Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Steve Bell, Nov 19, 2003.

  1. Steve Bell

    Steve Bell Guest

    I, Stephen John Bell, born at Wembley, England of 25th October 1947,
    and now resident in Wellington New Zealand, hereby specifically deny
    authorisation to officers of the Department of Internal Affairs and
    Police, and any persons employed by them in a temporary or permanent
    capacity, to access any computer systems belonging to me, unless in
    possession of a specific written and duly authorised warrant
    empowering them to do so.

    In the context of the above, "authorisation" is to be understood in
    the manner in which that term is used in Section 252 of the Crimes
    Act, as amended by the Crimes Amendment Act 2003.

    "Access" has the meaning ascribed to it by the aforesaid Act and
    Amendment Act under Section 248, Interpretation: viz:

    "access'", in relation to any computer system, means instruct,
    communicate with, store data in, receive data from, or otherwise make
    use of any of the resources of the computer system."

    For the avoidance of ambiguity, the above denial of authorisation
    extends to the acquisition from or the placing upon my computer
    systems of any data file, image file, video file, text file, program
    or any other information whatsoever, by way of a "public" service such
    as a peer-to-peer file exchange service, Internet Relay Chat or
    similar service to which my computer system may be from time to time
    connected.

    I am motivated to make this declaration by information I have
    received from the Department of Internal Affairs indicating that they
    have covertly "investigated" at least 111 (one hundred and eleven) New
    Zealanders using peer-to-peer file exchange services, and have
    achieved an impressive total of two (2) convictions for supply of
    objectionable material, with another five (5) intended possibly to
    proceed to court.

    These, it strikes me, are the statistics of a "fishing expedition".
    Bearing in mind the unreliability of file-names and file descriptions
    in a file exchange service such as Kazaa as an accurate indicator of
    their content, I see potential for a user to accidentally acquire
    objectionable material, followed by uploading by an inspector of the
    department, before the user has time to ascertain that the file is
    objectionable and delete it. This would result in an unfair indictment
    for supply of or trading in objectionable files.

    Others may be more concerend at the inadvertent acquisition of
    copyright material and the attentions of the Recording Industry
    Association of NZ and similar bodies, and I urge them to amend, or add
    to, their own denial of authorisation as appropriate.

    Indeed, an act of positive incrimination is entirely possible, whereby
    user B, knowing of user A's interests, disguises an objectionable file
    with a name and/or description intended to attract A's interest. When
    A downloads the file, B contacts the DIA and tells them he has "seen"
    the file on A's system.

    It occurs to me that one way in which innocent people who wish to
    continue to use P2P file-exchange services can protect themselves
    against such abuse is to issue a specific denial of authorisation
    under the Crimes Act such as the foregoing.

    Section 252 has a subsection (3), which says:
    (3)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if access to a
    computer system is gained by a law enforcement agency—

    (a) under the execution of an interception warrantor search warrant;
    or
    (b) under the authority of any Act or rule of the common law.]

    I have covered eventuality (a) in the terms of my draft declaration;
    if they think they can satisfy a judge or magistrate that I have
    intentionally acquired something suspicious, they are welcome to get a
    warrant.

    I do not know of any other Act that would empower them to conduct
    fishing expeditions through my computer by way of a P2P service, but
    I'm not sure about the "common law" provisions. Can anyone advise
    whether a declaration of this type would stand up legally, or whether
    there are "holes" in it?

    If not, I urge others to use the weapon we have been given by the
    Crimes Act to deter unwarranted covert and non-specific "fishing"
    expeditions through our computer systems, with the danger of
    inadvertent or deliberate incrimination that this poses.

    I invite a reply from the DIA.

    Steve B.
     
    Steve Bell, Nov 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Bell

    dOTdASH Guest

    so what exactly do you have on your PC that you don't want them to find ?
    Give us a hint :)
     
    dOTdASH, Nov 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve Bell

    Steve B Guest

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:57:34 +1300, "dOTdASH"
    <> wrote:

    >so what exactly do you have on your PC that you don't want them to find ?
    >Give us a hint :)
    >

    First tell me what you have in your house that you don't want people
    to find. I guess you might be disinclined to let police or DIA
    officers in there if they don't have a search warrant. Why is that?

