Cops investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty of their request for the GCSB to illegally spy on Dotcom


Just so that we all comprehend what this decision by the Police not to charge themselves over spying on Dotcom means – when the NZ Police & their para-military proxies break the law, but don’t ‘intend to break the law’, it’s okay.

Welcome to the new reality.

The true horror of what we have allowed John Key to pass as GCSB legislation is now dawning. ‘They’ get to define and interpret ‘their’ intentions and thus can never fall foul of any meaningful check or balance.

Take the staggering revelations this week that the NZ Police have requested Facebook hand over the details of 119 NZ Facebook users in only the first 6 months of this year. What is most interesting about this is that Facebook turned down 42% of them. What was it the NZ Police were trying to access that made Facebook turn them now almost half the time? Under TICS and the GCSB legislation, Facebook may not find itself able to resist future requests.

It is deeply concerning that NZ was the 8th worst abuser of Facebook by the Police out of the top 20 countries.

TDB Recommends

Screen Shot 2013-08-29 at 7.55.58 PM

John Key’s performance on Campbell Live is looking less polished confidence and more maliciously hollow.

As the ever brilliant Keith Ng puts it, “GCSB assistance” is basically “NSA assistance”, so when the Police asks for GCSB help, it’s actually getting NSA help.


  1. Jaw dropping bollocks but no surprises – Never intended to break the law – never intended getting caught more like it …
    I never intended to speed – who should I apply to to reverse the ticket or change the law?

  2. The Stasi, KGB, the various spy agencies of western nations like the US and their allies, and of course Mossad and their friends, they are always “right” and have “no criminal intent”.

    The NZ versions of such agencies are naturally not much different, and hence this decision by the police to not investigate and prosecute.

    Did anybody really expect any other decision on the complaint laid by the “cheeky” Greens?

    Does anybody feel surprised that John Key did not wish to comment?

    Oh, yes, and remember those many IPCA complaints about police conduct, and what that mostly leads to. Either the police (usually investigating themselves) are not being held responsible, and only did their duties (when there is insufficient evidence to prove they did not), and even where the officers may be found responsible for misconduct, they usually never face disciplinary actions, only sometimes maybe some “warning” or “advice” and “additional training”.

    The average folk are treated one way, yet the agencies to enforce the law, or to spy on us, they are always “cleaner” and more innocent than the rest of us. But hey, New Zealand is still a land upholding and following the rule of law and natural justice, yeah right.

    Let us wait and see how the next cup of tea and accidental taping story will be dealt with next election!

  3. George Orwell talked of something he called “Thought Crime”

    Now we have a farcical situation where the New Zealand police will charge themselves, only if they “intended to break the law”.

    My question is this: Will the Police be arresting themselves after they break the law, or when they form the intention to do so?

    Obviously ludicrous. But what is behind the twisted logic?

    Do the police no longer have to obey the law?

    Why would police who intend to break the law admit to it?

    But now if they give their word that they didn’t “intend” to break the law when they next commit a criminal act, they can do anything and get away with it.

    Just taking the sick twisted logic behind this decision just a bit further; What other laws are the police allowed to break if they say they don’t intend to break them?

    Rape? Murder? Torture?

    Law breaking has not just been legalised for the police in this case but in all police cases.

    As this government moves us closer and closer towards open fascism

    • “What other laws are the police allowed to break if they say they don’t intend to break them?
      Rape? Murder? Torture?”

      Been there – done that!

    • I wrote to the police on this topic. They seem to be allowed to break some laws eg they can speed, run red lights etc. to attend crime scenes.

      They can murder people (Halatau Naitoko) if in persuit of an offender it seems.

      I’m unclear what they have to do to be charged with breaking the law when in persuit of an offender, or more accurately it’s often a suspected offender.

      Chasing a fleeing driver for instance can result (often) in the death of other motorists, passengers (or as I call them, kidnap victims) but police don’t seem to be charged with manslaughter or even dangerous driving causing death. A high price to may for the crime of failing to stop.

  4. Welcome to 1984 folks but let not give up hope that Kiwis will get up of the lazy asses and vote before there is no voting…. Remember Florida in 2000? Bush’s brother and campaign manager decided 9 million voters were ineligible to vote which won Bush the election.

  5. The tremendous thing is that we can get rid of the Jonky hoard . There are many countries still that will disappear you for writing things such as this and the only way to get rid of your oppressors would be with guns and bombs while causing death and destruction . All we have to do in NZ is to convince the 800,000 people who didn’t vote to reacquaint themselves with their solemn responsibility to participate and vote . A right and privilege won the old fashioned way by men and women who killed each other for you and I .

    That’s why I would argue for compulsory voting . We have to make voting compulsory in New Zealand , at least until the dust settles . It’s compulsory to enroll but it’s not compulsory to vote ? I don’t see the logic in that . Jonky will be planning an election strategy around the lackadaisical 800,000 as I write . And it’s chilling to note that the pro neo liberal , right wing voter faction out there are at least motivated enough to vote on the day .

    Lets just get rid of the little shitbag and repeal the GCSB law .
    Then lets carry out an investigation into the rational behind the law changes themselves and see who , and why the law changes were enacted in the first place .

    Jonky may be as slippery as a waxed weasel , he may be clever and cunning too but the guy is fundamentally and , as we’re seeing , fatally unintelligent . He’s giving his own game away by being unbelievably arrogant and flippant . Two things in any Kiwi pub that would get you a punch in the face .

    I’m pinning all my hopes on the new Labour Leader to unite us in getting rid of fucking jonky .

    Perhaps a bit off topic here … or is it ?
    I reckon jonky is paving the way for a colonization process .

    Israel is now sandwiched between Syria and Russian and American war ships gagging to have a go .

  6. That the cops used Kristy McDonald QC to review their investigation removes all doubt that it was a total whitewash. Someone should lay a private prosecution and make the bastards defend their corrupt stance.

  7. Used to be that ignorance of the law was no defence.

    It is, in any case, for the Police to decide if there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the law. It is for the Courts and the justice system to decide if there are extenuating circumstances.

    Private prosecution anyone?

  8. Given that the police have admitted a law has been broken/crime committed (intended or otherwise), does this leave open the possibiity that a member of the public can take the GCSB/Police to court or sue them (not sure of the exact legal terminology) as that lawyer has done with John Banks?

    • I did a private prosecution in 1993 when the cops refused to act. Got a conviction and the cops reluctantly reimbursed me my costs. I complained to the PCA and all he had to say was the Police enjoy the right of discretion to prosecute or not and that they clearly exercised that right in my case. Fuck em all!

  9. Why is terrorism legislation being used for law enforcement that is not terrorism related?
    The broadening of what constitues ‘terrorism’ should be a warning.
    Mass data collection by programs like PRISM needs to be stopped before it goes even further.
    The ability to use xKeyscore for accessing data 2-3 steps removed from the suspect means that millions could have their private data accessible, including reporters and politicians. This means data collected over years becomes available to a search…privacy issues aside, that much data could effectively be used in a way that paints nearly anyone as a ‘terrorist’, if their opinion is ‘inconvenient’.
    John Key saying it’s not mass data collection is misrepresenting how data is being collected and shared. NZ can gather data on Americans, the US can gather data on Kiwis…the UK gathers data on both…and all that data is available to intelligence agencies in the 5 eyes network.

    Use of publically available facebook information could be considered a more acceptable use of data by police… but private information should be considered private unless a court warrant is obtained…and why isn’t there a requirement for the judicial issue of warrants anyway?

    Let’s hope there’s enough information out there to keep people aware of the big issues before the next election.

Comments are closed.