Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Police Ten 7 State, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Unclear from the Herald article exactly what he requested, suspect it was "personal information" held about him by Police. This wouldn't be covered by OIA, but the Privacy Act instead.
Or a s23 OIA request for reasons for a decision.
-
So who wants to do some crowdsourced OIAs? Here's some obvious requests to make:
* All advice and communications (including emails) on the development of that contract.
* A list of the occasions in the past year where police have identified "negative results" and sought to "improve [the] outcomes" under cl8.3(c) of the contract. In each case, I would like to know the identity of the Project involved, as well as a brief summary of the "negative" finding(s), the "improvements" sought, and whether they were adopted.
* A list of the occasions in the past year where police have vetoed Project findings from release in accordance with cl8.2 of the contract. In each case, I would like to know the identity of the Project involved, as well as a brief summary of the vetoed findings and the reason(s) for their veto.
* The number of occasions in the past 5 years police have terminated a research contract under cl 11.1(a) of the contract. In each case, I would like to know the Project and the identity of the researcher(s) concerned, and a summary of the information or actions deemed to "injure the reputation or interests of NZ Police" or "bring... NZ Police into disrepute".
* The number of occasions in the past 5 years police have:
o initiated a police Code of Conduct investigation in accordnace with cl 11.2(b);
o laid a formal complaint with any organisation in accordance with cl 11.2(c)
o blacklisted a researcher or organisation in accordance with cl 11.2(d)
In each case, I would like to know the Project and the identity of the researcher(s) concerned.You can make a request at the FYI page here: https://fyi.org.nz/new/new_zealand_police
-
Hard News: The Police Ten 7 State, in reply to Jackson James Wood,
They told us some bull about their accounting systems not tracking costs on a per operation basis — which I find negligent. Eg.
Me: How much did Operation Nebraska cost?
Police: Sorry, we have no idea.
I get this response consistently from police when-ever I ask how much something cost. Yet they're able to produce such statistics when it is convenient to them.
At the least, it appears to be negligent, if not a violation of the Public Records Act.
-
Dr Gilbert has published the full research contract here:
http://www.jarrodgilbert.com/blog/the-police-research-contract
Its absolutely horrifying.
-
Hard News: The Police Ten 7 State, in reply to Steven Price,
I'm afraid NoRightTurn is wrong to suggest that the Police are subject to the Ombudsmen's general jurisdiction to investigate administrative wrongdoing. They are not.
Well, they're scheduled in the Ombudsmen's Act, but s13(7)(d) forbids the Ombudsman from investigating "any decision, recommendation, act, or omission of any constable", and the existing remedies clause will rule out pretty much anything the IPCA has jurisdiction over. But the Ombudsman appears to have theoretical jusrisdiction over decisions and actions of non-sworn staff if they want it, for all the good its worth.
-
Hard News: The Police Ten 7 State, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Except the police force is not a commercial company. They are public servants who fulfill a very specific and privileged role in society. That role needs constant scrutiny because of the power that the police have.
Yes - and that's the core problem. We have a government agency behaving like a pharmaceutical company and potentially censoring research results on which its own policy framework is based. That's not good for democracy, its not good for policy, and it certainly isn't good for public trust or the police's social licence to operate.
-
Its Ombudsman territory anyway. The police are scheduled in the Ombudsmen Act, and their administrative decisions can be reviewed to determine whether they are unlawful, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, improperly discriminatory, mistaken, or just plain wrong. The question, as you point out, is whether they have sufficient resources to do this properly.
-
While the explicit blacklisting clause is unusual, the rest of the research contract (including the veto on publication) sounds like standard commercial research boilerplate. The problem is that this isn't being applied to the popularity of someone's widgets, but to vital data about our society being provided by a (supposedly neutral) public body.
-
Polity: Cold, calculated and cynical, in reply to Russell Brown,
And here’s the video of one of Key’s DPS guards pushing Kelvin Davis after he told Key he was “gutless” in the foyer earlier.
Easy response to that: Privilege complaint. Its a breach of privilege to assault a member in the course of their duties, and DPS need to be reminded of that.
-
AgResearch is a no (note: I did not have written permission for that link; Public Address may wish to delete it to avoid packs of rabid AgResearch lawyers trying to enforce the world's most stupid website TOU)
Landcare is a no.
NIWA is a no (also here)
Plant & Food is a no.
GNS doesn't even appear to have a privacy statement.
Scion is a no.
Callaghan Innovation is a no.So much for "research institutions".