And most Kiwis won’t give a stuff

Posted on by

or won’t understand the fundamental principles involved.
‘Our Supreme Court has handed down a chilling ruling about the state’s right to invade individual privacy – particularly when it’s contained, as it is so often these days, on computers or mobile phones…..’

41 thoughts on “And most Kiwis won’t give a stuff”

  1. The comment I left on their website:

    I’m an American living in Seattle and I’m shocked to read of the reach my nation has into the internal affairs of a friendly democratic country thousands of miles away!

    However shocking that may be, I think New Zealand rolling over and playing with the Feds was even more shocking, especially as we have in power in this country a de facto dictatorship by President Obama, whose illegal actions are legion.

    Beware New Zealand and take a good hard look at anything the United States wants you to do.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

  2. Unfortunately KG, you are right. My younger brother says if you have nothing to hide, then why not. This is what Facebook has done to this generation. People thinking that sharing your details is cool and connects you to the world.

    • Yep, Warren, I’m sick to bloody death of hearing stuff like “if you have nothing to hide, why do you want privacy” from idiots and brainwashed children. (some of whom are in their twenties)
      It implies a trust in the benevolence of government which is frightening.

      • The problem comes when the powers that be create “evidence” out of whole cloth and download it onto your hard drive just before the raid.

        Don’t think it doesn’t happen,it does already,but like so many things either there is no evidence or no one willing to find it that anything nefarious happened.

      • Another issue with this whole facebook generation, is it can also harm your job prospects. Some employers for instance will look at your hobbies, and want to see that you participate in sport as that means you are a team player.

        So if they are looking at your facebook page and you know they’re doing that, it means you want to put things in that prove you are an excellent candidate. One of the things that throws off employers is if your goal is different to the job. If your ultimate goal is to be an accountant and you want to be a records clerk, that is fine to them. But if your ultimate goal is to be a PE teacher and you just need the office job for now, they’ll think, this person is a waste of time training.

        So by having everything about you on facebook inevitably, what you put will turn some people off, unless you seriously restrict yourself. So that’s another way in which this if you have nothing to hide… It just doesn’t work in reality.

        And their’s also people who take advantage of others. So they are looking for who they can take advantage of. Because I have high energy some people think I must have ADHD. So one particular person wanted me to participate in something illegal, and if it had gone wrong, then I would be in trouble. As soon as I said no, they stopped communicating with me. So that’s the other problem is people use things to their advantage. And no I certainly don’t have ADHD, I am a very focused individual, and that’s why I find those with bipolar difficult at times. They cannot stand me sticking to things.

        • Warren,I was hating Facebook before hating Facebook was popular.I had an account for about two weeks and quickly figured out it was nothing more than a data gathering operation.

          • Well Darin, for a long time I’ve been cautious about Facebook. But about 18 months ago, I decided to give them a try. So they took all of my contacts from hotmail, and asked me to approve friendship requests. What I found is if those who got friendship requests from me didn’t approve within a week, then it counted as black marks against me.

            So a number of times I was warned we will suspend your account. When they finally did, I said I want to permanently end my account. This means I do not accept what you are saying, and I do not wish to live under your rules. They then said you have 14 days to change your mind. So to me facebook is completely messed up. Then I receive these solicitations, these naughty girls saying come back on facebook so we can make things happen.

            This is just plain low.

  3. I have no time for the fat Kraut but feel the raid was appalling – the local cops were playing CSI. The American friend of the 1940’s is long gone.

    I worked in claims in an insurance company many years ago and as part of that work was expected to read and digest law reports. While most of the content was irrelevant I recall a case in NZ where the plod pulled over a car that was, as it turned out, being driven by a couple of ruffians. On that basis alone, with no suspicion of anything beyond the driver and passenger, they opened the car boot (trunk if you must). Inevitably a quantity of stuff was revealed that was illegal and a prosecution followed. The plod lost on the basis they had no right to just sniff around on the chance they might find something – there were no grounds for suspicion of a crime. I recall that I thought it was a pity the bad guys won but have since learnt that you give the govt nothing voluntarily because it will, in time, abuse its position.

    Of course the rules are now changed and the plod routinely brag about recovering stolen goods following random stops. To be free you have to, on occasion, put up with a bit of unpleasantness from the wrong side of the tracks – its better than a police state.

