Golriz has every reason to be furious at Supermarket/Police mass surveillance

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
32
1273

Thank God there is still one decent journalist at the New Zealand Herald…

Former MP Golriz Ghahraman critical of police’s ‘weird’ pursuit of Pak’nSave alleged shoplifting incident

    • Golriz Ghahraman says police never charged any of the people who threatened her while in politics;
    • Police have changed the statement issued last week which said Golriz Ghahraman would not be charged;
    • Leo Molloy says he has been offered a viewing of the video of the shopping incident.

Police have been accused of being “weird” and “obsessed” by former MP Golriz Ghahraman after refusing to change a public statement in which it bluntly stated an item was “taken” from the Pak’n Save where she was shopping.

The same statement emailed out by the police communications team also described the incident unequivocally as “shoplifting”.

That was changed and now refers to an “alleged” instance of shoplifting after the intervention of high-profile criminal barrister Ron Mansfield KC.

- Sponsor Promotion -

Ghahraman has spoken to the Herald about her dissatisfaction with police priorities.

“It’s weird to see NZ Police so obsessed with this non-issue, when they never once brought a charge in relation to any of the extremist threats I received for six years as an MP,” Ghahraman said.

“Nor have they even acknowledged the public outrage about police information being leaked, not least to someone like Leo Molloy.”

…that a toxic leprechaun like Molloy was the leak of this character assassination is one thing, but the police enabling mass surveillance via Supermarkets is a totally other thing…

The incident unfolded on October 12 and Ghahraman was identified by police two days later through screening shoplifting alerts on the surveillance platform Auror.

The information was then passed to the Auckland-based detective senior sergeant handling the inquiry which resulted with Ghahraman pleading guilty to four charges of shoplifting from high-end fashion shops during 2023.

…the process here is so corrupt. No search warrant, no due process, not even an actual crime committed, and the NZ Police were able to access mass surveillance powers because the Supermarket Duopoly has face recognition technology that the Police can access.

How have we given Big Brother Powers to the Bloody Supermarkets?

Why are we allowing supermarkets more surveillance powers than the State?

Rotorua woman wrongly kicked out over Foodstuffs facial recognition fail says she’ll keep fighting

A Rotorua woman wrongly kicked out of a supermarket using facial recognition technology says she will keep on fighting its spread.

Foodstuffs says a trial in 25 New Worlds and Pak’nSaves has concluded the technology reduces harmful behaviour shoppers, and its use will carry on.

Te-Ani Solomon said she too would carry on with her case at the Human Rights Review Tribunal, claiming the technology was discriminatory.

“Because I really don’t want this to happen to anybody else and for my own selfishness, I have to, because I’ve never in all my life felt so powerless till I did that night, where I was in front of my son, embarrassed, trying to justify how I wasn’t a thief,” she told RNZ on Friday.

Doesn’t it say something of the power of the Supermarket Duopoly that they are able to film us using face recognition technology?

Why the fuck have we allowed them to have more mass surveillance powers than the Police?

Supermarkets and access to them are a necessity as a part of our food supply chain.

Yes shoplifters and abusive customers are not acceptable, but cutting them from accessing food is more unacceptable!

Using mass surveillance with face recognition technology to troll for all behaviour in public before Police attempt to use that as evidence is such an enormous over reach of power you can see why that aspect of the Police case was quickly shelved in case the public begun asking how the Police knew about the allegation and what legal processes they used to gain access.

Why have we allowed Food Corporations so much power, including filming us? They have an obligation as part of our food supply chain that goes beyond thieves, so why are we allowing them to use theft as a means to spy on us in their shops?

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

32 COMMENTS

  1. This is a classic example of why you put privacy and individual rights first. The ZB catch cry ( I can hear Ada already) of “if you are not doing anything wrong what have you got to worry about” when initiatives like this go ahead, just gets shot down every time. Find power to abuse and that’s what they will do.

    • No- this is a classic example of putting corporate rights ahead of privacy and individual rights. Right wingers only put privacy and individual rights first when it suits them eg. when campaigning in elections and then introducing legislation when in power than shifting those rights, and all power, to corporations by calling them ‘individuals’.

