Continued from: The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
On TV3 News, this remarkable piece of “journalism”,
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 News
.
The media in this country are asleep at the wheel. Or drugged. Something.
Their lazy interpretation of events (when they even bother to cover stories of national importance – see: Poisoned Legacy: Why is the News Media and the Left so bad at defending our freedoms?) has gone beyond incompetance – and is now firmly in the land of mis-information.
A prime example of various new media was Tova O’Brien on the evening of Wednesday 22 May 2013 on TV3 News. At about 6.5-6.10pm (and later that evening), she covered the on-going story of Paul Neazor’s report into the GCSB.
O’Brien stated matter of factly,
“The GCSB’s been cleared of breaking the law, but only just. The law ‘s so opaque it’s open to interpretation.The Prime Minister won’t won’t release the report into the spying on those eightyeight New Zealanders because it’s top secret, leaving the Opposition to continue to openly interpret it’s findings.”
Rubbish.
Has she or her news team actually read the f*****g Act?!?!
They can’t have. Otherwise they would know the following parts of the law,
.
Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states,
Restrictions imposed on interceptions
14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
Furthermore, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;
Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
-
(1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
- (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
- (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
- (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
- (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
- (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
- (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
- (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
-
The purpose of this Part is,—
- (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
-
(b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.
.
The law surrounding the GCSB is most certainly not “opaque”. It fairly strait forward to anyone with a Primary School grasp of the Queen’s English.
What part of “Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident“ – do journos not understand?!
FFS!! It’s there in black and white!
The only people who’ve been seriously promoting the meme that the Act is somehow “vague” or “unclear” are the Prime Minister – not exactly noted for being 100% honest with the public – and his appointed minion, GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher.
I’ll point out here and now, this isn’t directed at O’Brien. She simply happens to be the most recent case of sloppy journos who have obviously not bothered to look up the relevant act – because otherwise they would be fully aware that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is actually fairly damned clear and unequivocal. I’ll print the relevant section again – In. Big. Red. Letters.
“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident” ?!
The most dangerous aspect of this sloppy journalism is that the public will take people like O’Brien, or at TVNZ, or the Dominion Post, or NZ Herald, or any number of radio stations at face value. The public will not be bothered to look up the relevant legislation.
And why should they? Aren’t we entitled to have a degree of faith in the media to know what the heck they’re talking about?
Evidently not.
Each time I catch some lazy journo pushing the government-orchestrated meme that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is “unclear” or “vague” – I’ll be on their sad arses pointing out their laziness and sloppy journalism.
This is serious shit, people. National intends to pass laws allowing even more invasion of our privacy; more spying; and increased State power.
If it was Labour doing this, the MSM would be baying for blood and screaming “nanny state!”. But when it comes to National and it’s right wing agenda, all we get is mis-informed “news” that is not based in any reality I’m familiar with.
Jesus, all I’m asking is that the media get their story straight.
When did that ever become something we have to ask for?
It’s simple. Do your job.
For one last time,
“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident” ?!
.
.
= fs =
Keep up the good fight, Frank.
Thank you, Andy. 🙂
By the way…
Here’s something intriguing…
I left links to this blogpost on the Facebook pages of several MSM.
Evidently someone must have complained, as I got a “spam” warning.
So, if the MSM spread the mis-information that I outlined above – that’s called “news”.
If I try to use what limited resources we have have to counter those lies – it’s called “spam”.
If that’s not fucked up…
Great post, couldn’t agree more. I’ll be sharing it on FB, and encouraging others too also. Kind of a back-handed compliment though? If “absolute power is not having to respond” , they obviously feel threatened!
Yes, but some of those people have funny sounding names or don’t look like proper Nu Zilanders, so it’s best to check. They’re bringing it on themselves really.
Comments are closed.