    Whether you have "anything to hide" or not, you have the right to
    refuse them admittance if they do not have a warrant. The Crimes
    Amendment Act 2003, by my reading (at last) gives me the right to
    refuse them entry to my computer system on the same terms. I am merely
    formally invoking my rights (basically to see if they're prepared to
    dispute my reading of the legislation and demand warrantless entry to
    my PC at any time they can get in).

    When I link to a P2P service, or, for that matter, read a newsgroup or
    take delivery of my email I genuinely don't know what I might
    accidentally and transitorily acquire. There have, I admit, been times
    when probably illegal material has been on my PC. The point is, I did
    not WISH it to be there; and small as the chance is, I don't want
    people going on random fishing expeditions trying to find it, simply
    because I sometimes open the gate of my electronic "premises" onto the
    equivalent of the public street.

    Steve B.
     
    Steve B, Nov 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Steve Bell

    tonyr Guest

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:21:56 +1300, Steve B
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:57:34 +1300, "dOTdASH"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>so what exactly do you have on your PC that you don't want them to find ?
    >>Give us a hint :)


    >Whether you have "anything to hide" or not, you have the right to
    >refuse them admittance if they do not have a warrant. The Crimes
    >Amendment Act 2003, by my reading (at last) gives me the right to
    >refuse them entry to my computer system on the same terms. I am merely
    >formally invoking my rights (basically to see if they're prepared to
    >dispute my reading of the legislation and demand warrantless entry to
    >my PC at any time they can get in).


    Clearly wether a person has something to hide or not is an issue
    because that as a postage stamp is what the matter is about.

    BUT as you say THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.

    The legal sytem tries in some human way to approximate the BALANCE of
    the NATURAL WORLD. In so doing it has to admit that persons may and
    will attempt to do things out of thier own self interest. This must be
    accepted primarily because it is in part a natural mechanism. We live
    socially in a world greatly of our own construct - however we attept
    to mimic the rationality of the Natural World. WE can do this in two
    ways

    1. by establishing new mechanisms that approximate the justice we
    admire
    2. by deleting or modifying previously established mechanisms that
    have gone too far or that act against the Natural World we admire.

    it is the second of these things that is the issue here because we do
    not want to overstep the mark


    \Scott Watson info homepage..
    http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/homepage.htm

    \Police malicious prosecutions.. ???
    http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/nzpolice/framed.html

    There's so much good among the worst of us
    And bad among the best of us
    That it ill becomes any one of us to talk about the rest of us
    And when we're laid beneath the sod with a hundred years to back it
    There's none will know which were the bones which wore the ragged jacket
     
    tonyr, Nov 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:30:56 -0500, Peter <>
    wrote:

    >well if you have nothing to hide why deter them let them in ..
    >as for me , the police wont even find anything worth thier time ...LET
    >EM IN


    I think what he's saying is that although, to the best of his
    knowledge, he has no objectionable material on his PC, the mere act of
    connecting to a P2P network (or the Net for that matter) means that
    there's always a possibility that someone else may have deposited such
    material on his machine.

    For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    through a P2P network is not acceptable.

    Before they start scrutinising the contents of people's disks, they
    should have sufficient evidence our grounds to suspect that they can
    convince a judge to issue a warrant.

    That sounds reasonable to me and explains why that stuipid piece of
    rhetoric "only those with something to hide have anything to fear" is
    completely untrue.


    --
    you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
     
    Bruce Simpson, Nov 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Steve Bell

    KS Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    > For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    > some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    > through a P2P network is not acceptable.


    As I understand it, they were not trolling.

    A search was done for known objectionable material. Traceroutes were done on
    those having the file available for download. From there it was pretty
    simple stuff.

    This was done with the simple point of looking for those who have in their
    possession objectionable material, and make it available to others.
     
    KS, Nov 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Steve Bell

    dOTdASH Guest

    Cards on the table time. Stephen's post was one of the more important I've
    seen recently and nobody had posted a response so I took it upon myself to
    rattle some cages. This is an important debate and please don't take my
    initial response and having anything at all to do with my real opinion :)
     
    dOTdASH, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Steve Bell

    Warwick Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:03:43 +1300, "KS" <>
    wrote:

    >> For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    >> some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    >> through a P2P network is not acceptable.

