Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That is such a tough issue. If you take in boat people on humanitarian grounds then you just encourage more people to spend their life savings (or more ie debt) on a seat in some shonky boat run by people smugglers who don't really care if the boat makes it or not. Australian soil is only a boat ride away from Indonesia.
I see where Australians are coming from with that. I'd probably choose differently than them, but their position is at least valid.
Their treatment of the Tampa refugees, and the dishonesty that occurred along the line with the 'children overboard', however. Ignoring international law by refusing medical aid, and just plain making stuff up for political purposes right before an election. Sad. These were both, unfortunately, very popular actions in the Australian electorate.
-
Will anyone here move against Clark? I doubt it, and they'd probably be right not to, but Clark/Labour face the same problems Howard/the Liberals did. Sure, things are pretty good, but we're just not feeling you any more - maybe it's time for the other lot to have a go?
I'm not sure how much this applies in Australia, but in NZ I'd see a primary problem as there not being anyone waiting in the wings who you'd say "I could see them taking over from Clark soon". To some extent the leadership talent doesn't seem to be there, and I also think that Cullen is blocking the path as long as he sticks around.
My current feeling is that Clark will keep the job until she loses an election, and then she'll go and Labour will have to go through some serious rebuilding in opposition.
-
I was wondering if NZDF/CTTAG are civi-washed if they are engaged via CTAG & the cops?
I don't know what this sentence means sorry. civi-washed? engaged via?
It's my understanding, and I'm not an expert, that CTTAG can only be deployed by the same means as any other part of the NZDF, if that's what your asking. The police, and CTAG have no powers over the NZDF, except there are NZDF staff involved with CTAG.
-
You're obviously more hooked into the arts scene that I, but could you point to any artist who doesn't want their work seen and discussed?
I'm sure that's not their reasoning. If like Russell, the use of the material relates to income, then restricting the access to it online and the use of it is obviously of concern. This is all still pretty new, and it's a 'dangerous new world' for a lot of artists, galleries, museums etc.
For another thing, digital images aren't the same as art, particularly sculptures and installations. Some artists wouldn't allow their material to be put online, because they want people to see the actual artwork.
-
Which brings me to: My Hobbyhorse: I would dearly love to see a modest contestable fund to which individuals could apply to have a work digitised by the archive that holds it.
That's an interesting idea. I wonder if the archivist would respond - that does little good at all except for the person who requested it. It'll lead to little patches of information being digitised, and therefore publicly available.
To stretch way across forums. If context is important in ascertaining the information that the Dom published the other week, then surely it's important that whole collections of things become available so people can see the context in which they sit?
-
Hocken Collections are somewhat well known for the expense of getting publishable versions of their archives.
When I did my honours dissertation, I used about a dozen photos which were in their collections, for which they wanted to charge me $50/image or something. I wrangled around them by having the organisation that had placed the images there write a letter asking them very nicely to release the photos into my care, allowing me to scan them all, make digital copies for both the Hocken and the organisation, and then return them.
Partially in their defense, they are a historical archive and some of the things they hold are the only copies in existence. A lot of care has to be taken with the originals and the methods of creating copies. While you might rightly say 'but someone else paid for the transparency!', I guess why should person 1 subsidise every subsequent user who wants to reproduce that image? I presume some of the payment also goes back into paying for the Hocken Collections itself, which isn't cheap. I can't imagine they get as much central funding from the government as National Archives.
It does help if you know someone there or they know you. I feel another police station/printer/motorcycle jacket coming on
-
"But no defence forces were deployed"
You know this how?
Because when they're deployed for law enforcement, the PM must inform parliament at the earliest opportunity, which she hasn't done.
From the Aramoana wikipedia page:
As of 2007, it remains the only time that the crack New Zealand Special Air Service, a branch of the army, has been placed on alert for a domestic incident.[citation needed] New Zealand law prohibits the use of the Army for law enforcement without the approval of the Prime Minister (who must then report to Parliament at the earliest opportunity).
"I wasn't even aware that CTAG were involved"
If CTAG weren't used that would seem to be a serious error ignoring a body set up exactly for the sort of thing the cops thought they had.
I said I wasn't aware that they were involved, it's entirely possible that they were. CTAG is an information sharing and report writing body, it doesn't make decisions, so 'being involved' simply means, the police pass their information onto it, and they possibly write a report on it.
What I said was, the action undertaken on October 15 was a police action under the authority of the Commissioner's warrant. I presume acting on a CTAG report is under the authority of the Prime Minister, and that's not what happened in this case. The police may have considered that because the incident was entirely domestic, it did not require working with CTAG, or CTAG might have been given the information and decided not to report on it. A good defence lawyer using the OIA and Privacy Act could try and find out the answers to those questions.
-
I think that's an important principle. I was glad when the Turnbull stopped vandalising its small online images with "sample" watermarks, but I feel bound to note that institutions in other countries don't feel the need to run copyright warnings under every image on their websites.
Ugh, copyrights over images and their various reproductions is rapidly becoming part of my job, it's a mine field.
I couldn't comment on international law, but of course the copyright message is simply a reminder, copyright holds whether the message is there or not. You'd have to explicitly put up a note releasing copyright into some sort of non-commercial arrangement in order to do so. I don't think many artists or holders of their works are there yet.
Copyright also lies, not just with the artist or their estate, which has to release it, but also with the current owner of the artwork, and additionally, the person who photographed the artwork to make it available digitally. All of them have to agree to release the copyright. (My upcoming work is more complicated, as our digital images are scans of slides taken by a photographer out of a book who printed a photograph of the original. The copyright chain is: 1. Artists, 2. Owner, 3. Photographer, 4. Publisher, 5. Slide photographer, 6. My work).
To be honest, if the artwork is online, and viewable in a reasonably good quality, uncorrupted form, what does it matter if they assert copyright? The last thing a gallery or museum wants is to piss off an artist when they find their artwork floating around the world wide web, at least with a copyright note they can say that the person knew what they were doing when they stole it.
-
Well, if Kevin's talking about prevention, and that's the word he used, you can remove the 'previous convictions' bit.
I was taking that from his original post which had in it:
Multiple violent offending - unknown but permanent name suppression would suggest not
[welfare dependence] - he came home from work
Dysfunctional family/home situation - doesn’t sound like it
Alcohol and/or drug dependence - unknown
Intergenerational criminal behaviour/family violence - unknown
Multiple cyfs intervention - unknownThere's two mentions there of 'violent offending' and 'criminal behaviour'. Though as you note, nothing about race.
-
If CTTAG were deployed to the Ureweras to gather intel, then report to CTAG, and then CTTAG go and raid Ruatoki. We have a self forfilling circle jerk of death.
But no defence forces were deployed. So your self-fulfilling circle jerk of death (and, it would be useful to remember, no one was killed, or, actually physically hurt during the raids) is, y'know. Made up.
I wasn't even aware that CTAG were involved, though I presume the police intelligence was shared. By my understanding the raids were conducted entirely under police jurisdiction, and no permission of higher authority was sought.