Did anyone hear David Cunliffe being interviewed by NewstalkZB’s Rachel Smalley this morning at¬†5:12am?
Len Brown is intent on charging us for rubbish collections we already pay for in our rates and is spending like a drunken sailor on his pet projects.
He is going to need more revenue off of ratepayers, what’s the bet he is looking at solutions like this:
Councils that use spy cameras to enforce parking rules are making nearly nine times more in motorists‚Äô fines than authorities which do not use them.
Official figures show that councils which are using CCTV to enforce parking rules made ¬£49.35 per household last year.
This compares to just ¬£5.69 per household in councils which do not have them. The figures come ahead of a consultation on a ban to stop councils using cameras to snap people parking illegally, which closes next week.
Government figures show a quarter of councils in England ‚Äď 70 out of 288 ‚Äď currently use CCTV cameras to enforce parking rules.
This often means that drivers who unwittingly park in a loading bay can receive a fine through the post weeks later. ¬†¬† Read more »
Here is a little quiz for you.
At the ANZ on Lincoln Road in Henderson this morning a security guard outside stopped a customer and made them remove their head gear…
Full story after the break. Vote before reading on.
Seems world leaders have had their phones monitored by US spies.
I wonder if they bothered with John Key’s? Or maybe he wasn’t important enough.
They probably monitored McCully’s and Groser’s when they want to listen into phone sex¬†or Gerry’s if they wanted to know how a huge fat bloke can get women to remove their underwear.
Hours after Angela Merkel confronted President Barack Obama over allegations that her personal mobile had been tapped, new documents showed that US surveillance extended to dozens of other heads of government.
The National Security Agency (NSA) encouraged other US government departments to share their “rolodexes” of foreign contacts which were then targeted. ¬† Read more »
For most people, privacy, too, has become the “shining artifact of the past” that Leonard Cohen once¬†sang¬†about. Indeed, anyone with a mobile phone understands that everything from their bank records to the products they buy online to the telephone numbers they dial and the addresses to which they send emails are recorded somewhere — whether by a private business, their own employers, or, of course, the government.
We are being spied on all the time, and usually by private enterprise…and the media.
Viewed from this perspective, is it the general public’s comparative lack of indignation over the NSA surveillance scandal that is surprising, or is the real shocker that journalists, activists, and politicians feel so outraged? Yes, the U.S. government is indeed the Biggest Brother of them all, but most people go about their daily business being spied on and having their data mined by any number of small- and medium-sized brothers. Of course, someone who is outraged by the attempts to jail the leakers and prosecute and intimidate their journalist and activist colleagues would insist, and rightly so, that these sorts of things should not be permitted in a democracy. But the gap between the outrage of the chattering classes and the public’s apathy — or, more likely, resignation — illuminates the essential difference between the elite’s understanding of the world and everyone else’s. To put it starkly, members of an elite tend to believe they can change things; most everyone else knows that, except in a few rare instances, they cannot. In an essential sense, the real question for members of the elite is not, why isn’t the public outraged, but why are we?¬† Read more »
Here is another reader that thinks the media aren’t doing their job of protecting the public and are instead part of the problem.
In response to the false belief that the Government is attempting to advance through the media; that the public is not concerned regarding the GCSB changes, I have taken time to write of my concerns and the concerns of most people I talk to in the above attached PDF.
David [name withheld]
Such a radical change being promoted to every NZ citizen‚Äôs rights and freedoms deserves an
informed dialogue, and if we do indeed live in a democracy why are we being denied this basic right?
If you control the media narrative you influence people, GREATLY. Of course if you also control the¬†money flow (FED, RB), then you are able to exert a great deal of influence and coercion over¬†individuals or Governments as in the Fed‚Äôs case.
Who could not be concerned witnessing our elite military dragging terrorists from their beds during¬†the Dotcom Raids? Objective‚Äź¬†to inform Mr.Dotcom he was being charged with copyright¬†infringements at the end of a boot. FBI present, authorised by our PM Mr. John Key.
They have dredged up the tea tapes saga and re-written it to suit their narrative of spying. They lie to readers in doing so. But then this is what “decent journalists, trained and skilled” do these days. They lie, they cheat and they manipulate public opinion to suit their own political agendas.
No wonder people distrust media.
Lawyers are demanding a review of how police intercept private communications after a photo-journalist‚Äôs cellphone logs and messages, including exchanges with a lawyer, were obtained in and inquiry instigated by the PM.
That is a lie right there in the preamble. The communications were not “intercepted”. The txts were obtained after a legal warrant was obtained, some months after the event took place. There was no interception.
This is a classic case of how the media manipulates people to fear things, in this case the government and John Key.¬† Read more »
I say it is reasonably good in that they get some details right on the tools and algorithms used to analyse communications including (even thought they don;t use the term) link analysis, emergent grouping and other statistical analysis methodologies that allow systems and analyst to isolate the abnormal from teh billions of normal transactions in the data.
Over the last week, critics and defenders of the National Security Agency have heatedly debated¬†the merits of metadata¬†– information about the phone activity of millions of Americans that was given to the government via a secret court order.
The information collected includes records of¬†every call placed on the Verizon communications network¬†(and, it appears, every other U.S. phone carrier) including times, dates, lengths of calls, and the phone numbers of the participants, but not the names associated with the accounts.
For some, the collection of these data represent a grave violation of the privacy of American citizens. For others, the privacy issue is negligible, as long as it helps keep us safe from terrorism.
There are indeed privacy issues at play here, but they aren’t necessarily the obvious ones. In order to put the most important questions into context, consider the following illustration of a metadata analysis using sample data derived from a real social network. The sample data isn’t derived from telephone records, but it’s close enough to give a sense of the analysis challenges and privacy issues in play. ¬† Read more »
Samuel Johnson once said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Patriotism, and bad analogies.
For the uninitiated,¬†Godwin’s Law¬†is one of the cardinal rules of the Internet. Coined in 1990 by Internet law expert Mike Godwin, the principle — confirmed by countless contentious comment threads across the web — is that the longer an online discussion persists, the greater the odds become that someone will make a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler, to the point of near-inevitability. Nothing ends a debate faster than the hyperbolic unsupported counterfactual: “You know who else did [INSERT SUBJECT OF ARGUMENT HERE]? Hitler!”
We get this all the time…usually from teachers unions…they used it against Anne Tolley and are yet to deploy it against Hekia Parata…only a matter of time though.
But Hitler and the Nazis aren’t the only recurring straw men used to end debates. Over the past 12 years, it’s become clear that the longer a national security debate persists, the more likely it becomes that someone will try to end it by suggesting something — some policy, some person, some technology — “could have prevented 9/11.”¬† Read more »