NZ: who's in charge here?

All things Rugby
Post Reply
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

Government? Police? Nobody?

Picture this:
Sleepy rural New Zealand. Elite NZ Police forces armed with military-style assault rifles swarm down from helicoptors. They seize a New Zealand resident and then other NZ Police take away his cars and other possessions. The operation was nearly a year in the planning and 76 police were involved on-scene alone.


The NZ Police action is at the request of, and led by, a foreign power.


John Key, NZ's Prime Minister, is not even aware of the action until the day before the raid[1], when he is briefed by NZ's Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General is the second law officer of state in New Zealand[2]. And yet, this resident has broken no New Zealand law.



Some obvious questions:
Was it right for our PM to be briefed rather than consulted, and only at the last minute?
Does our Government play no active role at all in protecting our residents and citizens from such acts by foreign powers?
Is it instead up to the NZ Police to decide for themselves?


References:
[1] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10782576
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor- ... ew_Zealand
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

Right on Slowy, right on. :x
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 21317
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Fat Old Git »

I'm in charge. Bow down before me!

Also, please send money.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

How do we get before thee, oh great one?
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Enzedder »

So did you agree with what the fat kraut was doing Slowy. I thought that you supported the arts to some extent and would not condone internet piracy.

I say good on them so I'll be in charge of this one if you want to fight about it.
jono45
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by jono45 »

Saw a tv show a couple of nights ago and according to them (Media 7) Dotcom was just about to go live with a new site that would see close to 90% of proceeds to artists from downloads missing out the Recording companies, it would be reasonable to assume that this is the reason for being singled out ,last ditch attempt for control by corporates over artists?
User avatar
mr bungle
Posts: 12733
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by mr bungle »

last ditch attempt for control by corporates over artists?
Try again...
User avatar
naki
Posts: 14209
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by naki »

Prince Charles' in charge,
of our days
and our nights (creepy)
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

Enzedder wrote:So did you agree with what the fat kraut was doing Slowy. I thought that you supported the arts to some extent and would not condone internet piracy.

I say good on them so I'll be in charge of this one if you want to fight about it.

I agree, internet piracy can be a blight, but be assured that this has very little, if anything, to do with the artists and everything to do with the greedy fucks at Sony, Warners, etc. It has always been so. The alleged loss figures are also grossly inflated.

I also have an issue that legitimate users stand to lose their data. How the fudge does that work ethically or under any natural law. Just that you understand, this draconian action affects users who have data stored on servers not owned by the big fat bastard, but by third party vendors. And yet the US law makers (ha!) and the studios say they want the public on their side, fudge off with that you thieving, lying, grafting, conniving kitten killing plum. :x
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Enzedder »

Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 21317
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Fat Old Git »

Ted. wrote:How do we get before thee, oh great one?
I had something like this in mind,


Image


but in your case a respectful tip of the cap and an offering of beer will do. :)
Muttonbird
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Muttonbird »

John Key, NZ's Prime Minister, is not even aware of the action until the day before the raid.
He's lying.
User avatar
Bill
Posts: 6408
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Bill »

HM the Queen
User avatar
maxbox
Posts: 10736
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Spiritual Guardianland

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by maxbox »

:lol: Thanks for contributing. See you later Bill
User avatar
croyals
Posts: 7886
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: London

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by croyals »

I was only a matter of time before one of us mentioned it! But Bill would have been my first guess!
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6178
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by deadduck »

This is a police issue. NZ is a signatory to ACTA.
The PM should not interfere with a police issue.
The PM has more important things to know about than which criminals will be arrested that day, and what he thinks of it.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?
User avatar
heyjoe
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:22 am
Location: TEXAS

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by heyjoe »

Image

Right....no?
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

Kim Dotcom's appeal for bail was denied yesterday evening. Here is a TV3 news clip of the proceedings where you get to hear him defend himself. He also makes allegations of police brutality during the arrest, and makes a joke about criminal contacts...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim- ... fault.aspx
User avatar
_fb_
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Fine & Dandy

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by _fb_ »

slow wing wrote:You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?

NZ does not have SWAT teams.

76 coppers is way over the top, though.

