Chinese spy in New Zealand Government?

You’ve really got to wonder how much influence the Chinese government is exerting on the National party these days?

Last month it was revealed that the Minister of Housing, Nick Smith, had demolished state houses then sold the public land they were on to a private Chinese owned company. The New Zealand government then helped pay to build privately owned houses to accommodate Chinese government workers from China Southern Airlines.

Then on Tuesday a documentary by Bryan Bruce called Who owns New Zealand now showed that our housing crisis has partly been driven by Chinese government backed speculation in our property market. Bruce also revealed how the National led government was hiding statistics on the exact number of properties being sold to foreign speculators.

But if that wasn’t bad enough, now we learn that a government MP, Jian Yang, was a card-carrying member of the Chinese Communist Party and taught spies at a Chinese military intelligence academy before moving to New Zealand to join the National party.

Yesterday, Newsroom reported:

National MP trained by Chinese spies

A National Party MP who studied at an elite Chinese spy school before moving to New Zealand has attracted the interest of our Security Intelligence Service.

The list MP Jian Yang did not mention in his work or political CVs a decade he spent in the People's Liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College or the Luoyang language institute run by China's equivalent of the United States National Security Agency.

That agency, the Third Department, conducts spying activities for China.

Clearly there’s a huge conflict of interest here, with the former teacher of Chinese spies having access to some of New Zealand’s most top-secret and highly sensitive information.

Perhaps this is why National is against taxing bottled water? After all, most of the consents for one of our most precious resources are in order to ship it off to China.

Newsroom has been told that to have taught at the Air Force Engineering College, Yang would have almost certainly been an officer in Chinese military intelligence and a member of the Communist Party, as other students and staff have been.

Surely that would preclude him from being an MP in New Zealand then?

Yang studied and then taught there before moving to Australia where he attended the Australian National University in Canberra. He migrated to this country to teach international relations in the politics department at the University of Auckland.

He was hand-picked by National Party president Peter Goodfellow to become an MP on its list in 2011, wooed directly by the former Prime Minister John Key and has been a key fundraiser for National among the Chinese community in Auckland.

So the National party actually headhunted Yang, a person who worked at a foreign spying academy, to be one of their MPs. Could you imagine the media frenzy if the Labour party had done something as unbelievably stupid as that?

As an MP he variously served on Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (from 2014 until last year), Commerce, Transport and Industrial Relations and Health and Science select committees and is prominent in New Zealand's interactions with the Chinese community and diplomatic and consular missions in Wellington and Auckland. He remains a Parliamentary Private Secretary for ethnic affairs.

It’s becoming pretty evident that the National party is in the pocket of the Chinese government. Even if you're a Chinese national, you'll likely realise that such things are entirely unconstitutional.

Bill English should do the right thing and stand Jian Yang down while an investigation is undertaken. The Prime Minister must somehow confirm to voters that National policy hasn't been influenced by another sovereign state. If the National party doesn't do that before the election, then it's time to change the government.

Key should pay for illegal spying

The illegal spying and legal then illegal raids on Kim Dotcom and associates by the GCSB always looked highly questionable. That was especially the case when then Prime Minister John Key claimed the GCSB had authority to surveil NZ residents.

It looked even more questionable when the National led government moved to change our laws to make unrestricted spying on all New Zealanders legal. However we now learn that all the government’s legal maneuverings have amounted to nothing.

Today, Radio NZ reported:

Spy agency's Dotcom surveillance illegal, court rules

The High Court has ruled a government spy agency's entire surveillance operation against the internet businessman Kim Dotcom and his associates was illegal.

The court decision from December last year has been released today.

The High Court found the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) operation in 2011 fell outside the scope of its legislation at that time.

Kim Dotcom, Bram van der Kolk, Matthias Ortmann and Finn Batato are appealing against extradition to the United States to face charges of money laundering and copyright breaches.

The ruling said: "The circumstances of the interceptions of communications are Top Secret, and it has not proved possible to plead to the allegations the plaintiffs have made without revealing information which would jeopardise the national security of New Zealand.

Clearly any evidence gained through the GCSB’s illegal surveillance and raids cannot be used in the extradition case against Dotcom or his associates. The case for extradition should therefore be thrown out before any further taxpayer money is wasted.

"As a result the GCSB is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the statement of claim which relate to the manner in which the interceptions were effected."

Grant Illingworth, the lawyer representing Mr Ortmann and Mr van der Kolk, said the court ruling brought the whole operation into doubt.

It showed the extent of the GCSB's abuse of power, he said.

Exactly! Not only does this ruling again show that the GCSB was practicing well outside of its parameters, their illegal spying means the remaining proceedings against Dotcom and his associates cannot proceed further.

