock the next morning when the first judge arrives at court.

Fucking claptrap. If that was the case, they could just have a goddamned judge or a JP on duty at all hours to oversee such "emergency" cases and issue a warrant if it was indeed justified. Even now, if the police really HAD to, I'm sure they could manage to find a judge or a JP to wake up.

Any anyway covert surveillence probably really isn't something the police do in "serious incidents", it's something they do when they want to gather evidence so they can pin charges on people. In a serious incident there is a different rulebook which allows the cops to do a whole lot more in the interests of immediately protecting life.

This sort of shit isn't even acceptable in the United States (see the uproar about GWB's warrantless wire tapping, which is WAY less invasive than warrantless covert camera placing), no fucking way is this an OK thing to have happening in New Zealand.

happybaboon wrote:

schlek1 wrote:The cops need the power to act at short notice. An example of this would be some sort of serious incident out of normal working hours which requires attention NOW. Not at 8 oclock the next morning when the first judge arrives at court.

Fucking claptrap. If that was the case, they could just have a goddamned judge or a JP on duty at all hours to oversee such "emergency" cases and issue a warrant if it was indeed justified. Even now, if the police really HAD to, I'm sure they could manage to find a judge or a JP to wake up.

Any anyway covert surveillence probably really isn't something the police do in "serious incidents", it's something they do when they want to gather evidence so they can pin charges on people. In a serious incident there is a different rulebook which allows the cops to do a whole lot more in the interests of immediately protecting life.

This sort of shit isn't even acceptable in the United States (see the uproar about GWB's warrantless wire tapping, which is WAY less invasive than warrantless covert camera placing), no fucking way is this an OK thing to have happening in New Zealand.

1/ A jp wont sign anything high level like this. Even finding a judge out of hours creates an unacceptable delay in a serious situation.
2/ They are for only serious incidents and are aimed at offences with penalties 7 years plus.
3/ Who gives a fuck about what is/is not acceptable in the US.
4/ If you are really against it that much have you done anything about it other than whinge on vorb??

schlek1 wrote:

happybaboon wrote:

schlek1 wrote:The cops need the power to act at short notice. An example of this would be some sort of serious incident out of normal working hours which requires attention NOW. Not at 8 oclock the next morning when the first judge arrives at court.

Fucking claptrap. If that was the case, they could just have a goddamned judge or a JP on duty at all hours to oversee such "emergency" cases and issue a warrant if it was indeed justified. Even now, if the police really HAD to, I'm sure they could manage to find a judge or a JP to wake up.

Any anyway covert surveillence probably really isn't something the police do in "serious incidents", it's something they do when they want to gather evidence so they can pin charges on people. In a serious incident there is a different rulebook which allows the cops to do a whole lot more in the interests of immediately protecting life.

This sort of shit isn't even acceptable in the United States (see the uproar about GWB's warrantless wire tapping, which is WAY less invasive than warrantless covert camera placing), no fucking way is this an OK thing to have happening in New Zealand.

1/ A jp wont sign anything high level like this. Even finding a judge out of hours creates an unacceptable delay in a serious situation.
2/ They are for only serious incidents and are aimed at offences with penalties 7 years plus.
3/ Who gives a fuck about what is/is not acceptable in the US.
4/ If you are really against it that much have you done anything about it other than whinge on vorb??

Re 4, I'm pretty certain Babs wouldn't have voted for National...

1) Appropriately trained JP's can remand people in custody and perform other minor legal tasks. Any non-Police oversight would be a vast improvement upon none at all.

2) As I pointed out before, what kind of incident is both urgent enough that it can't wait until a judge (of whom there are probably hundreds, if not thousands about) is found and yet not urgent enough that covert surveillence is required for three days? Finding a judge/JP would take far less time than finding the time and opportunity to break into someones house and install hidden cameras.

Furthermore without some sort of oversight this sort of action by the Police/SIS could remain completely hidden from public view - it would be up to the police to decide when and where "serious offending" may be taking place without any outside consideration. Cops could put cameras wherever they damn well please for up to three days, then remove them in secret with no one being any the wiser. If a camera WERE located they'd just be able to say "Well, we thought he was making meth! HONEST!"

3) Loads of people. The best way to measure our own freedoms and human rights is to compare them to what happens elsewhere. Generally NZ's got a way better record than the US with regards to such freedoms... But this sort of carry on would cause an uproar in the us.

4) Funny you should ask. I made a submission to the select committee, emailed same to the local MP, talked to a newspaper man friend at the pub last night (who I guess I hope will write an editorial or some such thing about this).

Good stuff Babs.

Nice one Babs

Who voted these National party chumps in anyway?

happybaboon wrote:1) Appropriately trained JP's can remand people in custody and perform other minor legal tasks. Any non-Police oversight would be a vast improvement upon none at all.

2) As I pointed out before, what kind of incident is both urgent enough that it can't wait until a judge (of whom there are probably hundreds, if not thousands about) is found and yet not urgent enough that covert surveillence is required for three days? Finding a judge/JP would take far less time than finding the time and opportunity to break into someones house and install hidden cameras.

Furthermore without some sort of oversight this sort of action by the Police/SIS could remain completely hidden from public view - it would be up to the police to decide when and where "serious offending" may be taking place without any outside consideration. Cops could put cameras wherever they damn well please for up to three days, then remove them in secret with no one being any the wiser. If a camera WERE located they'd just be able to say "Well, we thought he was making meth! HONEST!"

3) Loads of people. The best way to measure our own freedoms and human rights is to compare them to what happens elsewhere. Generally NZ's got a way better record than the US with regards to such freedoms... But this sort of carry on would cause an uproar in the us.

4) Funny you should ask. I made a submission to the select committee, emailed same to the local MP, talked to a newspaper man friend at the pub last night (who I guess I hope will write an editorial or some such thing about this).

especially

Finding a judge/JP would take far less time than finding the time and opportunity to break into someones house and install hidden cameras.

wuffy wrote:

nostromo wrote:Cool, spycam away for all I care.

Precisely.

Gives me all the more reasons to prance around the house naked

With the bananas and the cream?

schlek1 wrote:4/ If you are really against it that much have you done anything about it other than whinge on vorb??

as the original "whinger on vorb" in this instance, I can point to the raised awareness in this sector of the community, since the newspapers have chosen to first bury it in the tech news, and then report it as the legislation having been softened from the first time (and avoiding giving details of what is still in), and the likelihood of the topic at least being discussed, plus more submissions being made.

the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is a well known and fallacious misdirection in privacy arguments, look it up on the internets. (as is the "i have nothing to hide" - great, prance around naked all you want, your lack of inhibition is no grounds for taking away the privacy of others, is no argument that others have no right to expect to be able to without being watched)

E Dogg Capizzle wrote:Who voted these National party chumps in anyway?

Where is my tax cuts??????///forwardslash

E Dogg Capizzle wrote:Who voted these National party chumps in anyway?

Phunk!!