    • 250k young people abused in state care, but the police were MIA and are still MIA when it came to investigating. These are lives destroyed, and the level of seriousness doesn’t even compare to retail crime. Yet the Police response shows what the priorities are. Watching us on street cameras, knowing where we drive with number plate recognition, watching what we purchase at supermarkets – we are now all under the microscope of big data surveillance.
      And that is just what we have been allowed to know, so who knows how powerful these surveillance capabilities will become, or have already become. Picture the scenario were some police officer with a grudge about someone, for example “Golriz”, can type that name into their surveillance system, and the system will then output a timeline of the footage and locations of “Golriz” captured by their facial recognition databases for any given day. It’s enough to make the least paranoid paranoid, let alone those prone to paranoia.
      Does the ends justify the means, because with all this watching aka stalking, the crime rate should be zero, and our country should be a safer than any time in history, but that’s far from reality. It’s good people that make a good society, not good surveillance.
      From a mental health perspective, the police blind eye to abuse, and all seeing eye to retail crime, is almost schizophrenic. While increasing levels of paranoia caused by ubiquitous surveillance, in an already paranoid world, will probably result in the increase in all manner of wacky conspiracy belief uptake, extremism buy in, anti vax, anti moonlanding, and whatever comes next, you name it. Even the leader of the free world once advocated bleach treatment for viral illness disinformation.
      Tarrant’s aren’t born, they are created by radicalization and paranoia and conspiracy thinking such as his “great replacement” claptrap. Big data surveillance isn’t making society any safer, but it may incubate more Tarrants.
      Maybe the police angle is, that they don’t care if they contribute to generating more crime, as long as they catch the perpetrators, they are doing well, and as long as the perpetrators aren’t any of the untouchables who abused children in care. Public servants generally, and those involved in the state care of children particularly, should come under greater scrutiny from police when their is a possibility of wrongdoing, not less.
      Public servants should set an example of behavior for society, not an example of mafiosi behavior, and need to be held to higher account, not lower account. Its currently all wrong, and it doesn’t look like its being put right. If a complainant goes to a police station tomorrow, with an allegation of abuse in care, nothing will have changed, and we will end up needing another royal commission about it later on.

  2. Since the staff are forbidden from getting involved with thieves as they force their way out, cameras are the only recourse the shops have to ID thieves and ban them.

    I favour the Singapore approach – caning for miscreants such as this.

  3. Golriz was approached by staff before she reached the checkout so just by entering the store she triggered an alarm. This raises questions about police cooperation with mass surveillance and the level of police input into the system, the legality of which should be made clear.

    • Peter Maybe not. In a local supermarket duty managers are notified in store when persons-of- interest appear, and they whizz towards the entrance. They know the local shoplifters. Most nearby retail businesses have their own cctv, including the charity shops.

      As far as Golriz is concerned, there’s noting indicating that she intended stealing again if she hadn’t reached the checkout.

      • I love how you pretend that stealing from large corporate supermarkets in NZ is somehow equivalent to stealing from shopkeepers in a civilized country.

  5. The thing I worry about is that our systems, our very infrastructure’s no longer ours all the way down to our politics, which, of course isn’t that. Our socio-political infrastructure isn’t ours at all. It’s theirs. The banks, atlas corp, insurers, health, education etc are to a greater or lessor degree ‘theirs’. [Our] politicians aren’t ours, they’re theirs. Lobbyists make sure of that. How about we put up free to air 24/7 surveillance cameras inside OUR parliament’s lobby. Let’s see who comes and goes? Let’s not stop there. How about we demand an audit born of a a royal commission of inquiry up and into every single politician since 1936, the dawn of the evil AKA the national party.
    Luxon’s on close to $500 K a year. What the fuck does a bald corporate failure do for that kind of money?
    We’re tanking financially and psychologically because of them. Not, in spite of them.
    Here’s an idea… How about The Daily Blog asks a behavioural psychologist to write a piece about how mindlessly compliant we AO/NZ’ers have been convinced to not only become, but to so steadfastly remain being.
    We’re all fucking brainwashed! Nothing changes! Unless you think things getting worse is change. We’re hypnotised into inaction. We *acquiesce to private surveillance like we acquiesced to private ownership! And what happened to the Hikoi? Where the fuck’s that gone? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd0qr9mv9mo Who buried it? Why ? How? We trot fawningly behind luxon and his nasty coagulation of minions but when the crown’s mentioned, out come the hand wringers whining about them royals. Some of you might argue that the crown isn’t our politic. They’re figureheads. They merely ponce about feeding gossip to the tabloids. So then why are we paying a governor general close to $500 k ? What’s really going on? What the fuck is ‘up’ ? Why am I the only one asking?
    *acquiesce
    /ˌakwɪˈɛs/
    verb
    verb: acquiesce; 3rd person present: acquiesces; past tense: acquiesced; past participle: acquiesced; gerund or present participle: acquiescing
    1 Accept something reluctantly but without protest.
Yeah, that sounds about right. 