But what I would really like to know is can we hold those who’ve instructed the GCSB to undertake illegal spying to account? It was their decision to intentionally breach the law that has caused the case to soak up court time and large amounts of taxpayer dollars.

The National party and in particular John Key should be held to account for this waste of money at the taxpayers expense. If justice was really being served, the National party would be made to pay financially and at the polls this coming election for their continued unlawful arrogance.

Hacked spy equipment a matter of national security

The case of the GCSB spying on Kim Dotcom is one that all New Zealanders should be concerned with, not just because of its illegality and a lack of accountability for what has cost the Internet entrepreneur dearly, but because the GCSB doesn’t seem to have control of its own bloody spying equipment.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

GCSB 'had no idea' spy gear was still targeting Kim Dotcom

THE GCSB lost control of its surveillance technology and wasn't aware its systems continued spying on Kim Dotcom, according to new documents from the spy bureau.

It claimed that it turned off all surveillance systems targeting Dotcom and others but found out more than a year later that surveillance continued without its knowledge.

I very much doubt that the GCSB could be that incompetent.

The details in the documents have led Dotcom to state that there is now evidence the United States' National Security Agency was carrying out surveillance on him.

Dotcom, who should have been protected from GCSB surveillance as a New Zealand resident, said the GCSB did not know because its equipment was being used by the NSA, which was "directly involved".

If a foreign country can use the GCSB’s equipment to spy on Kiwis whenever and wherever they choose without any proper oversight by New Zealand authorities, then we have a very serious and extensive privacy problem.

Although the United States isn’t presently in direct conflict with New Zealand, Donald Trump’s corrupt administration and vested interests combined with a complete lack of respect shown by the NSA makes it appear that our business and political interests aren’t properly secure.

There is nothing to show that the NSA’s spying on New Zealand hasn’t extended to other forms of surveillance not just restricted to the financial sabotage of Kim Dotcom. In a highly competitive world the revelation that the NSA can abuse the GCSB's equipment is truly damaging for our international reputation and democracy in general.

Indeed, the NSA having unfettered access to all our communications is a matter of national security, which is an issue the National led government will be at pains to ignore.

Groser and GCSB damage international reputation

We all know that Tim Groser is a complete tool and wasn’t suitable to head the World Trade Organisation. It was in fact his own bloated ego that promoted him for the job, a job that he thankfully failed to attain.

Groser’s futile attempt at the WTO position had little international support, support he tried and failed to attain by spending lots of taxpayer dollars. In three months Groser spent around $260,000 travelling the world trying to gain votes for his foolish bid.

Now we’ve learnt that Groser also used New Zealand’s intelligence services to spy on other candidates vying to lead the WTO. There was an investigation by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, which came to an obviously forgone conclusion.

On Tuesday, Radio New Zealand reported:

GCSB lawful in supporting Groser's WTO bid

Ms Gwyn would not comment on whether it was appropriate for the spy agency to be supporting the campaign, but said it was lawful.

She has made three recommendations, including creating a standard plan for receiving and assessing requests for foreign intelligence assistance.

Here’s the actual Report into Government Communications Security Bureau’s process for determining its foreign intelligence activity (PDF).

Today, The Dominion Post reported:

Editorial: Spies should not help a politician's bid for a job at the WTO 

Under traditional notions of "security", the spies could only be used if, say, rivals to Groser stood a strong chance of winning and then doing harm to New Zealand's economic well-being. This would be stretching a bow to breaking point. Groser's rivals were the usual run of respectable trade officials and politicians, and the eventual winner, Roberto Azevedo, was Brazil's ambassador to the WTO.

The "advancing economic security" clause is also loose enough to allow spies to snoop on opponents of the current free-trade orthodoxy, and perhaps has already done so. It extends the rights of spies at the expense of citizens' right to oppose.

What's more, the spies failed: Groser didn't get the job. Hardly a triumph for the security services and their obliging legislation.

But was the GCSB really allowed to spy on WTO candidates from other countries under New Zealand law?

The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 states:

9 Objectives of intelligence and security agencies

The principal objectives of the intelligence and security agencies are to contribute to—
(a) the protection of New Zealand’s national security; and
(b) the international relations and well-being of New Zealand; and
(c) the economic well-being of New Zealand.

The Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states the exact same thing.

Let’s assume that Cheryl Gwyn doesn’t understand how an Act of New Zealand works and her misquote in her report of the relevant sections of the GCSB and Intelligence and Security Act was a simple mistake.

Firstly, a single sentence shouldn’t be taken out of context. That means the spy agencies cannot act without considering New Zealand’s international relations. Secondly, items are listed in order of priority.