    >
    >As I understand it, they were not trolling.
    >
    >A search was done for known objectionable material. Traceroutes were done on
    >those having the file available for download. From there it was pretty
    >simple stuff.
    >
    >This was done with the simple point of looking for those who have in their
    >possession objectionable material, and make it available to others.
    >


    Is there a distinction to be made here?
    Making the file available for download is a little different to
    dloading it by mistake - unless you are sharing your dload folder.
    You dont have to.
    Steve seems to be saying simply possessing the file (unopened and
    mistitled is an offece) - your suggestion is that you are only at risk
    if you share the file on the network.

    cheers
    Warwick
     
    Warwick, Nov 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Steve Bell

    Craig Shore Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:03:43 +1300, "KS" <>
    wrote:

    >> For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    >> some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    >> through a P2P network is not acceptable.

    >
    >As I understand it, they were not trolling.
    >
    >A search was done for known objectionable material. Traceroutes were done on
    >those having the file available for download. From there it was pretty
    >simple stuff.
    >
    >This was done with the simple point of looking for those who have in their
    >possession objectionable material, and make it available to others.


    The problem with using P2P software is you could wind up doing it
    without knowing you are. If you tell the P2P software to download a
    file off someone, you do so based on the filename. The content of
    that file you can only assume by it's filename, and sometimes that's a
    wild guess, but don't actually know the content until you have
    transferred the file to your computer and viewed it. Now if you were
    to start the transfers before going to bed, or work, and they
    contained objectional material, you could have been sharing it for
    hours before you were even aware of it.
    And i'm not talking about child porn here. Our Films, Videos, and
    Publications Act disallows some things that they seem to get away with
    overseas. NZ is probably correct in banning it, I feel the adult
    industry is pushing the envelope a little too far in the USA judging
    by some of the reviews i've read.

    Like Steve i've download stuff that once i've actually seen it i've
    realised it possibly wouldn't comply with the FVPA, and deleted it.
    I suspect some would fail on 2b, 3a ii, 3a iii, 3a v, 3c


    From the FVPA, at http://www.legislation.govt.nz


    3.Meaning of ``objectionable''

    (1)For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it
    describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as
    sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the
    availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the
    public good.

    (2)A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes
    of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to
    promote or support,

    (a)The exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for
    sexual purposes; or

    (b)The use of violence or coercion to compel any person to
    participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or

    (c)Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or

    (d)The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading
    or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or

    (e)Bestiality; or

    (f)Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme

    cruelty.

    (3)In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any
    publication (other than a publication to which subsection (2) of this
    section applies) is objectionable or should be given a classification
    other than objectionable, particular weight shall be given to the
    extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication

    (a)Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with

    (i)Acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm, or
    acts of significant cruelty:

    (ii)Sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion
    in association with sexual conduct:

    (iii)Other sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or
    dehumanising or demeaning nature:

    (iv)Sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or
    both:

    (v)Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from
    inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain:

    (b)Exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both:

    (c)Degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person:

    (d)Promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism:

    (e)Represents (whether directly or by implication) that members of
    any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other

    members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of

    that class, being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of
    discrimination specified in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act
    1993.

    (4)In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any
    publication (other than a publication to which subsection (2) of this
    section applies) is objectionable or should be given a classification
    other than objectionable, the following matters shall also be
    considered:

    (a)The dominant effect of the publication as a whole:

    (b)The impact of the medium in which the publication is presented:

    (c)The character of the publication, including any merit, value, or

    importance that the publication has in relation to literary,
    artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific, or other
    matters:

    (d)The persons, classes of persons, or age groups of the persons to

    whom the publication is intended or is likely to be made available:

    (e)The purpose for which the publication is intended to be used:

    (f)Any other relevant circumstances relating to the intended or
    likely use of the publication.
     
    Craig Shore, Nov 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Steve Bell

    Craig Shore Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:25:45 +1300, Warwick <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:03:43 +1300, "KS" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>> For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    >>> some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    >>> through a P2P network is not acceptable.