  4. ” To be free you have to, on occasion, put up with a bit of unpleasantness from the wrong side of the tracks – its better than a police state.”
    Amen! to that.

    • KG, Brown, I read an ebook called ten things the police don’t want you to know. Some of it has to do, with the fact that if they have grounds to believe your up to something they are allowed to search. However, at other times you are not obligated to participate and it is voluntary. If however, you cooperate when you are not obligated to, they can do things to you that you didn’t expect.

      Another writer suggests that when asked to cooperate, ask if their is a victim and if you are required to. And if you are not required to they won’t bother you. But as soon as you have stated your name and date of birth you have cooperated. The reason is complicated, but the point is in some cases it is voluntary, and if you voluntarily cooperate, tough luck. Oh also, if they say to you do you understand, it means do you stand under in legalese. So if they ask you, always say no. Again you’d have to read these sorts of books to get your head around it.

      • I’ve read a lot on the subject, Warren and it seems to me that police in Australia and NZ get away with doing pretty much as they please – unless their target is someone wealthy enough to employ good legal advice. Even then, they’ll sometimes ignore, circumvent or bend the rules.

        • KG, unfortunately that book was written in America, where they have balance of power, division in governments. However I have also talked to a sovereign who doesn’t get messed with. The whole sovereign thing takes years to get your head around. So it is not something anybody can just do.

          But those who truly understand how it works, don’t get messed with. Part of the sovereignty/free man on land path is you don’t use lawyers, and you know the courts are their to collect money out of you, if they can. And lawyers are officers of the court, and they aren’t interested in your wellbeing, they work for the courts.

          So I’m not saying this is an easy path to go down. It is a very difficult path to go down but if done properly it does work.

        • Oh also, you are right in general about police getting away with a lot. I have a friends who’s abusive wife works for the ministry of justice, and they take her side.

          He hasn’t been able to get anything out of ACC for the health damage she has done. The police threatened him, but luckily he had telecom’s cooperation, in recording that conversation. MPs won’t help out even though he has all this proof.

          And his own law firm gave out information they shouldn’t have. When they admitted it, they said it was the receptionist. And the law society even said that because it was the receptionist they don’t need to do a thing about it. And even his church, someone from CYFs was saying to be the stronger man. So don’t get me wrong I know that those who work for the government are protected.

            • Oh, while we’re on the topic, the sheriff has a lot of power in the USA. One candidate sheriff has said if he gets elected he will stop the IRS from coming on to his domain. In NZ the central government has just too much power. Not so in the USA. Just thought I’d put a little humour in this string.

  5. Brown said:

    “I have no time for the fat Kraut but feel the raid was appalling – the local cops were playing CSI. The American friend of the 1940’s is long gone.”

    They call it “Globalism” – George Orwell called it “Oceania” – and it’s taking shape before our very eyes.

    The lockdown started with the dastardly European Union that brings Western and Central Europe into one confederation that came to power against the will of the peoples involved.

    The next act will be the creation of the North American Union of Canada, USA, Mexico and the Central American Republics modeled on the EU with a common currency.

    Act Three will be the unification of Pacific nations like Japan, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand and so forth, which will no doubt be called, “The Pacific Union.”

    Then at some point the Globalists will unite the various “Unions” into one big totalitarian super state that may or may not include Russia, China and India.

    It’s beginning to look like all the major science fiction writers of the 20th century were right on target with their predictions of the “Brave New World.”

    ….and the robots are coming :!: One estimate has it that by 2025 half the workforce in the USA will be replaced robots and by 2045 A.I. will be so advanced that machines will design and produce machines.

    I guess the bottom line is that if man doesn’t destroy man, the machines will. :sad:

    • Sometimes I’m glad to be an old man, Ronbo.
      We had the best of it and it’s all downhill from here.

    • Brave New World – Aldous Huxley – Fabian Society member (precursor to the Frankfurt Society).

      Of course his predictions turn out to be accurate, it is what was planned and is now being implemented by the puppeteers behind the curtain.

  6. ” .. .. . if you have nothing to hide, why do you want privacy … … . ”

    I think most people close their curtains at night, even though they “have nothing to hide.”