If Groser’s objectives were to humiliate New Zealand on the world stage and destroy some of our international relations by secretly spying on officials from other countries, then the GCSB has achieved them.

How exactly does that advance the economic well-being of New Zealand? Clearly it doesn’t, and therefore there’s no moral or legal justification for Groser’s terrible abuse of power.

Edward Snowden - Hero of the Week

The Moment of Truth, which if you were to listen to the mainstream media backfired and caused Labour to lose the election, was for me a very interesting and informative get-together of highly skilled and influential political activists.

Not only did we have a number of reputable journalists who could speak fluently about mass surveillance in New Zealand, the world's two most prominent whistle-blowers, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, were also video linked into the well-attended meeting.

Snowden, who has clearly highlighted the invasive global surveillance system run by the NSA with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and subservient government's around the world, has managed to inform the public about a clear and present danger to our civil liberties.

That's no mean feat, especially considering the political and technical reach of the Five Eye's network, which appears to be a system designed for the sole purpose of repressing the general public. Thankfully there are people like Edward Snowden in the world who have put aside their fears for no other reason but to benefit humanity.

Yesterday, 3 News reported:

Fugitive US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has been jointly awarded a Swedish human rights award.

"The 2014 Right Livelihood Honorary Award goes to Edward Snowden for his courage and skill in revealing the unprecedented extent of state surveillance violating basic democratic processes and constitutional rights," the Stockholm-based Right Livelihood Award Foundation said in a statement on Wednesday (local time).

The prize is awarded annually "to honour and support those offering practical and exemplary answers to the most urgent challenges facing us today", according to the foundation.

As an honorary award winner, the whistleblower - who has lived in exile in Russia since 2013 - will not receive the customary 500,000 kronor (NZ$86,311) prize money, but the foundation said it would "fund legal support for him" without disclosing the amount.

Nominated by two Norwegian politicians, Edward Snowden has rightfully won this human rights award. In fact he even deserves to win a prestigious Hero Award, which isn't just given to anyone.

Well done mate...it's only through perseverance and people doing the right thing like speaking truth to power that we can hope to save our hard fought and won freedom within western democracies. 

The thing about liars

The thing about liars is there's always tell-tale signs to show that they're telling a lie. Even the best liars will give themselves away with small body mannerisms or catch phrases, which if you know what to watch out for can easily be spotted.

According to the psychologist Robert Feldman, people lie all the time. However, lying as a profession is mainly only done by politicians.

Politicians are more often than not born gifted with the ability to convincingly lie to the public, and through training often become experts at bending the truth to suit their political goals. One such expert is the Prime Minister, John Key.

John Key is perhaps New Zealand's most accomplished liar, being that despite his numerous and documented untruths, a large group of gullible people still support the National party. Key's lies this election campaign have been exceptional, with barely a hint he's misleading the public about the government's track record or its intentions should it be re-elected.

Key wasn't always an expert liar. You used to be able to tell he was lying because he would look physically uncomfortable or become nervous. This is a typical response by somebody who recalls being punished as a child for lying. It's an involuntary response to the subconscious memory of being physically hurt for being a liar.

These days Key is able to look you straight in the eye and lie. He will however become a bit deadpan. He's obviously been working hard to be able to tell a lie with a straight face. It's only when he's pressed on an issue that his body language starts to give his dishonesty away. The tell-tale sign for Key these days is a slight side-to-side head shake as if to say no. This is a very common body mannerism of liars, and one that is easy to spot.

The other way to catch John Key out lying is to cross-reference what he says about a certain subject to different people on different days. Like most liars, Key will suit his lie to the circumstances he's in. For instance, on September 14, when talking about Glenn Greenwald's claims that New Zealand conducts mass surveillance, John Key stated:

"There's no ambiguity. No middle ground. I'm right. He's wrong," Mr Key told reporters today.

However, on September 17, after Edward Snowden made the same claims concerning New Zealand conducting mass surveillance, John Key changed his story:

"I think the point he was making was in that shared database he said 'I regularly came across information about New Zealanders' - that may well be right".

John Key, like many expert liars before him, needs to somehow justify his lying to himself. He does this by having a theoretical excuse whereby his lying needs to be worded in a specific way for it to really be lying.

In this case Key is lying because it's the NSA undertaking the mass surveillance, which New Zealand spying agencies then have access to. The precise way John Key words his lies is done so that he has an excuse in the form of semantics. Such word trickery doesn't lesson the impact of the lie however, which in some circumstances can be very damaging.

Clearly John Key is a very accomplished and professional liar! Let's hope that enough Kiwis agree that such a dishonest man isn't suited to lead a country like New Zealand, and will choose somebody with a bit more integrity and honesty to be the next Prime Minister. Because without a change in government, Key's lies are likely to become even more outrageous!