I see Dotcom has been denied bail. Where is he going to run to, the fat plum?
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

Fb,

I presume these were the guys rappelling down from the helicopters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Tactics_Group


They train with the NZ SAS and it would certainly be fair to say they provide SWAT capability.
Last edited by slow wing on Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 29944
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ali's Choice »

slow wing wrote:You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?
SW's point is valid. What would the reaction in NZ be if this was China organising raids in NZ against NZ residents, or Israel?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 33232
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by guy smiley »

Ali's Choice wrote:
slow wing wrote:You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?
SW's point is valid. What would the reaction in NZ be if this was China organising raids in NZ against NZ residents, or Israel?
or two French secret agents?
User avatar
Hong Kong
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Hong Kong »

an international partner makes a formal request for the arrest and surrender of a fugitive MUST go through the receiving country's appropriate legal authority, which in the case of NZ, would be the which department? whichever it is, I'm fairly sure that would form part of the government. So if someone approved the request for arrest action to be taken, the govt. knew about it and if someone decided not to tell the boss, then hy-ho - there you go.
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 12794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by RuggaBugga »

Ali's Choice wrote:
slow wing wrote:You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?
SW's point is valid. What would the reaction in NZ be if this was China organising raids in NZ against NZ residents, or Israel?
In the case of Israel probably fudge all seeing as how Mossad agents have twice been outed obtaining fake NZ passports.

Valid point though.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by slow wing »

Hong Kong, Mr Dotcom was not a fugitive. He is a legal NZ resident and the NZ Government has a duty of care for his well being.

The US is after him for alleged copyright infringement, which, according to most of the legal comment I have seen, should be a civil case at best - that is, another company suing his company. In no way should he have had a huge collaborative US/NZ Police raid launched against him for that!

Your argument that 'the Government knew' is hardly reasonable if the PM didn't know. Part of the issue is that he didn't look too concerned by that either. It would be like claiming 'the officials knew' if an AR saw an eye gouge and neglected to tell the ref. (Only some might say this case it is more like an AR participated in an eye gouge and the ref was informed later and thought it no big deal.)
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Can I ask the pretty obvious question about who gives a shit about some fat dude when you can shit in other places?
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

Enzedder wrote:Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.

People wont necessarily be aware that a company does not follow all countries laws across the board, nor is entirely kosher in all it's dealing. Nor are people necessarily aware, or made aware, that a vendor will on sell storage or customers, or use third parties to provide services.

For example, neither MS or Apple can claim to be clean. Both have been convicted of breaching US laws, both have been found guilty of breaching copyright and other's IP. Any company that has servers that cater to the 'cloud', will no doubt contain material that is not legal. Do you consider it to be fair that the legitimate customers of any of those companies mentioned are penalised along with the company? Because that is what you appear to be suggesting.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.

People wont necessarily be aware that a company does not follow all countries laws across the board, nor is entirely kosher in all it's dealing. Nor are people necessarily aware, or made aware, that a vendor will on sell storage or customers, or use third parties to provide services.

For example, neither MS or Apple can claim to be clean. Both have been convicted of breaching US laws, both have been found guilty of breaching copyright and other's IP. Any company that has servers that cater to the 'cloud', will no doubt contain material that is not legal. Do you consider it to be fair that the legitimate customers of any of those companies mentioned are penalised along with the company? Because that is what you appear to be suggesting.
With all due respect Ted, you would have to dim to not realise
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.

People wont necessarily be aware that a company does not follow all countries laws across the board, nor is entirely kosher in all it's dealing. Nor are people necessarily aware, or made aware, that a vendor will on sell storage or customers, or use third parties to provide services.

For example, neither MS or Apple can claim to be clean. Both have been convicted of breaching US laws, both have been found guilty of breaching copyright and other's IP. Any company that has servers that cater to the 'cloud', will no doubt contain material that is not legal. Do you consider it to be fair that the legitimate customers of any of those companies mentioned are penalised along with the company? Because that is what you appear to be suggesting.
With all due respect Ted, you would have to dim to not realise

With all due respect, you will not realise in all instances where your data is stored. Check your EULA next time you leave something on the interweb. Dim!
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote:
The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.

People wont necessarily be aware that a company does not follow all countries laws across the board, nor is entirely kosher in all it's dealing. Nor are people necessarily aware, or made aware, that a vendor will on sell storage or customers, or use third parties to provide services.