    • Don’t criticise no boats like that. If you were to convict everyone who ever pilferred anything in their entire life,
      you wouldn’t have enough people left to fill parliaments debating chamber. While the right have a memory blind spot to the likes of Hauiti, Capill, Meurant, David Mcleod.

    • Nitrium Victimhood is the dialectic of the identity politics brigade. The offender becomes the victim – for whatever reason- and the media support the faux victim.

      • Well the ACT predator chairman of the ACT party now a convicted sex offender Jago managed to keep his identity secret because it may have affected the election chances of ACT. Now is that political or not. So whose the faux victim ( victims) here the politician or the ACT party who may have suffered in the election. Or other people who could have protected themselves against Jago the predator . So is it ACT or the victims.

  10. The manager of a Wellington Sallies’ Shop had her handbag stolen from the staff room out the back, about two weeks ago. She said that she sent the CCTC footage through to the police herself.

    Today she told me that the police have ID the thieves from her CCTV footage, a woman and a man, and both are being charged, the former with burglary plus another offence, and I gather one charge for the man.

    She said that she had very little money in both her purse and her bank account, so fortunately the thieves weren’t able to get much via paywave.

    • Parents should keep an eye on their children and guide them until they are fully adult, mature, and clued up about keeping safe. In the 20th century women took self-defence lessons! We should not rely on CCYV tp catch attackers and whatever criminals, druggies, that are out there in society.

      We don’t want our every move scrutinised because of possible dangers from the criminally inclined in society. Just think the trouble that tech has caused for us with scammers and spying already. Be aware peeps, the world is not completely safe for those still tip-toeing through the tulips.

      Adults have trouble remembering to take their eyes off their devices when they step out onto the road now, wake up you out there! We are becoming unwisely dependent on others to look after us and tech companies will gladly charge us some fee for systems to fill in our attention gap.

      • Most parents do their best. Blaming Grace’s parents for her horrific death is unfair, and doesn’t alter the terrible actions of her murderer, which may not have occurred had he known that CCTV followed him throughout Auckland.

  13. “Why have we allowed Food Corporations so much power, including filming us? They have an obligation as part of our food supply chain that goes beyond thieves, so why are we allowing them to use theft as a means to spy on us in their shops?”

    Its the slippery slope. Big Brother is watching. Not you, personally, not this minute, but step outta line and they’ll be coming for ya. A good thing? Well, yes, if its aimed at catching the bad guys (apologies to any bad guys who feel aggrieved at being singled out). CCTV – mass surveillance now with face recognition technology – is no longer confined to the Bourne Legacy. Factor in 5G GPS and whoa … how can anyone4 step outside without wondering who’s looking at your every move. Even in you own home some faceless corporation is tracking you. Yep, good question, how have we let all his happen? A tenancy for control? Certainly not unforseen. Or unprecedented. Unintended consequences? Poor checks and balances? Yep, we do feel a bit helpless at where its got to and where its heading. I do.

    But fuck it. I won’t be getting anxious about it. I’ll still be helping myself to the pick’n’mix and I’ll suck it up when a camera operated speeding ticket (often just 5 kph over the limit) arrives in the post. I’m past shoplifting, fortunately. And you won’t find me vandalizing the CCTV equipment or taking out the 5G towers.

Comments are closed.