Key declassified secret information in error

It was unprecedented to see the Prime Minister, John Key, release sensitive information concerning a spying tool called CORTEX simply to bolster his claim that there was no mass surveillance in New Zealand. At the time, some very experienced commentators exclaimed that Key releasing secret documents in this way was in the very least questionable if not unconstitutional.

However, when the Official Secrets Act was updated to the Official Information Act (PDF), the provision that stated a person committed a crime for releasing state secrets in this way was largely removed. Previously, if an official used classified information for their own benefit, they were in breach of the law.

Here's what the old law (PDF) states:

3 (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State-

(c) Obtains, collects, records, or publishes, or communicates to any other person any secret official code word or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy,-

he commits an offence against this Act and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or, in the case of a company or corporation, to a fine not exceeding five thousand pounds.

That's what makes the PM's release of sensitive information highly questionable. Unfortunately an oversight means this section of the Official Secrets Act wasn't updated into current law, otherwise Key's actions would have also been illegal as well as unconstitutional. I guess nobody envisioned such a turn of events, whereby a PM would use state secrets for his own political purposes.

By taking advantage of that oversight, Key isn't just ignoring his responsibilities, he's ignoring the GCSB's very own guidelines that state the release of such documents could put at risk New Zealand's security and damage our international standing.

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Secret dangers of released GCSB documents

Secret documents which John Key says he made public to protect his reputation threatened massive damage to New Zealand's wellbeing if made public without permission, according to the GCSB's own threat estimates.

The four documents were made public yesterday by the Prime Minister after Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald published claims the public were subjected to mass surveillance.

They all show they were previously marked at the "Secret" level of classification.
The GCSB guide to security classifications says the "compromise" of "Secret" information could "damage the security, defence or international relations of New Zealand and/or friendly governments".

Here's the actual guideline (PDF) as it relates to the declassified CORTEX documents:

GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION

RESTRICTED and SENSITIVE

The Official Information Act allows information to be protected to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy. Classifications are used to grade information on the basis of the damage that would result from unauthorised disclosure and to specify the protective measures to be applied. In themselves, classifications do not allow official information to be withheld; rather, the information must be considered on its merits using the criteria in the Act.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Compromise would damage the security, defence or international relations of New Zealand and/or friendly governments

TOP SECRET — Damage national interests in an exceptionally grave manner
· Directly threaten the internal stability of NZ or friendly countries
· Lead directly to widespread loss of life
· Cause exceptional damage to the security of NZ forces or allies
· Cause exceptional damage to the operational effectiveness of NZ forces or friendly forces
· Cause exceptional damage to the continuing effectiveness of extremely valuable security or intelligence operations
· Cause exceptional damage to relations with other governments
· Cause severe long term damage to significant national infrastructure
Services Commission 2001-05-28

SECRET — Damage national interests in a serious manner
· Raise international tension
· Seriously damage relations with friendly governments
· Seriously damage the security of NZ forces or friendly forces
· Seriously damage the operational effectiveness of NZ forces or friendly forces
· Seriously damage the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations
· Seriously damage the internal stability of NZ or friendly countries
· Shut down or substantially disrupt significant national infrastructure.

The GCSB's rules spell out the specific risks based on the classification of the CORTEX documents, and clearly show that Key releasing such information poses a serious risk to New Zealand's security.

Keep in mind that nobody was actually asking questions about the anti-malware system CORTEX, they were asking questions about mass surveillance. There was in fact very little public interest in the CORTEX documents, certainly not enough to justify their public release.

Therefore Key has put at risk New Zealand's security simply for his own benefit. In so doing, there's no question that the Prime Minister has acted in error and against the nations interests. He has in fact ignored the GCSB's guidelines and the law as it would be judged, which is just another good reason for him to resign!

You can sign the petition to that effect here.

The Moment of Truth

Key left holding the SPEARGUN

What was by far the most important revelation to come out of the Moment of Truth was Edward Snowden's information about SPEARGUN, which was a project completed in mid 2013 to tap the Southern Cross cable. There is no doubt this new evidence has laid waste to John Key's claims that there is no mass surveillance in New Zealand.

Clearly the GCSB has and still is spying on all of our communications. In that regard, Snowden’s information was more like a nuclear bomb blast of new information highlighting New Zealand's involvement in the Five Eyes network.

To your right is the relevant info-graphic showing SPEARGUN wasn’t just a proposal the PM dismissed, it was a functioning tool used by the spying agencies to keep tabs on all of our Internet activities.

Anybody who now doubts that Key was lying about mass surveillance is either an uninformed idiot or has a vested interest in people losing their right to privacy.

Key’s subsequent failure to properly address the serious issues that were raised during the Moment of Truth was compounded by his earlier attempt at a pathetic diversion.