    >>
    >>As I understand it, they were not trolling.
    >>
    >>A search was done for known objectionable material. Traceroutes were done on
    >>those having the file available for download. From there it was pretty
    >>simple stuff.
    >>
    >>This was done with the simple point of looking for those who have in their
    >>possession objectionable material, and make it available to others.
    >>

    >
    >Is there a distinction to be made here?
    >Making the file available for download is a little different to
    >dloading it by mistake - unless you are sharing your dload folder.
    >You dont have to.
    >Steve seems to be saying simply possessing the file (unopened and
    >mistitled is an offece) - your suggestion is that you are only at risk
    >if you share the file on the network.


    Most file sharing networks make you share your download folder. I
    think some even share the portion of the file you have downloaded
    before you have finished downloading the complete file.
     
    Craig Shore, Nov 20, 2003
    #10
  11. Steve Bell

    Warwick Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:00:31 GMT, (Craig
    Shore) wrote:


    >>Is there a distinction to be made here?
    >>Making the file available for download is a little different to
    >>dloading it by mistake - unless you are sharing your dload folder.
    >>You dont have to.
    >>Steve seems to be saying simply possessing the file (unopened and
    >>mistitled is an offece) - your suggestion is that you are only at risk
    >>if you share the file on the network.

    >
    >Most file sharing networks make you share your download folder. I
    >think some even share the portion of the file you have downloaded
    >before you have finished downloading the complete file.
    >


    Which ones?
    Kazaa and DC its no sweat not to share the downloads.
    I don't use anything else.
     
    Warwick, Nov 20, 2003
    #11
  12. Steve Bell

    KS Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    > Is there a distinction to be made here?
    > Making the file available for download is a little different to
    > dloading it by mistake - unless you are sharing your dload folder.
    > You dont have to.
    > Steve seems to be saying simply possessing the file (unopened and
    > mistitled is an offece) - your suggestion is that you are only at risk
    > if you share the file on the network.


    I believe the target was looking for people who were making the file
    available. If you possess objectionable material, you're nicked.

    It would take incredible imagination to say that you had downloaded a file,
    not viewed it, made it available for uploading with the title 'lolita' and
    NOT realised it was objectionable material.

    How to determine if the file was downloaded with the belief it was an office
    file but then finding out it was not ? I haven't yet heard.

    Also the target was not casual p2p people who might pick up something, it
    was more those who knowingly choose the share such files - collectors and
    distributors. It's very time consuming tracking it down, but worthwhile in
    the long run.
     
    KS, Nov 20, 2003
    #12
  13. Steve Bell

    tonyr Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:30:56 -0500, Peter <>
    wrote:

    >tonyr wrote:
    >
    >well if you have nothing to hide why deter them let them in ..
    >as for me , the police wont even find anything worth thier time ...LET
    >EM IN
    >


    Yes your logic is sound however this is not the only issue.

    The police are employtess with scant more rights and/or extraordinary
    powers than the rest of us. Its true that the office of police
    constable carries with it a sense of responsibility and in many
    instances significant respect. However, The issue here is that the
    police have scant powers because that is the way it is best organised
    it seems.
    Like democracy itself is apparently an imperfect system yet mainitains
    amongst that a level of stability and possibility of progress.

    If evidence suggests the possession of matters in themselves illegal
    then surely Judgement could allow the issue of a Warrant. This matter
    extends into the realm of the Privacy Act and Police Covert activities
    as well. Once the bar has been shifted to allow the unidentifiable
    access (and hacking) of civilian computers on a wide scale then we are
    changing significantly the terrain of the internet. Essentially it is
    a Big Brother issue at heart. Perhaps you could have a pixel on your
    TV screen that is also a camers watching your lives and hey what have
    you got to hide right?
    Well you could protect your Dignity for a start.
    As i say if the evidence is warrantable then all is well. If it isn't
    then make it so - enough of the lazy attitudes please.





    \Scott Watson info homepage..
    http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/homepage.htm

    \Police malicious prosecutions.. ???
    http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/nzpolice/framed.html

    There's so much good among the worst of us
    And bad among the best of us
    That it ill becomes any one of us to talk about the rest of us
    And when we're laid beneath the sod with a hundred years to back it
    There's none will know which were the bones which wore the ragged jacket
     
    tonyr, Nov 20, 2003
    #13
  14. Steve Bell

    Steve B Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:03:43 +1300, "KS" <>
    wrote:

    >> For the DIA (or anyone) to simply go trawling in the hope of finding
    >> some happless Net surfer who's received an unwanted file by email or
    >> through a P2P network is not acceptable.

