Kiwis Want To Spy On All Communications, VPNs, And Be Able To Use Secret Evidence Against You
from the no-justification-needed dept
Although New Zealand's decision not to allow patents for programs "as such" was welcome, other moves there have been more problematic. For example, after it became clear that the New Zealand intelligence service, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), illegally wiretapped and spied on Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand government announced that it would change the law so as to make it legal in the future to snoop on New Zealanders as well as on foreigners. Judging by a major new bill that has been unveiled, that was just the start of a thoroughgoing plan to put in place the capability to spy on every New Zealander's Internet activity at any moment. Here's an excellent analysis of what the bill proposes, from Thomas Beagle, co-founder of the New Zealand digital rights organization Tech Liberty:The TICS [Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security)] Bill is a replacement for the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004. This law forced communications providers (ISPs, telcos, data networks, etc) to provide "lawful intercept" capabilities so that the Police, SIS and GCSB could access communications once they had a suitable warrant. The new bill expands and clarifies these requirements.As Beagle goes on to explain, this will have a number of implications, including a requirement to build backdoors into all telecoms networks:
However, the addition of the word "security" is the key to what has changed. The new bill now gives the GCSB sweeping powers of oversight and control over the design, deployment and operation of all data and telecommunications networks run by network providers in New Zealand. The stated reasons are to both protect New Zealand's infrastructure and to ensure that surveillance agencies can spy on traffic when required. As part of this, the GCSB will have the power to stop network providers from reselling overseas services that do not provide these capabilities.
From the Bill:Here's one way that could dramatically impact Internet users in New Zealand:A network operator must ensure that every public telecommunications network that the operator owns, controls, or operates, and every telecommunications service that the operator provides in New Zealand, has full interception capability.Note that the surveillance agencies still need to have a legally issued warrant (under the Search & Surveillance Act, NZ SIS Act, or GCSB Act) to actually intercept any communications and there are obligations to avoid capturing communications that are not covered by the warrant.
It then goes on to give the Minister the power to ban the resale of an off-shore telecommunications service in New Zealand if it does not provide interception capabilities. This could stop the resale of foreign-hosted VPNs, instant message services, email, etc.Another clause could have major implications for Megaupload:
Network operators must decrypt the intercepted communications if they have provided the encryption, but there is no obligation to do so if the encryption is provided by others.One deeply troubling aspect is the following:
What does this mean for providers such as Mega (file locker) or LastPass (password storage) who have a business model based on the fact that they supply a cloud product that uses encryption but have deliberately designed it so that they can not decrypt the files themselves? This gives users the assurance that they can trust them with their data. Will the government close them down unless they provide a backdoor into the system?
There is also a provision that allows the courts to receive classified information in a court case in the absence of the defendant or the defendant's lawyer. This applies to information that might reveal details of the interception methods used by the surveillance agency or is about particular operations in relation to any of the functions of the surveillance agency, or is provided as secret information from the surveillance agencies of another country. It can also be used if that disclosure would prejudice security of NZ, prejudice the maintenance of law, or endanger the safety of any person.As Beagle notes:
particularly offensive to civil liberties are the provisions for convicting people based on secret evidence. How can you defend yourself fairly when you can't even find out the evidence presented against you?He concludes with an important point:
One must ask where the justification for this expansion of power is coming from. Has New Zealand already been materially affected by attacks on our communications infrastructure? It seems clear that while the GCSB may not be that competent at exercising the powers they already have, they have done a fine job of convincing the government that they can handle a lot more.That's a question that needs to be put to the governments of other countries, like the US and UK, that are also seeking to extend massively their ability to spy on their own citizens. What evidence do they have that such extreme, liberty-threatening powers are actually necessary, and will make the public safer, rather than simply being a convenient way for governments to identify whistleblowers who expose their incompetence and corruption, say, or to spy on those who dare to oppose them?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: communications, encryption, gcsb, new zealand, secret evidence, snooping, surveillance, vpns, wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'What evidence do they have that such extreme, liberty-threatening powers are actually necessary?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them credit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give them credit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give them credit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Additionally...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subtly plants the notion that Mega can be trusted:
SEZ THEM! It's FAR more likely that with the extradition threat, the NZ gov't has ALREADY pressured Dotcom/Mega into installing the very backdoors that are denied here. Gov'ts never let a criminal case go to waste. You can't rule honest people, and Dotcom is actually a criminal under common law. This would explain why Dotcom is being allowed to keep unearned millions and start up a new biz doing exactly same thing while extradition process still going. -- It's impossible to be too paranoid these days. The "illegally wiretapped" decision and case could just be cover for turning Dotcom into a spy. Here's his choice: go to US for trial and almost certain jail, or stay here, start up new corporate front, and get millions from an out-of-court settlement for being wronged! No one in their right mind would choose to fight.
Now, I hope no will say that my conjecture just can't be so. Only means that you think inside a small box. I've no proof of course, but neither do you. But it's just plain foolish to trust Dotcom, a millionaire and known criminal under common law, and when the gov't COULD pressure him TOO. Intelligence agencies have essentially unlimited money, so it's ONLY a question of whether they wish to capture Mega.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subtly plants the notion that Mega can be trusted:
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Magical Interwebs
Well because its the interwebs and we just don't understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Secret evidence"? Good grief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Global Laws
Every country is set on this course.
For those yet to awake there are many of these "global" laws being enacted determined by who ?
Certainly not your local puppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT WANTED
Get this guys, the govt spy agency (GCSB) was caught ILLEGALLY spying on 88 NZers incl. Kim Dotcom and what does the government do?
Pat them on the back then decide to draft a law basically giving them free licence to spy on its own citizens without warrant and grant them a whole raft of new powers and be the oversight body for this TICS bill above.
Our current PM is definitely a 1%er :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make sure your computer does the encryption
It does not have to be hard. See: http://eccentric-authentication.org/
And use this to secure your own computer: http://genode.org
If your computer is not loyal to you, it's hardly of use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collapse
This current ruling generation is a disgrace. The World War 2 heroes should rise from their graves (w-a-k-e-u-p), give them a hard spanking (r-e-v-o-l-t), and put them in time out (p-r-i-s-o-n).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what?
damned be to hell those that would oppose for righteousness of rulers shall prevail over the least of us should our burdens prove too heavy to wield and defenselessness assured our just convictions.
to the sea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
many New Zealanders consider "Kiwi" an insult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: many New Zealanders consider "Kiwi" an insult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: many New Zealanders consider "Kiwi" an insult
Stop talking shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could see the US enforcing such a law, since a lot of the VPN services are operated from offices in the US
However, a US-based VPN service, which many of them are, are only subject to US laws, and a US based VPN service could tell the NZ government to take a long walk off a short pier, and there is nothing the NZ government could do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally unenforcable. I run a small VPN service, though not a very big one, which I might start running a premium subscription version someday.
If I do that, I will only recognize US jurisdiction, as I am in the USA, and so are my servers. I will sell my service, if I decide to make a subscription service, to New Zelanders, and will totally ignore any ban the Minister puts on me. Since I would use PayPal for payments, the Minister will have no jurisdiction to stop that. And it the Minister does not like that, he can just go piss up a rope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security needs for whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN Services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]