The Prime Minister, just hours before the capacity event took place at the Auckland town hall, released documents about a GCSB project called CORTEX, which appears to be another system entirely to SPEARGUN. The CORTEX project was apparently meant to protect New Zealand from malware attacks, and in my opinion has been proven to be an ineffective use of taxpayer's money if the recent Spark malware attack is anything to go by.

Key claimed the previously classified information proved there was no mass surveillance on New Zealanders, when all it did was show the Prime Minister was willing to declassify secret documents that provide sensitive information about New Zealand’s anti-hacker capabilities. It also showed Key was willing to ignore proper process and release sensitive material in order to support his weakened political position.

But what is perhaps the worst example of deceit to come to light during the Moment of Truth was the fact that while John Key was claiming in public the GCSB law change wouldn't mean mass surveillance, those who were implementing SPEARGUN were awaiting that very same law change so they could start collecting people's data.

Not only did the SPEARGUN project get funding and built while such activity was illegal under New Zealand law, John Key specifically changed the law so that mass surveillance became legal and blatantly lied about what the law change was for.

Clearly the untruthful Prime Minister should do the right thing for once and resign! I simply cannot see how he could bullshit his way out of this one.

At the very least he should release all the documentation concerning SPEARGUN. He won't because John Key is a pathetic con-artist...a politician who clearly doesn't deserve to be in power.

Will Key resign after the Moment of Truth?

You might recall that around this time last year the National party, along with tobacco lobbyist Peter Dunne and the convicted criminal John Banks, changed the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF) so it was retrospectively legal to spy on the general public. They did this because the GCSB had been caught out illegally spying on Kim Dotcom and more than 80 other New Zealanders, as revealed in the Rebecca Kitteridge's report (PDF).

After some prompting by Green party co-leader Russel Norman, an investigation was launched by the Police, who found that the GCSB had in fact broken the law. They then incorrectly decided not to lay charges, likely because of more government interference by certain National party MPs who have a vested interest in the law not being upheld.

Instead of coming clean about who exactly was being spied on, the Minister responsible, John Key, tried to rely on people's ignorance about the law by claiming the changes simply clarified the GCSB's legal framework. This was a blatant lie, with the amendments allowing for mass surveillance, widespread surveillance that was already within the GCSB's job description.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

PM withheld spying data - critics

The Prime Minister has been accused of withholding critical information on proposed mass surveillance from the public ahead of new spying legislation going through Parliament.

The claims have come from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, Opposition parties and his own coalition partner, United Future leader Peter Dunne.

Greenwald and Mr Key are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken over claims Kiwis are spied on - the journalist says spies at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) are carrying out mass surveillance, while the Prime Minister says he stopped plans for such a scheme in March last year.

It would seem highly unlikely that a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist would put his reputation on the line without having some solid and irrefutable evidence. It would also seem that there's some pretty damning evidence if the right wings attempts to discredit and Key's "henchmen" reaction is anything to go by. The nervous little Prime Minister has once again resorted to name calling, because basically he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

So what are the consequences for John Key if Glenn Greenwald's evidence is robust?

On 20 August 2013, the NZ Herald reported:

Key: I'll resign if GCSB conducts mass surveillance

Prime Minister John Key says he and the head of GCSB would resign if the spy agency were found to have conducted mass surveillance.

He made the comment to reporters at Parliament in the light of assurances that the changes to the GCSB Act 2003 would not mean mass surveillance of New Zealanders.

Asked if he and GCSB chief Ian Fletcher would resign if there were mass surveillance, he said yes.

"But the facts of life are it won't happen."

Unfortunately for him, it looks like John Key's bluff is going to be called. In my opinion, if this major political event proves there's mass surveillance, Key should resign forthwith. Much of this will come down to public opinion, public opinion that is based on how well the mainstream media report on what's revealed. Unfortunately they've already been somewhat disparaging about the event and the people behind it.

Personally I think the Moment of Truth, which will be live streamed on The Daily Blog, will live up to the hype. The Prime Minister however, who isn't known for being a man of his word, will arrogantly refuse to resign. He may even try to discredit people by calling them more names...devastating!

It's exactly like Norton AntiVirus!

H/T @nintendoug

Stop the TICS bill - public meeting

Police misinterpreted the law

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Police today released their decision following an investigation into Dr Norman's complaint into the Government Communications Security Bureau's (GCSB) illegal interception of the communications of New Zealanders.

The police found that Kim Dotcom and his associate Bram van der Kolk were illegally spied on, but as GCSB staff did not act with criminal intent, no one would be held accountable.

