Hard News: Standing up and calling bullshit
299 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
(in this hallowed moment of apparent mediative pause i'd like to restate if i may my intense curiosity as to the contradiction i do perceive at work/play in the indications of more than one person here that they are fiercely dedicated to the vicissitudes (sheee!) of their pathologically-described chilluns on the one hand but have no truck whatsoever with the slightest hint of incoherence manifesting itself rite here within their precious blogosphere )
-
This isn't a well thought-out question, and I will probably regret it, but isn't compulsory DNA gathering and storing for suspects the same as fingerprinting? Is it the sense that the DNA is more personal, and the gathering more intrusive? Just saying...
DNA contains a huge amount of information about you, and our ability to access that information increases rapidly over time. It tells many things about your body, including your mind.That's most unlike a fingerprint, which presently can only be demanded in very limited circumstances.
We've just given that power to the police to access that information from absolutely anyone they want. All they have to do is 'intend' (Minister's quote marks) to charge someone. We have no idea of the specifics in the bill yet. We may also have given that power to other agencies; I have no idea, since the legislation was rammed through in hours. Most such legislation now gives the police the power to give this information to a wide range of agencies.
As someone who has seen police and state powers aimed at "criminals" regularly used on my friends and family on the basis of political activity in the last decade, and against others in decades before, these concerns are very real and in no way abstract.
-
What George said.
-
the stick i rememba moist in NZ was that of the man from said
"dna squad" who obliged me to run his around my gums for about 10 minutes before i was allowed to take delivery of my replacement passport and leave yr country..whole biz proceeded from incident of arrest after i'd pocketed on impulse pack of refill razors at supermak't checkout on finding i had not enuff change to pay for..
Oh, that reminds me, the police are already telling people that they are obliged to give DNA samples, when they are manifestly not obliged to. Including in the last two months from a political activist I know, who was lucky enough to know their rights ("what legislation gives you the right to demand my DNA?")
-
It's not just that dna tells a lot about you, but that you shed cells containing detectable quantities of it in many more places than you leave finger prints. Thus even without cameras or other apparatus of the surveillance state, your movements are potentially traceable to a much greater degree than even mandatory fingerprinting would allow.
If it comes to that, what about mandatory fingerprinting of all adults, just in case? Would you have a problem with that? Why? Surely only the guilty have something to fear?
-
When the arm tattoos come in again (be they ever-so cleverly lazerly etched and non-readable except under state-owned lights...)
Seriously, I find this extension of Police & other departments' powers very worrying.
What, effectively, can I do about it?
-
Okay, I've just had a look at the legislation.
There are problems, but it isn't as bad as it could be. There appears to be no information sharing capability, and the officer performing the DNA extraction has to hand the person a form with a number of pieces of information on it. But it's still not good law. There are problems with it.
-
We've just given that power to the police to access that information from absolutely anyone they want.
'ang on! Can we take the "we" and shove it right back where it originated this time please? The MUFNACT Party have consistently shoved under urgency with the usual cringe argh vomit of "that's what we campaigned on" and "we won" crapaholic justification. This is yet another example of many pieces of legislation from day one of this government, sorry take it back to week two, but consistently since then. They do have a slick machine that works behind them but seriously, WHY ARE ANY OF YOU SURPRISED?
Expect every week to roll out Tolley, Ryall, Power,Smith with Brownlee, McCully, and Collins to boot. Watch this space, I'll remind ya next week. -
I've not seen the whole ad, but does anyone who has think that it advocates support for a candidate or for a political party?
Okay, now I've watched the promo in question, I'd say: yes.
I think Duncan Garner got it about right this time, when he gave his assessment on Campbell Live. It seems to me that you could play that ad, without the last few seconds anyway, during an election campaign and nobody would have trouble seeing it as a promotion of the National Party by its deputy.
I don't think it will change National's fortunes or gain them votes, but I do think it is an error in judgement by TVNZ, and probably a technical breech of the broadcasting act.
-
.Okay, I've just had a look at the legislation.
There are problems, but it isn't as bad as it could be.
See right there .You will believe, it will be ok, don't panic. I mean it's not about me right? Yeah right.
You know what, coming through Oz from Dubai, I had my nail file removed from luggage and taken. The guy getting off the plane despite repeated requests from stewards to sit down (with a dam suspicious violin case) was just fine.There are notices saying "do not joke with staff. I say Bollocks! Jus' sayin' Bollocks! -
'ang on! Can we take the "we" and shove it right back where it originated this time please? The MUFNACT Party have consistently shoved under urgency with the usual cringe argh vomit of "that's what we campaigned on" and "we won" crapaholic justification.
Labour voted for it too, and in this case the Maori Party stood up for something principled. So the representatives of around 88% of NZ voted for this.
