

Hours until NZ spy law passed. Contact your MP.  - wlj
http://www.crossthefloor.co.nz/

======
wannabekiwi
Apologies for the throwaway, but I thought I'd share my letter to Nicky Wagner
here. For the uninitiated, ICT is "Information and Communication Technology"
\- roughly the equivalent to IT in the states.

    
    
      Hi Nicky,
      
      I'm a Software Engineer in the United States. My wife and
      I are presently in the process of migrating to New Zealand,
      specifically Christchurch, under the Skilled Migrant
      Category visa. 
    
      I'm sure I don't need to inform you that ICT is on
      New Zealand's list of long term skills shortages. Further,
      I'm sure that you're acutely aware of the significance that
      ICT growth can play to the economic resurgence of Christchurch.
      As someone who is hoping to aid in this effort, I feel
      obligated to inform you that the GCSB is a huge deterrent for
      me. Being that my peers in the ICT industry are also quite
      sensitive to issues such as these, I can't imagine that this
      will help the ICT skills shortage for Christchurch, or the rest
      of New Zealand.
    
      Please vote against the GCSB, and urge your colleagues to do
      the same.
    

Edit: Now that I'm rereading this I realize that I wrote "the GCSB" when I
meant "the GCSB bills." Whoops!

Edit 2: Sent the following clarification. And here's hoping I didn't just get
added to some watch list and screw over my chances for visa approval!

    
    
      Just for clarification, I'm referring to the GCSB bills
      below, not the entire GCSB. I support the GCSB as a whole,
      as well as its greater purpose, but I'd much rather be
      moving to a country that didn't allow for warrantless
      surveillance of its people.

------
pflanze
For those not from NZ and wondering like me what the "GCSB Bill" is:

GCSB is the Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand[1]. There
seem to be two bills[2], and the topic has been on HN several times, but never
got many points[3].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Secur...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Security_Bureau)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5989010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5989010)

[3]
[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=GCSB+bill](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=GCSB+bill)

~~~
mattdw
The bill allows our previously Foreign-intel Spy Agency extra domestic powers
to (a) assist other agencies like the police and (b) undertake mass domestic
surveillance with very little oversight in the name of "cybersecurity" and
"economic security"

It's point (b) that's causing the real controversy, particularly since we're
in the 5-eyes network and thus the GCSB are likely data-sharing with everyone
else in the network (e.g. NSA, GCHQ.)

In reality the GCSB has been caught illegally spying on NZers, so the new bill
is a rush-job to retroactively legalise it, but it's just ridiculously vague,
and without even the protections of the US FISA court.

The oversight regime is that warrants are issued by the Prime Minister (the
leader of the majority government party) and/or the Director of the GCSB
(currently an old school-buddy of the current Prime Minister.) There's an
auditor/investigator (one guy) who will get to review things once a year after
the fact, although amendments to the bill might make it a panel of three doing
the reviewing.

~~~
aidos
The Law Society of NZ has detailed their opposition over the bill [1].

And to really get a grasp on the insanity - watch the Prime Minister likening
the system to virus protection [2] - then walking out of the press conference
(after saying the Law Society are wrong).

[1]
[http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/683...](http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/68389/Government-
Communications-Security-Bureau-and-Related-Legislation-Amendment-
Bill-140613.pdf)

[2] [http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Key-walks-out-of-press-
conferen...](http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Key-walks-out-of-press-
conference/tabid/423/articleID/309655/Default.aspx)

------
owenwil
Some of these are already a write off. Paul Foster Bell has publicly said on
Twitter that he will not reconsider as there are "real threats" in NZ and that
IT company networks "need security" from the government. If you try debate
this, they'll just block you:
[https://twitter.com/ow/status/369769923427307520](https://twitter.com/ow/status/369769923427307520)

~~~
canadiancreed
Ah the "I'm right and will not listen to anything that contradicts my view!"
type. How the hell do such people get anything other then heaping helpings of
scorn?

------
aidos
I've just written to all the MPs on this list. I'd ask that all other Kiwis do
the same. It will take just a couple of minutes and if just a single MP
crosses the floor it will stop the bill (as I understand it - I'm living
outside of NZ at the moment).

------
cpursley
Crazy. And here I was thinking NZ would be my refugee when the rest of the
world goes to hell in a hand-basket.

~~~
adventured
The refuge is large amounts of at least moderately inhabitable land, with
minimal militia or violence threat. I used to like NZ as well, but I'm
favoring Canada these days, it has an obscenely immense amount of territory to
disappear into. Chile, Peru and Argentina are also interesting; while they
vary in terms of being basket cases, there's a lot of land, they're far away
from all the super powers, are unlikely to get directly nuked, and are not
land locked.

~~~
canadiancreed
I seem to recall Canada either is debating or already has similar legislation
in place (memory fails me sadly). Although we do definitely have lots of wide
open space, mainly because it's either arctic desert, bare rock, or is below
freezing for six months of the year (or more)

------
drdaeman
Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make
people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter's not
in the envelope, and educate them on what's going on in the digital world.
Make insecure communications look outdated and simply uncool, as they already
should be for a while.

That is, unless you believe your government, ISP and their peer ISPs
(including some US, Chinese or Russian ISP your e-postcard passes through) are
totally trustworthy and good-mannered noblemen so they won't even accidentally
peek onto your e-postcards if they're told they mustn't.

Disclaimer: I'm not NZ citizen and unaware of exact situation. I'm Russian
citizen, and we have SORM-2 for years. So, I've just shared my opinion on any
government or corporate spying case out there. I just think it's pointless to
legally forbid spying as this makes false sense of security without any real
effect.

~~~
coldtea
> _Or, better, spread the word on how to secure your own communications. Make
> people realize there could be no expectations of privacy when the letter 's
> not in the envelope_

That's a BS interpretation, based on a BS american law.

One should always have an expectation of privacy -- ie nobody but the
recipients should be legally allowed to read your email (except with a warrant
or similar).

That should be made into law (and it should be made so that there are severe
penalties for anybody reading your mail without your consent, including
employees in your email provider. It should also not be able to be used
against you in court).

That they can read electronic mail (e.g if it's plaintext etc) easily is not a
concern at all. One can easily walk into someone's house and steal things, but
it's not allowed all the same.

~~~
drdaeman
Do you have expectation of security if you don't lock your house, then? I'll
rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the premises
just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so?

I didn't meant it's OK to sniff upon anyone's plaintext communications
(although I'm unsure whenever prohibiting so is more of a good or bad thing,
but let's leave this thought aside). I meant that it's just extremely unwise
to expect that nobody but the intended recipient will read your envelopeless
postcard. Especially because we know governments really have a thing for that.

~~~
coldtea
> _Do you have expectation of security if you don 't lock your house, then?_

Of course. And if that expectation is violated, if the culprit, if caught,
will very much go to jail. And in some places you can have a go at him
yourself.

> _I 'll rephrase it this way - do you expect that no burglar will enter the
> premises just because there's a law that says that it's illegal to do so?_

No, but I don't care about that much.

I care about governments or corporations (e.g legal entities) going through
our stuff, regularly, massively and legally. I want them to not be able to do
it legally (and I want the law to try to enforce penalties if they try to
bypass that).

As for random hackers and such, those are not a systematic threat.

That is, I'd like the same protections for my email that one has (or used to
have) for his house: e.g no search without a warrant issued for a specific
detailed reason. As for protection from burglars, I know how to lock my door,
and even if I forget that, those people will be breaking the law and be held
responsible by it.