Read the letter sent by police to Dr Norman here

Assistant Commissioner Mike Rusbatch's letter to Dr Russel Norman states:

Although the inquiry focussed on issues specifically related to the offence against section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961, it also considered offences in a wider context including section 216C and 107 of the Crimes Act 1961, with reference to the GCSB Act 2003.

Section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961 (PDF) states:

Prohibition on use of interception devices

(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.

Mike Rusbatch

Subsection (2)(b)(iiia) states that a person is not liable if their intercepting of a private communication does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any authority conferred by or under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF).

That's the bit the Police think lets the GCSB off the hook. They have in fact misinterpreted the law. The GCSB Act 2003 did not confer any authority to the GCSB to illegally spy on New Zealand citizens. That's why the government is currently changing the law. However these changes should not apply to a criminal act that occurred prior to those amendments.

It is for the courts to decide whether the GCSB intended to illegally spy on Kim Dotcom and his associate Bram van der Kolk. The Crimes Act 1961 specifically states that illegal spying is an offence and the GCSB Act 2003 did not confer authority to the GCSB to breach the law.

When the Police are intentionally misinterpreting the law in order to not prosecute the GCSB, people need to start asking some serious questions about Police corruption. Because by all intents and purposes that's exactly what this looks like.

The Stream - NZ: Safer under surveillance?

Anonymous vs GCSB

Today, the Herald on Sunday reported:

Worldwide activist group Anonymous is believed to be behind a hack attack on the Government Communications Security Bureau website on Friday.

On Thursday, Anonymous posted a threatening video on YouTube, claiming that Prime Minister John Key, the Act Party and veteran politician Peter Dunne were to be held responsible for the destruction of internet freedom and basic human rights of New Zealand citizens by passing the GCSB bill, "which allows your government to spy on you".

It's taken the HoS until Sunday to write 178 words about it? They even fail to mention the name of the operation: #OpFuckGCSB.

It is understood the GCSB website suffered a saturation of external communication requests, to the point where it could not respond to legitimate traffic.

The communications interception agency confirmed the attack slowed its gateway for about 30 minutes.

There are conflicting stories here. Anonymous claimed that the "tango" was down, meaning the GCSB website had crashed. The GCSB claims that the site was slowed, which is a completely different thing. Why I wonder are they trying to downplay the hacking?

This follows similar denial of service (DDoS) attacks back in July whereby the haktivist group disabled 14 websites linked to the National Party. Interestingly this more recent article fails to mention that these attacks are occurring on a regular basis and that the government has no answers.

Clearly John Key was wrong to claim on Campbell Live that the GCSB was some sort of antivirus program. They cannot even protect their own websites from a low level DDoS attack.

In the warning video, a man wearing a black hooded outfit and Guy Fawkes mask said: "We, as Anonymous have decided to take action. To the Government of New Zealand, you now have our full attention and we will be watching your every move ... this is your final warning."

Actually, it's a computer generated voice, not an actual person saying anything. Most computers have text to speech software built into their operating systems these days. The man in the video is stock footage and used in lots of Anonymous projects. Whoever that is in the video isn't likely to have anything to do with this recent attack on the GCSB's website.

Here's the video:

A spokesman for GCSB said there could have been some temporary degradation of service.

Why they would try to downplay an effective DDoS attack against the GCSB website because of National's expansion of spying powers might have something to do with the FBI recently claiming that they had dismantled Anonymous.

This claim is of course untrue as well, being that Anonymous cannot be dismantled. Claiming such a thing clearly indicates that the FBI has no idea about how Anonymous operates.

Resign now John Key

Today, itnews reported:

Police affidavits related to the raid on Kim Dotcom's Mega mansion appear to show that New Zealand police and spy agencies are able to tap directly into United States surveillance systems such as PRISM to capture email and other traffic.

The discovery was made by blogger Keith Ng who wrote on his On Point blog that the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) requested assistance from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the country's signals intelligence unit, which is charge of surveilling the Pacific region under the Five-Eyes agreement.

A list of so-called selectors or search terms were provided to GCSB by the police [PDF, redacted] for the surveillance of emails and other data traffic generated by Dotcom and his Megaupload associates.

'Selectors' is the term used for the National Security Agency (NSA) XKEYSCORE categorisation system that Australia and New Zealand contribute to and which was leaked by Edward Snowden as part of his series of PRISM revelations.

Very interesting indeed, especially so because only three days ago the NZ Herald reported:

Prime Minister John Key says he and the head of GCSB would resign if the spy agency were found to have conducted mass surveillance.

XKEYSCORE is a mass surveillance tool that captures all data communications. This is how Wikipedia describes it:

A detailed commentary on an NSA presentation published in The Guardian in July 2013 states that the XKeyscore system is continuously collecting so much Internet data that it can be stored only for short periods of time. Content remains on the system for only three to five days, while metadata is stored for 30 days. The commentary also cites a document published in 2008 declaring that "At some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours."