Doesn't make it any less shit. I just feel like a lot, perhaps most of middle NZ has bought into this crap, and we need someone who will shake them out of it.
See right there .You will believe, it will be ok, don't panic. I mean it's not about me right? Yeah right.
When I say it's not as bad as I thought it would be, I mean that in very relative terms.
-
For the next 2 years with or without Labour, Greens or Maori. no problem. That simple.
-
but isn't compulsory DNA gathering and storing for suspects the same as fingerprinting?
Also, you get fingerprinted after being arrested, this would be before.
I don't have a problem with DNA in principle, but it should be taken under an order from an external agency such as a judge, or after conviction.
-
3410,
Labour voted for it too
Spineless pricks.
I just feel like a lot, perhaps most of middle NZ has bought into this crap, and we need someone who will shake them out of it.
Unfortunately, this can only happen in an informed society, which we no longer have. (And don't call me condescending; I barely have a clue what's going on anymore, myself.)
-
we no longer have.
Never had. A test case I suppose would be the right to be anonomous.They have my fingerprints and who knows what else . I am just fortunate enough to like me myself and I and have no problem defending my right to be me. Doesn't mean I like what these guys are doing.Doesnt mean it's right (but it is extremely right) it's morally wrong.
-
Labour voted for it too, and in this case the Maori Party stood up for something principled. So the representatives of around 88% of NZ voted for this.
To be completely fair (and for Sofie's information), the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill did go before a select committee rather than being shoved through all stages under extreme urgency. Of course, the media doesn't seem that interested in covering select committees unless there's a catfight promised...
But it did totally piss me off that Attorney-General Chris Finalyson's New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance report was, as far as I can see, totally ignored. I can say from experience (when he was chair of the Wellington National Party), that if he says there are BORA compliance issues, I'd pay close attention. He's not prone to hyperbole or offering a legal view that isn't carefully considered and tightly argued. In fact, if he stubbed his toe I suspect he'd take a few minutes to think about his response before cursing a blue streak. :)
When I say it's not as bad as I thought it would be, I mean that in very relative terms.
In the sense that the scopophilic dystopia of Minority Report is still science fiction. :)
-
To be completely fair
NO! leave it out, He's 'avin' a laff.
-
NO! leave it out, He's 'avin' a laff.
It's your turn now, lady. The horrible thing about a Parliamentary democracy is that, sooner or later, those other bastards are going to have the numbers. Damn it.
-
Next 2 years ,whatever National wants along with Act and United Future, no problem. Doesn't matter what Labour do.
-
Waaaay back on topic ...
James's Editing the Herald post made Finlay's argument in more engaging fashion. It also has a headline I wish I'd thought of: Grammar nazis.
James also linked to this blog post, which is such a crime against language as to make me want to personally take hot dinners around to each of the errant schoolboys.
-
James's Editing the Herald post made Finlay's argument in more engaging fashion.
More engaging, but still bloody annoying. Yes, ping the media for grotesque over-kill but can that be done without sneering at people who I think have perfectly legitimate reasons to be repulsed?
And could James please STFU with the "lynching a group of kids" nonsense. Feel free to differ, but I don't think this is the kind of thing you invoke for the sake of a rhetorical punchline.
-
Hi there. Um, I may've missed this discussion elsewhere on Public Address, but as a lefty liberal, can I just ask:
Why is Public Address running an advertisment for Bill English as it's banner ad?
-
Craig Ranapia, must you really write so many posts that make me go "eew".
There are other metaphors than sexual ones.
-
More engaging, but still bloody annoying. Yes, ping the media for grotesque over-kill but can that be done without sneering at people who I think have perfectly legitimate reasons to be repulsed?
What the Grammar boys did was utterly moronic, but at the same time the media had a bad case of Prolefeed.
One's a knuckle sandwich, and the other's a kick in the balls.
-
Scott A:
Why exactly shouldn't Public Address carry advertising for TVNZ7?
DeepRed:
What the Grammar boys did was utterly moronic, but at the same time the media had a bad case of Prolefeed.
One's a knuckle sandwich, and the other's a kick in the balls.
And neither is remotely like being murdered for the unspeakable crime of being black in the wrong place. But I digress...
Do you really think the Museum and the RSA deserved to get dumped on as rentaquote outrage-trolls milking the media cow? I thought so when writing my PAR piece last week, but honestly come to the view I wasn't entirely fair.
If anything, the actual quotes in the coverage I could stomach were reasonable and restrained and you can hardly blame them if the media ramped no matter how much hyperbole they were smothered in. "Thoughtless rather than malicious" is hardly the war cry of a pitchfork-waving mob.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.