That surveillance bill thingymajig

**mashman** · 26th September 2011, 19:19

I'm curious as to how far this would go. Whilst I don't mind being filmed outside of my own house, will this give the "Police" the ability to break into a house and place cameras and microphones etc... for the purposes of obtaining a conviction? If that's the case, me nonno likey.

**Oakie** · 26th September 2011, 19:37

Originally Posted by mashman

I'm curious as to how far this would go. Whilst I don't mind being filmed outside of my own house, will this give the "Police" the ability to break into a house and place cameras and microphones etc... for the purposes of obtaining a conviction? If that's the case, me nonno likey.

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

**Scuba_Steve** · 26th September 2011, 19:48

Originally Posted by Oakie

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

I thought they could do that now tho??? Thought the idea was to be a law to circumvent the law???

**SPman** · 26th September 2011, 19:50

Originally Posted by Oakie

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

And it would have to relate to a crime, the conviction of which would render you liable to a term of imprisonment of...3 years or more, I think. Anyway - all here
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...LM2136536.html

**Flip** · 26th September 2011, 19:54

I don't have a problem with that.

**Usarka** · 26th September 2011, 20:03

The really scary part of this is that the government is changing the law to apply retrospectively. The cops acted illegally but hey we'll pretend it was legal all along with this law change.

What's next, they'll make everyone who brought Kronic a criminal even though it was legal at the time?

**puddytat** · 26th September 2011, 20:07

I think that the laws brought in after 9/11 (terrorism suppression laws?)were why the police got so sure of themselves that they thought the could do what they want.
And as I understand it, the ammendment to it is to legalise them doing whatever the fuck they want ,where they want to whom ever THEY suspect for reasons only known to themselves.....& ostensibly to not jeopardise the 40 odd cases where this has been done.
This is why that KeyCo.is having problems getting the numbers needed to pass the law,as various political parties have asked for info on what these cases are about & the Govt. is refusing to relase the info to them.....
Now I have no problems with this when it comes to Hardcore crimminals, but then it begs the question of whether it should be the police deciding whom they suss out & for what reasons.
Which could lead to people being targeted for Enviromental, Human rights ,Political beliefs or any other organisation that MAY percieved to be a threat by the Police.As has been done in America since 9/11
Police State anyone?

**James Deuce** · 26th September 2011, 20:13

Hardcore criminal? Anyone the Government decides is one.

**Zamiam** · 26th September 2011, 20:16

Originally Posted by Usarka

The really scary part of this is that the government is changing the law to apply retrospectively. The cops acted illegally but hey we'll pretend it was legal all along with this law change.

What's next, they'll make everyone who brought Kronic a criminal even though it was legal at the time?

Agree whole heartedly - applying law changes retrospectively is just plain WRONG. Where will it end - The Police broke the rules end of matter - chuck the evidence out. If you want the right to enforce the rules YOU MUST ADHERE TO THEM.

**mashman** · 26th September 2011, 20:53

Originally Posted by Oakie

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

The above bit is where I have the concern... especially when it comes to video footage which can be chopped out of context... whereas when a cop is giving evidence, it's him that carries the can if he lies...

Originally Posted by puddytat

Which could lead to people being targeted for Enviromental, Human rights ,Political beliefs or any other organisation that MAY percieved to be a threat by the Police.As has been done in America since 9/11

As mentioned elsewhere, if there is well founded suspicion, they can go and get a warrant anyway... if they've fucked up leaving a loophole open, then the Police should be prosecuted for not following correct procedure, and the judges sacked for not following the law... TUI

**Zedder** · 26th September 2011, 21:03

Originally Posted by mashman

The above bit is where I have the concern... especially when it comes to video footage which can be chopped out of context... whereas when a cop is giving evidence, it's him that carries the can if he lies...

As mentioned elsewhere, if there is well founded suspicion, they can go and get a warrant anyway... if they've fucked up leaving a loophole open, then the Police should be prosecuted for not following correct procedure, and the judges sacked for not following the law... TUI

You're definitely not Sgt. Stadanko.

**puddytat** · 26th September 2011, 21:31

For the record its called:
The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill

The preliminary draft looks like that they are going to give these unrestrained video surveilance powers to other Govt. Agencies....

What Agencies & what Govt.?