The Guardian's article is entitled: XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'.

By using a mass surveillance tool to gain access to Kim Dotcom and his associates communications, isn't the GCSB in effect conducting mass surveillance? They clearly have access to the mass surveillance undertaken by the NSA on New Zealanders.

If John Key was a man of his word he would resign.

H/T Porcupine Farm for the pic.

More heads should roll

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Two senior ministers chose to break their silence - and break ranks in the process - in the full media glare of a meeting of Parliament's privileges committee.

Justice Minister Judith Collins and Police Minister Anne Tolley were in high dudgeon, making it abundantly clear they were less than impressed with the actions of the David Henry inquiry into the leaking of the report by Cabinet secretary Rebecca Kitteridge into the workings of the Government Communications Security Bureau.

The privileges committee has moved with commendable speed in launching a probe into the Henry inquiry - for which Key has responsibility - particularly its requests for assistance from Parliamentary Service in retrieving data detailing Dominion Post journalist Andrea Vance's phone logs and movements around the parliamentary complex. 

[...]

The pair rounded on Henry for not weighing up the constitutional implications of an informal inquiry rummaging through a minister's communications. As a former senior public servant, Henry - more than anyone - should have been aware of the need to tread very carefully. 

It seems strange that all the mainstream media reports concerning this privileges committee hearing have ignored one of the most important facts to come out so far...that David Henry was specifically given authorization by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to look at Ministers communications.

That those communications would potentially be discoverable under the Official Information Act should have taken some wind out of the two ministers' billowing sails.

And Henry should not have been their only target. The Prime Minister's office told ministers to co-operate fully with the inquiry - and that Key expected nothing less. That effectively gave Henry much more muscle in his hunt for the leaker.

What has been uncovered during the first faze of the hearings is that the Prime Ministers Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, informed David Henry that he had explicit permission to access Ministers communications. Whether that permission included journalist Andrea Vance's communications is yet to be resolved.

It turns out that Eagleson didn't have that permission and had mislead David Henry. Therefore, making Henry the scapegoat for Eagleson's misconduct isn't what I would call good reporting. Such propaganda only serves to undermine democracy and let those who are at fault off the hook.

But then Collins and Tolley were also treading carefully yesterday. Key's response to their gripes was short and to the point.

The two ministers were entitled to their point of view. But he had approved the Henry inquiry's terms of reference. If any minister had a problem with those, they had been free to complain. But none had.

Armstrong is really trying to spin this one away from the main culprits.

Firstly, Wayne Eagleson lied to David Henry about what he was permitted to access. It also appears that he instructed Parliamentary Service to undertake illegal spying. This occurred after the terms of reference were released. Clearly the DPMC interfered with the inquiry on as many as four occasions. The terms of reference did not outline that the DPMC would instruct Parliamentary Service and David Henry to breach people's privacy without their permission.

Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), the DPMC has withheld an email sent by Wayne Eagleson to Parliamentary Service on the 9th of May. That email, which instructed them, isn't even referred to in the DPMC's timeline of events. This is a significant issue that the Department of the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Andrew Kibblewhite, had no explanation for when questioned by the committee.

I for one hope that Collins, Tolley and the other committee members get to the bottom of what has occurred, because by all appearances the DPMC is trying to coverup their and the Prime Ministers misconduct.

Chris Finlayson - Asshole of the Week

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson attacks critics

On Rodney Harrison, QC
"It's not true that we haven't allowed for enough time to craft good legislation but maybe we haven't allowed enough time for the rate at which Dr Harrison can get to grips with this legislation."

On Sir Bruce Ferguson, former GCSB director
"Let us not forget that despite his recent attempts to reinvent himself as a political commentator, many of the problems we are dealing with today in this legislation occurred on his watch."

On Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Labour PM
"[He] allowed the GCSB to operate with no legislation at all when he was Prime Minister. Sir Geoffrey has claimed this legislation is rushed. Well it isn't ... If we want to talk about rushing something let us look at the debate on the SOE bill in 1986 ... He has managed to recast himself as the guardian angel of constitutional propriety. He's not. He's deeply partisan."

On Dame Anne Salmond
"The worst contribution has come from Dame Anne Salmond ... some of her shrill and unprofessional comments ... [have comparisons with] McCarthyism and comparisons with Nazi Germany."

What a disgraceful and pathetic excuse for a Minister of the Crown. Chris Finlayson should feel highly ashamed for spouting forth such plainly untrue and reprehensible statements. There is obviously nothing honourable about him.

