That surveillance bill thingymajig

[Zedder]

I agree and feel the same.

But...the issue is the individual's right to privacy and non-intrusion by the State.

Although Jim2 vastly exaggerated with his reference to Nazi Germany, there is a kernel of truth and warning in it. Granting wide surveillance rights to the State opens the door for corrupt individuals to abuse that right.

We need to tread carefully here.

Very true Winston, privacy is sacred. I think though if there's any form of warrant involved then one is in big trouble anyway. Perhaps warrants should have been upgraded years ago to include the electronic age and a search warrant should have been a "search and leave devices warrant" if the cops can prove justification.

[oneofsix]

Very true Winston, privacy is sacred. I think though if there's any form of warrant involved then one is in big trouble anyway. Perhaps warrants should have been upgraded years ago to include the electronic age and a search warrant should have been a "search and leave devices warrant" if the cops can prove justification.

A surveillance warrant and a search warrant are different and separate warrants aren't they? I remember there being all the noise when they chanced the wire tap rules. IMO they should be separate, search for something a person already has is different from keeping someone under surveillance. And really cameras have been around for over a century now so they have had time to get it sorted.

[Zedder]

A surveillance warrant and a search warrant are different and separate warrants aren't they? I remember there being all the noise when they chanced the wire tap rules. IMO they should be separate, search for something a person already has is different from keeping someone under surveillance. And really cameras have been around for over a century now so they have had time to get it sorted.

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

[Usarka]

That is precisely how National Socialism asserted its grip on Germany in the '30s.

Thread's over. Godwin's Law FTW.

Exactly.


But! East German secret police porn. Rule 34 pwn's Godwin.

NWS http://img.photosex.biz/imager/w_500...431bbb2912.jpg

Now the thread is over.

[Zedder]

Exactly.


But! East German secret police porn. Rule 34 pwn's Godwin.

NWS http://img.photosex.biz/imager/w_500...431bbb2912.jpg

Now the thread is over.

Gott im himmel! Das ist ein illegal videoflugen von hausen.

[SPman]

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

[Zedder]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

No arguement there.

[Winston001]

A point of clarity for those who think the police deliberately acted unlawfully: the High Court initially ruled the video surveillance in the Urewera cases was not allowed for in the warrants issued to the police. In other words, the evidence was outside the scope of the warrants and thus unlawfully obtained.

The Court of Appeal disagreed - and ruled the evidence could be used.

Then the Supreme Court reversed that by a majority of 3 - 2 that the evidence was unlawful and could not be used - for 13 defendants. However the Supreme Court also ruled the evidence could be used against 4 other defendants.

So...we have 3 Court of Appeal judges saying the video surveillance was fine, plus 2 Supreme Court judges agreeing with them (but in the minority vote). Furthermore the Court has allowed 4 charges to proceed.


All of which explains the police believing video surveillance pursuant to a warrant was lawful.

In fact I think the sticking point wasn't video surveillance itself but the fact it took place on private property. That was ruled unlawful which is why the law is being updated.

[oneofsix]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

but that is something we do publicly. We have always separated public and private. Like wise there is no avoiding being photographed or videoed when in public or public view, but when in private or on private property not in public view then I would prefer they at least have to justify a warrant being issued.

[marty]

A point of clarity for those who think the police deliberately acted unlawfully: the High Court initially ruled the video surveillance in the Urewera cases was not allowed for in the warrants issued to the police. In other words, the evidence was outside the scope of the warrants and thus unlawfully obtained.

The Court of Appeal disagreed - and ruled the evidence could be used.

Then the Supreme Court reversed that by a majority of 3 - 2 that the evidence was unlawful and could not be used - for 13 defendants. However the Supreme Court also ruled the evidence could be used against 4 other defendants.

So...we have 3 Court of Appeal judges saying the video surveillance was fine, plus 2 Supreme Court judges agreeing with them (but in the minority vote). Furthermore the Court has allowed 4 charges to proceed.


All of which explains the police believing video surveillance pursuant to a warrant was lawful.

In fact I think the sticking point wasn't video surveillance itself but the fact it took place on private property. That was ruled unlawful which is why the law is being updated.

how dare you post such relevant details! the police were acting like the SS! burn them!

[Usarka]

It still doesn't matter. Governments should not change the legal status of historical events.

[FJRider]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

So your anti-virus/security software is switched off then ... ???

[marty]

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

So given the actual story as posted above, who exactly should have got their act together?

[marty]

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.

the urewara monkeys are only the tip of the iceberg here. there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.

but I'm sure your extensive legal background gives your opinion weight

[Usarka]

the urewara monkeys are only the tip of the iceberg here. there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.

Tough. People get off on technicalities alll the time. The cops will just have to catch them again like usual, and it should be easier because they know who they are.

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.