For example, neither MS or Apple can claim to be clean. Both have been convicited of breaching US laws, both have been found guilty of breaching copyright and other's IP. Any company that has servers that cater to the 'cloud', will no doubt contain material that is not legal. Do you consider it to be fair that the legitimate customers of any of those companies mentioned are penalised along with the company? Because that is what you appear to be suggesting.
With all due respect Ted, you would have to dim to not realise

With all due respect, you will not realise in all instances where your data is stored. Check your EULA next time you leave something on the interweb. Dim!
I don't upload all my shit to the internet, because I am not dim
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:
The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Well, use a company that isn't involved in this sort of crap Ted. I always wondered why people would store their data in a company that thrives on theft of data.

People wont necessarily be aware that a company does not follow all countries laws across the board, nor is entirely kosher in all it's dealing. Nor are people necessarily aware, or made aware, that a vendor will on sell storage or customers, or use third parties to provide services.

For example, neither MS or Apple can claim to be clean. Both have been convicited of breaching US laws, both have been found guilty of breaching copyright and other's IP. Any company that has servers that cater to the 'cloud', will no doubt contain material that is not legal. Do you consider it to be fair that the legitimate customers of any of those companies mentioned are penalised along with the company? Because that is what you appear to be suggesting.
With all due respect Ted, you would have to dim to not realise

With all due respect, you will not realise in all instances where your data is stored. Check your EULA next time you leave something on the interweb. Dim!
I don't upload all my shit to the internet, because I am not dim
Nor do I, but it is an inescapable truth that it is a well established business model for both storage and data back-up with a lot of individuals and businesses including large corporations using 'the cloud'. So the upshot of this little aside is that your think all these people and corporations are dim, rather than too trusting or foolhardy.

BTW, if you use a smart phone to any great extent, you almost certainly use the cloud.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Any corporate that doesn't make at one, preferrably 2 of their own back-ups and really on cloud a indeed a bit dim
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:Any corporate that doesn't make at one, preferrably 2 of their own back-ups and really on cloud a indeed a bit dim
My predictive text is officially annoying
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:
The Mighty All Blacks wrote:Any corporate that doesn't make at one, preferrably 2 of their own back-ups and really on cloud a indeed a bit dim
My predictive text is officially annoying

Quite, but they still use off site storage for that, i.e. firms like the one Kim Dotcom ran and the sever farms he used, the latter are perfectly legit. You really aren't saying anything new or amazing, it's all very obvious, so I'm not sure what your point is, except you think corporates who use off site storage are dim. :?

Or do you expect the secretary to take a tape home, pop another copy under the floor boards?
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Just questioning why people should be that surprised if they lose all their shit from the flabby geezers servers
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

The Mighty All Blacks wrote:Just questioning why people should be that surprised if they lose all their shit from the flabby geezers servers
Ah, so you are missing the point. Forget fat guts and apply this to any server farm or intermediary to same. They are now all officially at risk, as is your own business or home storage.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6178
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by deadduck »

Ali's Choice wrote:
slow wing wrote:You're missing the point by a mile, Deadduck. Would it be just "a police issue" if it was the Chinese asking?

Should random foreign powers simply book in with the NZ Police for use of their helicopters and SWAT teams to apprehend and lock up NZ citizens or residents of interest to them? Without our Government even knowing about it?
SW's point is valid. What would the reaction in NZ be if this was China organising raids in NZ against NZ residents, or Israel?

If we were in a treaty with China that obliged our law enforcement agencies to cooperate on certain matters then it would be entirely appropriate for that to happen without having to go through the PM's office, and if the PM was to somehow veto it then what next? The PM should have no power to approve or disapprove law enforcement matters, that is a slippery slope to a police state.
As I said, NZ is a signatory to ACTA, which undoubtedly applied to the megaupload case. It is something the Government has signed up to whether we like it or not, now you have the choice to live with it or vote for a Government that would repeal it. That's never going to happen though, NZ is chasing an FTA with the US so badly no Government would never repeal it.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17632
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by Ted. »

You must admit it's a disgusting concept, trading criminality for political and/or trade advantages. Not that it's new or anything.
User avatar
The Mighty All Blacks
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ: who's in charge here?

Post by The Mighty All Blacks »

Ted. wrote:You must admit it's a disgusting concept, trading criminality for political and/or trade advantages. Not that it's new or anything.
You do realise we have two way crime,extradition and accident coverage with many countries don't you?
Post Reply