Posted
23rd July 2001
NZ Tows Line Strangles Privacy
Green Police spokesperson Keith Locke has criticised the report
of the Law and Order Select Committee for disregarding public
concern about giving police and intelligence agencies to right
to intercept emails and hack into people's computers.
Mr
Locke represented the Greens during hearings of the Crimes Amendment
Bill (No 6), but without a vote because he is not a regular
member of the committee. "Despite the many privacy issues raised
in public submissions, the committee simply bought the government
line that the new powers would improve crime fighting and intelligence
gathering," said Mr Locke. "All the constraints I suggested,
based on public submissions, were tossed out the window. "The
police provided no evidence to justify having the new power
to remotely access computers. The Privacy Commissioner had pointed
out that police can already look at the contents of a computer
during a search of premises. The major privacy implications
of allowing police to secretly access your computer were swept
aside by the committee. "
The
committee treated interception of emails as simply basically
a modern version of mail interception, despite the evidence
in submissions that electronic interception is conducted on
a vastly greater scale and affects the privacy of a huge number
of people. "While the legislation does provide for some controls,
thousands of messages, particularly through the Waihopai station
run by the Government Communications Security Bureau, will be
intercepted without a warrant. "The key word trawling of emails
and faxes, as used at Waihopai, will ensnare many innocent people,
a point made by several submitters. "The committee rejected
my attempts to introduce best practice constraints from overseas,
and threw out my suggestion for auditing police interception
warrants, based on the procedures of the Federal Ombudsman's
office in Australia. "
It
also turned down my amendment to inform suspects against whom
no charges are laid that their communications have been intercepted,
in case it has some subsequent impact on their life. The United
States FBI has such a notification procedure. "The committee
seemed anxious not to indicate any lack of trust in intelligence
agencies. Rather than accept my proposal that intelligence agencies
be subject to the Privacy Act provision that personal information
be kept no longer than necessary, the committee has reported
that this is already "current SIS policy", and recommended no
change in the law. "Why bother to have laws at all if we simply
trust secret agencies to do the right thing? "I also asked the
committee to support consequential amendments to the Security
Intelligence Act and the Government Communications Security
Bureau Bill, currently before the House, to introduce the additional
constraints currently applying to police interception warrants.
This was not supported."
Mr
Locke said the Committee's report is a slap in the face to the
Privacy Commissioner, the Law Commission, the Council for Civil
Liberties and all those other submitters concerned with the
privacy concerns of the bill. "It doesn't bode well for the
future of civil liberties in New Zealand.
Postscript by Alan Marston
Druing the organisation and running of protest meetings about
the Swain Bill, to which I was invited as a speaker I was shown
a document circulated amoung parliamentarians that called my
integrity and intent into question, a latter day version of
red-baiting.
I
was also told by the organiser of one of the meetings that during
his conversation with the head of NZ Police's legal section
he was warned away from me three times by the senior police
employee. And this despite the fact that I have never been arrested
let alone charged or convicted of any criminal or civil offense.
Apparently
having a history of socialist and trade union activism is still
grounds for persecution in this country. In short, if you believe
New Zealand is a country where the State supports and safeguards
freedom of thought and speech inside the law, you are making
a leap of faith that is not justified by the facts. The Swain
Bill is not about defending your freedom as a citizen, its about
defending your money, if you have any..
.
|