Spycams In Your Home For 3 Days With No Warrant

pissface · *by **pissface** on Tue 17/Aug/10 9:50am*

Buried in the technology section of the news. Why is this not front page?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digit ... ce-spycams

Police should soon be able to install wireless cameras to spy on suspects in their homes after politicians signalled they will give new video surveillance laws the green light.

also note earlier this year:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203448 ... new-powers

New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life.

Oli · *by **Oli** on Tue 17/Aug/10 10:06am*

It's inevitable...

pissface · *by **pissface** on Tue 17/Aug/10 10:20am*

Oli wrote:It's inevitable...

no there is still time to make submissions to the select committee. at teh very least, a warrant should be required. at the moment as it stands all it needs is suspicion.

and even if the threshold of suspicion is currently/initially high(ish) that needs to be set in legislation not under regulations made under the act.

schlek1 · *by **schlek1** on Tue 17/Aug/10 10:39am*

Hey pissface. I think there is justifcation for this bill. You will note the article mentioned "limited circumstances."

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.

I would imagine it would relate to something like a conspiracy matter which police receive information about. They therefore need to act immediatley to get themselves ahead of the 8 ball. The camera would be installed forthwith and the monitoring would begin and plans would be put in place to deal with what ever the situation is. If further monitoring is required then over the 3 days the cops go to the judge during normal working hours and submit their application for further monitoring over the 3 month period.

The inital monitoring in the 3 day period could be the critical period and without it peoples lives could be put in danger or even lost. This in my opinion far outweighs any breach of privacy issue.

There are a myriad of examples I can think of. The nutty proffessor who planned to kidnap the businessman in Welly springs to mind. That would be a prime example.

Making the cops seek a warrant for the inital period would complicate things, create red tape and add to unaccceptable delays in dealing with serious crime. I would envisage most installations would proceed to more than the 3 days and would require a warrant anyway.

pissface · *by **pissface** on Tue 17/Aug/10 10:57am*

If your justifications for it are enshrined in the legislation, then that might be acceptable. eg forestalling serious/dangerous crime and loss of life etc.

Are they?

or are these just arguments which indicate conditions under which peopel might agree that it is ok, but the actual law is constructed in such a way as to "allow" a far wider range of breaking and entering on the part of the govt/police.

bear in mind that as originally constructed these provisions allowed bascially any government agency to do it.

oh, you say you have a myriad of examples, but have only come up with one. I note that it was resolved without recourse to these measure.

phunk · *by **phunk** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:02am*

And we slip further towards a police state

pissface · *by **pissface** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:05am*

phunk wrote:And we slip further towards a police state

yeah i'll take the nanny, thanks.
time for a change my arse.

phunk · *by **phunk** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:08am*

I cant believe I miss Clark

wuffy · *by **wuffy** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:10am*

Who are the politicians actually pushing this anyway? Didn't read the whole article.

schlek1 · *by **schlek1** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:26am*

pissface wrote:If your justifications for it are enshrined in the legislation, then that might be acceptable. eg forestalling serious/dangerous crime and loss of life etc.

Are they?

or are these just arguments which indicate conditions under which peopel might agree that it is ok, but the actual law is constructed in such a way as to "allow" a far wider range of breaking and entering on the part of the govt/police.

bear in mind that as originally constructed these provisions allowed bascially any government agency to do it.

oh, you say you have a myriad of examples, but have only come up with one. I note that it was resolved without recourse to these measure.

Its acknowlegded that the allowance of other government agencies was a ballsup. That seems to have been addressed with a rewrite.

I could rattle off endless examples which this bill could have been used but I would be here all day. Just about any murder enquiry and high end conspiracy and drug matters is suffice. (something our country deals with on a weekly basis) I would imagine any info received about a P dealer or manufacturer would require immediate monitoring and this bill would allow that. Considering the consequences of allowing such offending it enables the cops to take action prior to the making and dealing of the goods.

If you want a Nanny state like some of you suggested then dont complain when your innocent friends and family (or yourself) become victims of serious crime as a result of nanny type laws. A mere 3 day allowance of monitoring prior to a judges approval is far from a Police state. This bill will go a long way to preventing and apprehending those who commit serious crime.

Joel · *by **Joel** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:31am*

only need to worry if your a criminal...... or like teh porn.

phunk · *by **phunk** on Tue 17/Aug/10 11:36am*

schlek1 wrote:
pissface wrote:If your justifications for it are enshrined in the legislation, then that might be acceptable. eg forestalling serious/dangerous crime and loss of life etc.

Are they?

or are these just arguments which indicate conditions under which peopel might agree that it is ok, but the actual law is constructed in such a way as to "allow" a far wider range of breaking and entering on the part of the govt/police.

bear in mind that as originally constructed these provisions allowed bascially any government agency to do it.

oh, you say you have a myriad of examples, but have only come up with one. I note that it was resolved without recourse to these measure.

Its acknowlegded that the allowance of other government agencies was a ballsup. That seems to have been addressed with a rewrite.

I could rattle off endless examples which this bill could have been used but I would be here all day. Just about any murder enquiry and high end conspiracy and drug matters is suffice. (something our country deals with on a weekly basis) I would imagine any info received about a P dealer or manufacturer would require immediate monitoring and this bill would allow that. Considering the consequences of allowing such offending it enables the cops to take action prior to the making and dealing of the goods.

If you want a Nanny state like some of you suggested then dont complain when your innocent friends and family (or yourself) become victims of serious crime as a result of nanny type laws. A mere 3 day allowance of monitoring prior to a judges approval is far from a Police state. This bill will go a long way to preventing and apprehending those who commit serious crime.

You sound like a police officer "trust us, we wont abuse our powers". Next up, CCTV cameras all over town for "our safety".