Here's the video if you want a first hand account of Finlayson's weasel words:

Let's not forget that it was John Key who first started using fascist propaganda to try and sell his massive expansion of spying powers to the public. 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is a direct quote from Josef Goebbels, the Nazi German Minister of Propaganda who coined the phrase.

By using such reprehensible tactics to try and undermine the opponents of the GCSB amendment bill, Finlayson is showing that he has no real argument in support of the legislation.

Dame Anne Salmond is entirely correct when she says that it's sad the discussion about democratic freedom in New Zealand has descended into gutter politics, disgraceful misconduct by the Attorney-General that brings parliament into disrepute.

The despicable Finlayson is therefore clearly an asshole of the first degree and quite rightly wins this week's Asshole Award.

Bill English misleads the House

Yesterday, PC World reported:

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English struck out against critics of the bill, saying "What we've heard [from the opposition] is a whole lot of left-over, half-warmed rhetoric about democratic rights ... they simply have not contributed at all to settling the issues which they say are so important."

English claimed that the Human Rights commission, which has been critical of the bill, "didn't read the legislation".

The Human Rights Commission didn't read the legislation? Then how exactly did they write an extensive report (PDF) on the subject matter outlined in that legislation? English claiming that the HRC didn't read the GCSB amendment bill and the TICS legislation is obviously wrong!

What makes his untrue statement even worse is that the deluded Bill English made it in an official capacity in parliament. He has therefore mislead the House of Representatives in a most disrespectful way.

Even though his claim was obviously false, the asleep at the wheel speaker unfortunately failed to hold the Deputy Prime Minister to account, which is just another indication that our government is dysfunctional.

A Minister of the Crown shouldn't be able to lie to the House of Representatives with impunity. It's as simple as that.

Dodgy deals Dunne dirt cheap

In a post today, Peter Dunne's numero uno (and perhaps only) fan republished the United Future leaders generic response sent out to people who've been emailing him and requesting that he vote against the GCSB amendment bill (PDF).

In his response, Dunne claims to have negotiated:

The removal of the proposed Order in Council mechanism which would have allowed other agencies to be added to the list of agencies able to request assistance from the GCSB. Any additions beyond the Police, SIS and NZ Defence Force will now be required to be made by a specific amendment to the legislation, and not just by regulation as the Bill currently proposes.

This is untrue. The GCSB amendment bill allows for the GCSB to transfer any communications that are "incidentally" recorded onto any foreign agency of their choosing. However, the amount of incidental recording is not defined. New subsection (2) means they don't need a warrant to undertake this task and Dunne's amendment will not change that fact.

To ensure effective oversight in the issuing of a warrant the Bill be amended so that the Inspector General is informed when a warrant is put on the register relating to a New Zealander.

Except clause 3 of the GCSB amendment bill states the GCSB Act 2003 (PDF) allows for warrantless interception of people's communications. It is only when a NEW device needs to be PHYSICALLY attached to a network to intercept a domestic or foreign communication that a warrant is required.

This section of the act will not change, which means warrantless spying will continue. Under Dunne's amendment the inspector general won't need to be informed of spying conducted without a warrant, which means oversight will not be increased.

The GCSB will be required to report annually on the number of instances when it has provided assistance to the Police, SIS or NZ Defence Force.

A report that will likely not be made public. Under Dunne's amendment the 88 New Zealanders who were illegally spied on by the rogue agency will not be informed that their legal rights were breached. Any further illegal activity by the GCSB will clearly not be divulged under Dunne's pathetic provisions for an annual report.

The GCSB will also be required to report annually on the number of warrants and authorisations issued.

Which effectively means nothing! With the law enabling warrantless surveillance of New Zealand citizens, reporting on the number of warrants and authorizations issued is largely irrelevant. The figures provided will not divulge the true extent of spying by the GCSB on New Zealand citizens nor the reasons why most of that spying is being undertaken.

The Intelligence and Security Committee will hold public hearings annually to discuss the financial reviews of the performance of the GCSB and the SIS.

What a load of rot! These agencies, or should I say their boss John Key, has refused to release information relating to the full extent of their government funding and foreign investment. There is nothing within Dunne's amendments that will increase disclosure.

There will be an independent review of the operations and performance the GCSB and the NZSIS and their governing legislation in 2015, and thereafter every 5-7 years.

Something that was already mooted by the Prime Minister. Dunne is merely agreeing to Key's defunct idea, that a review be conducted well after the GCSB is let off the hook for their illegal spying on 88 New Zealand citizens. That's what this legislation is really all about, making the GCSB's illegal activity legal by the passing of this bill into law.

Instead of treating the general public like fools, what Peter Dunne should do is vote against the badly written and rushed through legislation. Clearly the bouffant should #crossthefloor.