  7. What shook me the most was how one of the Justices literally argued the cops case for them! :shock:

    • Me too, Michael. I don’t think she understands the function of her position at all.
      No wonder NZ politicians wanted to axe appeals to the Privy Council – justice is so..um…inconvenient. :evil:

  8. yet Bain has nothing to hide, he’s trying again for a payout, as though he is totally innocent. So upside down. Key allows just anything at all, he is one of them.

  9. Worst PM ever for NZ? Wouldn’t be far off. Insidious, supercillous, weak, dishonest and most of all, super empty.

  10. One is judged by the company they keep – both Dotcom and Key in this case. However odious Dotcom’s friends are he is still entitled to due process and not be subjected to a breach of his rights by an FBI-style raid, overseen by the FBI, courtesy of Key for his golfing buddy who needed to pay back his Hollywood backers.

    This ‘warrant’ was so faulty that no US court would have allowed any of the evidence gathered during this raid to be used in court. Instead the gormless NZ police handed all the material to the waiting FBI to be spirited out of this country before the blink of an eye, and before Dotcom had a chance to challenge this process in a court of law. One has to feel for Dotcom in that he has had just about every legal right breeched and, if he goes to the States he will not be allowed to defend himself to a standard that he would have been allowed if he had been resident there.

    This is a sad day for the judiciary and the rights of the citizens of New Zealand. And I never thought that the day would come when I so whole heartedly agreed with Sian Elias.

  11. “This is a sad day for the judiciary and the rights of the citizens of New Zealand. And I never thought that the day would come when I so whole heartedly agreed with Sian Elias.”
    Ditto. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

    • Bastards. They can’t prove he was driving (assuming the absence of any evidence not mentioned in the article). If he was driving, they can’t prove his blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit when he was doing so (I know if I’d just flipped my car I’d want to knock back a couple of whiskeys to soothe my nerves).

      Bloody cop should be charged for B&E.

  13. I think the cops can prove he was pissed – the math is very easy if you have a reading (as they do), and that leads to evidence of being pissed at the place at the time and place. What annoys me is that people like this drunk makes it harder for people who behave properly but get harassed for trivial stuff once the rules shift. If you give the plod an inch they will take a mile. The golden rule is to lock your doors when you go to bed and if you want to hide be more creative (see – reasoning impaired by being pissed).

    • “I think the cops can prove he was pissed – the math is very easy if you have a reading (as they do),”
      I’m not at all sure that’s true, Brown. Too many variables.

      • Sorry but I disagree KG. The effect of alcohol on abilities over time was investigated by research at Massey by a Prof Batt many years ago. Students are always happy to volunteer in drinking games so the research was easy. What was surprising at the time was the consistent level of measured impairment among the subjects – your body can only do so much and there is great consistency in the bodily process. How shit hot you may think you are was no indication of how shit hot you actually are when you had to drive after a few.

        What I find annoying today is that the research showed a clear level where impairment is reliably measurable and it was above the new legal limit is set.

        • I’m not disputing the impairment effects of alcohol, Brown. Merely that measuring the blood alcohol level an unknown time after an alleged event is no evidence at all of impairment at the time of that event.
          You said:
          “and that leads to evidence of being pissed at the place at the time and place.”
          No, it doesn’t.

  14. Yes it does because the body processes alcohol at a consistent rate. If I know how pissed you are at 10pm I can work out how pissed you were at 8pm. Drinking in the interim can be easily allowed for. The only variable is body weight because that dictates water volume and the simple maths takes that into account. Not liking it doesn’t make it so

    That doesn’t mean I support the police but I find idiots that give the govt control freaks ammunition to piss the law abiding off darned annoying. If we behaved decently we would be better off and these mongrels would have no excuse to live out their control freak fantasies.

    • “If I know how pissed you are at 10pm I can work out how pissed you were at 8pm.”
      No, you cannot. I might have had one beer at 8pm, driven home and had a few whiskeys. Calculating backwards from that point would say I was drunk at 8pm.
      Or driven part-way home, had an accident and consumed a couple of bottles of wine or whatever when I got home. The figure at 10pm is only evidence of the figure at 10 pm.
      By your logic, I can stay sober up until 10pm, down a half bottle of whiskey, give a blood sample half an hour later and that will tell you how drunk I was at any time prior to (say) 9pm.
      ” Drinking in the interim can be easily allowed for.” Oh? How, exactly?

Comments are closed.