    >
    >As I understand it, they were not trolling.
    >
    >A search was done for known objectionable material.


    But not a search through the systems of particular people *known* or
    reasoanably suspected in advance to be trading in objectionable
    material. There was no knowledge or suspicion of the presence of such
    material on particular people's systems before the search was done.
    This is (as I suspected and you imply - on what basis of knowledge I
    don't know) a GENERAL search, based only on file names and
    descriptions of the objectionable material. In other words a "trawl"
    (or, if you will, the etymologically related 'troll' - tho' that has
    acquired other meanings in the online realm).

    (Piscatorially, one trawls with a net but trolls with a spinning bait
    on a line).

    >Traceroutes were done on
    >those having the file available for download. From there it was pretty
    >simple stuff.
    >

    Let's try and think of a physical equivalent of this search technique
    as against more 'directed' tactics;

    1) I suspect you of an offence, and can present evidence strong enough
    to get a warrant.

    2) I do not have enough evidence for a warrant, but I have "reasonable
    suspicion" that you are up to no good. I send in an 'undercover cop'
    to your premises specifically. (S)he may behave in a quasi-criminal
    way (smoking marijuana with you but not inhaling; boasting of his/her
    own supposed crimes) in order to gain your confidence.
    I see this as more or less the equivalent of what the DIA inspectors
    do on IRC, where the engagement is one-on-one and the sending of a
    file requires an intentional act on the part of the sender.

    3) I scan the weddings, funerals and real-estate "open homes" sections
    of the newspaper and send my undercover officers round to all such
    events, pretending to be a guest or prospective buyer.
    My real motive is, of course, to inspect premises for drugs,
    contraband and stolen property and to scan bookshelves, photo albums
    and (obviously) computers on the premises for illegal material.

    This is what the inspectors appear to be doing on P2P; simply sticking
    their nose into all the open doors indiscriminately, armed with a list
    of things they are looking for.

    >This was done with the simple point of looking for those who have in their
    >possession objectionable material, and make it available to others.
    >

    Exactly; so was the physical parallel, above.
    Is that physical parallel a permissible search technique in a free and
    democratic society?

    A clue to society's (and Parliament's) view on this question where it
    touches the computer realm is given, IMO, by Crimes Amendment Act,
    2003, which specifically forbids unwarranted access to a computer
    system (including, as a specific part of the definition of 'access',
    copying files from that system) without the express or implied
    authority of the owner of the system.

    I have just stated to law-enforcement inspectors that they are not
    entitled to deduce from my occasional linking to P2P or IRC channels
    that they have an 'implied authority' to copy files from my system,
    nor to place files on it.

    The obvious parallel is the right to expel gatecrashers from a party,
    while being willing to welcome some guests that you didn't expect or
    invite.

    My "open home" events
    (Four bedrooms + large study, Karori, good all-day sun, large living
    areas, newly-refurbished kitchen, new roof, $300,000 ono)
    implicitly accept all visitors at random, just as my presence on P2P
    does, but if an unsavoury character, or an obvious police, customs or
    DIA officer without warrant turned up at my "open home", it is surely
    a matter of common law that I have the right to refuse him/her entry.

    After all, the unopened courier envelope lying on my dining table and
    purportedly containing the agenda and papers for an upcoming
    conference may actually contain objectionable literature, drugs or
    stolen property introduced by a mischief-maker.)
    I am merely doing the same in the electronic environment.

    Why am I not within my rights to refuse entry to the unwarranted
    officer? Why should it be assumed that I am trying to hide something?

    Steve B.
     
    Steve B, Nov 20, 2003
    #14
  15. Steve Bell

    KS Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    > But not a search through the systems of particular people *known* or
    > reasoanably suspected in advance to be trading in objectionable
    > material. There was no knowledge or suspicion of the presence of such
    > material on particular people's systems before the search was done.
    > This is (as I suspected and you imply - on what basis of knowledge I
    > don't know) a GENERAL search, based only on file names and
    > descriptions of the objectionable material.


    Can't comment too much in detail but. The general search was done, and
    action taken beyond that. As Timothy Jepson found out, hiding behind a proxy
    was a miserable failure.

    If there are reasonable grounds for a search warrant to be issued, then the
    PC can be seized and inspected more thoroughly. Calling the file
    "roster.doc" isn't going to help much at this point!

    But like all search warrants, they're not given out free with a packet of
    Weetbix.

    > (Piscatorially, one trawls with a net but trolls with a spinning bait
    > on a line).


    :) Great point !

    > This is what the inspectors appear to be doing on P2P; simply sticking
    > their nose into all the open doors indiscriminately, armed with a list
    > of things they are looking for.


    Yes. But not only inspectors, any member of the public can do this. And
    remember that DIA members are also members of the public.

    > Why am I not within my rights to refuse entry to the unwarranted
    > officer? Why should it be assumed that I am trying to hide something?


    No, you are within your rights to refuse entry. However by allowing your
    system to be openly shared with *any member* of the public via P2P, your
    defence might be a little shakey ?

    Is there a difference between a DIA member or your next door neighbour or
    Winston Peters or Lady Penelope accessing your computer via P2P, finding
    objectionable material and informing the police accordingly ?

    BUT ! I'm not a lawyer. So the semantics of this would be discussed in
    court.

    If you don't have objectionable material on your computer, then there's
    nothing to worry about. If you do use P2P for exchanging objectionable
    material, time is running out.

    Please also remember that two successful P2P prosecutions to date are for
    trading, not merely possessing, objectionable material. Both pleaded guilty.

    Even if a prosecution fails, the public stigma of being associated with
    trading in this will hopefully deter someone else.
     
    KS, Nov 20, 2003
    #15
  16. Steve Bell

    m00se Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditionsvia "public" services

    Steve Bell wrote:

    > I, Stephen John Bell, born at Wembley, England of 25th October 1947,
    > and now resident in Wellington New Zealand,


    If you dont like the ammendment to the crimes act...


    GO HOME!
     
    m00se, Nov 20, 2003
    #16
  17. Steve Bell

    JD Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:54:41 +1300, m00se <>
    wrote:

    >Steve Bell wrote:
    >
    >> I, Stephen John Bell, born at Wembley, England of 25th October 1947,
    >> and now resident in Wellington New Zealand,

    >
    >If you dont like the ammendment to the crimes act...
    >
    >
    >GO HOME!


    Ah, you'll be one of Winston's supporters, then. That'll save you
    from having to use a brain.

    JD
     
    JD, Nov 20, 2003
    #17
  18. Steve Bell

    Peter Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditionsvia "public" services

    tonyr wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:21:56 +1300, Steve B
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:57:34 +1300, "dOTdASH"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>so what exactly do you have on your PC that you don't want them to find ?
    >>>Give us a hint :)

    >
    >
    >>Whether you have "anything to hide" or not, you have the right to
    >>refuse them admittance if they do not have a warrant. The Crimes
    >>Amendment Act 2003, by my reading (at last) gives me the right to
    >>refuse them entry to my computer system on the same terms. I am merely
    >>formally invoking my rights (basically to see if they're prepared to
    >>dispute my reading of the legislation and demand warrantless entry to
    >>my PC at any time they can get in).

    >
    >
    > Clearly wether a person has something to hide or not is an issue
    > because that as a postage stamp is what the matter is about.
    >
    > BUT as you say THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.
    >
    > The legal sytem tries in some human way to approximate the BALANCE of
    > the NATURAL WORLD. In so doing it has to admit that persons may and
    > will attempt to do things out of thier own self interest. This must be
    > accepted primarily because it is in part a natural mechanism. We live
    > socially in a world greatly of our own construct - however we attept
    > to mimic the rationality of the Natural World. WE can do this in two
    > ways
    >
    > 1. by establishing new mechanisms that approximate the justice we
    > admire
    > 2. by deleting or modifying previously established mechanisms that
    > have gone too far or that act against the Natural World we admire.
    >
    > it is the second of these things that is the issue here because we do
    > not want to overstep the mark
    >
    >
    > \Scott Watson info homepage..
    > http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/homepage.htm
    >
    > \Police malicious prosecutions.. ???
    > http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/nzpolice/framed.html
    >
    > There's so much good among the worst of us
    > And bad among the best of us
    > That it ill becomes any one of us to talk about the rest of us
    > And when we're laid beneath the sod with a hundred years to back it
    > There's none will know which were the bones which wore the ragged jacket

    well if you have nothing to hide why deter them let them in ..
    as for me , the police wont even find anything worth thier time ...LET
    EM IN
     
    Peter, Nov 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Steve Bell

    harry Guest

    Re: Crimes Act as protection against govt-agency "fishing" expeditions via "public" services

    "JD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:54:41 +1300, m00se <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Steve Bell wrote:
    > >
    > >> I, Stephen John Bell, born at Wembley, England of 25th October 1947,
    > >> and now resident in Wellington New Zealand,

    > >
    > >If you dont like the ammendment to the crimes act...
    > >
    > >
    > >GO HOME!

    >
    > Ah, you'll be one of Winston's supporters, then. That'll save you
    > from having to use a brain.
    >
    > JD
    >

    Its difficult for Winston supporters because they all have to drink like
    Winnie so all their utterances come out like Father Jack :)
     
    harry, Nov 21, 2003
    #19
  20. Steve Bell

    Brendan Guest

    Edited to include copyright provisions. I also may put this into my
    p2p share folder should any spooks miss it HERE.

    Why ? Because like many I have downloaded a file only to find it
    mis-named and possibly containing illegal or offensive material that
    is not always noticed immediatly and removed - I often leave things to
    download overnight unattended.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    I, Brendan Thompson, resident in Oamaru New Zealand, hereby
    specifically deny authorisation to officers of the Department of
    Internal Affairs and Police, and any persons employed by them in a
    temporary or permanent capacity, or any agents of any party employed
    or funded or with financial interest in the prosecution or
    investigation of copyright infringements to access any computer
    systems belonging to me, unless in possession of a specific written
    and duly authorised warrant empowering them to do so.

    In the context of the above, "authorisation" is to be understood in
    the manner in which that term is used in Section 252 of the Crimes
    Act, as amended by the Crimes Amendment Act 2003.

    "Access" has the meaning ascribed to it by the aforesaid Act and
    Amendment Act under Section 248, Interpretation: viz:

    "access'", in relation to any computer system, means instruct,
    communicate with, store data in, receive data from, or otherwise make
    use of any of the resources of the computer system."

    For the avoidance of ambiguity, the above denial of authorisation
    extends to the acquisition from or the placing upon my computer
    systems of any data file, image file, video file, text file, program
    or any other information whatsoever, by way of a "public" service such
    as a peer-to-peer file exchange service, Internet Relay Chat or
    similar service to which my computer system may be from time to time
    connected.

    I am motivated to make this declaration by information I have
    received from the Department of Internal Affairs indicating that they
    have covertly "investigated" at least 111 (one hundred and eleven) New
    Zealanders using peer-to-peer file exchange services, and have
    achieved an impressive total of two (2) convictions for supply of
    objectionable material, with another five (5) intended possibly to
    proceed to court.

    These, it strikes me, are the statistics of a "fishing expedition".
    Bearing in mind the unreliability of file-names and file descriptions
    in a file exchange service such as Kazaa as an accurate indicator of
    their content, I see potential for a user to accidentally acquire
    objectionable material, followed by uploading by an inspector of the
    department, before the user has time to ascertain that the file is
    objectionable and delete it. This would result in an unfair indictment
    for supply of or trading in objectionable files.

    Indeed, an act of positive incrimination is entirely possible, whereby
    user B, knowing of user A's interests, disguises an objectionable file
    with a name and/or description intended to attract A's interest. When
    A downloads the file, B contacts the DIA and tells them he has "seen"
    the file on A's system.

    It occurs to me that one way in which innocent people who wish to
    continue to use P2P file-exchange services can protect themselves
    against such abuse is to issue a specific denial of authorisation
    under the Crimes Act such as the foregoing.

    Section 252 has a subsection (3), which says:
    (3)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if access to a
    computer system is gained by a law enforcement agency—

    (a) under the execution of an interception warrantor search warrant;
    or
    (b) under the authority of any Act or rule of the common law.]

    I have covered eventuality (a) in the terms of my draft declaration;
    if they think they can satisfy a judge or magistrate that I have
    intentionally acquired something suspicious, they are welcome to get a
    warrant.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------




    --

    ....Brendan

    Stupidity crosses all ideological borders


    Note: All comments are copyright 2003, and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always 'to the best of my reccollection'.
     
    Brendan, Nov 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page