Matthew Taylor

Values (Part 1)

I think that sticking up for your rights is important. I think that sticking up for yourself is important. I think that if you don’t stand up for your rights, you’re making it easier for them to be taken away altogether. I think freedom of expression is an important right.

In a practical sense, New Zealand schools have no one to be accountable to in regards to internal behavioral decisions. They also seem to think they have carte blanche permission to do whatever they like.

This is a problem.

The letter

Two years ago, in Year 11, a friend was required to write an apology letter to a teacher. Apology letters are meaningless tokens–coerced with the insinuation of further/alternative punishment if one doesn’t comply.

So we thought we’d have a laugh. We wanted to see what would be accepted as an apology letter, with the help of Google.

This was.

Facebook

I posted the above image to Facebook, unedited, with a facetious caption:

X’s sincere apology letter to X. Putting this on my CV under achievements.

Privacy settings restricted who could see it, and those who commented on the post said nothing nasty about the teacher involved. This wasn’t about the teacher. It was about the process of discipline at our school.

Here’s where the story should end.

But it doesn’t.

The next day, the school wanted the post taken down. Many reasons were thrown at me during an hour in two different offices, without merit. That I would ruin the teacher’s career, that the letter wasn’t sincere, that the model comment was defamation… I was threatened with suspension, even though the two staff involved, a dean and a deputy principal, didn’t have the power to make that call. Note that the letter had been accepted the day before.

I argued. Free speech. That even the police don’t have the power they were asserting. I didn’t believe that this post was causing a disruption to school so severe that my freedom of expression should be restricted. Their argument was that I should spend my time on something that mattered.

The end of day bell had rung, and I wanted to go home. It felt like the only way to get out the door would be to agree to remove the post from Facebook. And so I agreed.

I removed the post from Facebook that night, which was a mistake. I regret giving in.

I asked many people for advice over the weekend. The consensus was that the school’s argument was bullshit, but if they did suspend or expel me, my education would suffer.

I regret giving in.

Don’t make my mistake. Stand up for what you believe in. Because it matters.

—

I’ve tried to change the schools stance on social networking and freedom of expression immediately after the incident, and again this year. I was unsuccessful both times. Change is hard.

—

Also, this isn’t a dig at the staff involved. I assume the response would have been similar from any of the deans or senior management staff. That doesn’t make it right though, and illustrates an institutional misunderstanding of rights/the law/technology. Hopefully this post will help at least one person to have the courage to challenge these attitudes.

—

In the interests of fairness, here’s a note from the incident report about this… incident, verbatim, except for comments, and for names being removed:

Matthew was unwilling to accept any responsibility at all for his part played in the apology letter written to X or for putting it up on his face book page. Matthew argued that what he had done was not a school matter and that he had not done anything wrong, and was told that if X felt like it he could actually take it to the police as it was a deficatio [defamation] of his character, Matthew said ok I would rather it be a police matter than a school issue as it has nothing to do with the school, this was said to X and myself, that’s when I got X to step in.

And deal with him. He continued to argue that he had done nothing wrong and got quite defensive and rude and told X he would take it off his page when he got home but only if he asked politely [I said that if I was asked politely in the first place, my response might have been different], which X had been very patient with him, and we tried to get him to understand the seriousness of the situation, Matthew failed to understand that what he had done was not appropriate and he stood by his comment that it was sincere letter [I didn't say the letter was/wasn't sincere, but it shouldn't have been relevant to the situation.] and argued the fact and still failed to understand why it was a school issue. X told him once you put print anything about a teacher it becomes a school issue, especially as this was supposed to be a sincere apology letter he failed to accept it was a piss take until X said what do you think your dad would think if I gave him this letter and didn’t mention you had anything to do with it, he sat for about 2min in silence and then said I guess he would think it was a joke, X then said you have just admitted that it was not sincere, it went on for about 10 min before X said look if your not going to take this seriously I will take it to X [the principal, they said I would be suspended] it was only then he said he would take it off his face book page if X asked politely [see above].

Matthew was quite rude and snappy and had little respect towards us and for the matter.

The SIS and police confiscated digital devices belonging to Former Fijian cabinet minister Rajesh Singh last week “in connection with an alleged plot to assassinate Fiji’s leader Voreqe Bainimarama”.

A woman from the SIS turned up with three plain clothed police officers and said she had a search warrant. But she couldn’t show Rajesh it or give him a copy because it was classified. Because you know, wanting to know why people are raiding your house is a completely unreasonable request.

Idiot/Savant asks why, if the alleged plot was actually reasonable, was Rajesh or someone else not arrested. @civillibertynz points out that this secret warrant wouldn’t even need to be presented in court later on.

The laptop and phone were returned later in the day, assumedly after being copied. I wonder if the SIS are allowed to install spyware?

Data retention by NZ telecom providers

I also wonder whether they needed physical access to the phone for what they were looking for. Telecom companies here are very vague about how long they keep user data for. It doesn’t seem like customer facing staff (and thus customers) are generally privy to the period of time information is actually kept.

Telecom says text message content is stored for two to three months. Vodafone says up to six months. 2degrees said six months, but that the technical team could access archives further back than that (a detail I wonder if others didn’t mention).

I requested my data from 2Degrees and they sent me every text message I had sent involving 2Degrees (18+ months worth), including nine months of text messages I had sent to 2degrees customers when I was on another network.

I wonder whether in practice this Telecommunications Information Privacy Code rule is being followed:

“A telecommunications agency that holds telecommunications information must not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the  information may lawfully be used.”

I understand that there’s no legal requirement for telcos to keep a hold of this data at all (section 40).

Whose interests are being served by keeping information for such an unnecessary amount of time, especially when customers have no idea it’s happening?

And whose interests are being served when a secret search warrant is served on an ex-foreign cabinet minister in relation to a dubious overseas assassination plot?

^{Image credit: tenaciousme}

Ars Technica sez:

“Since January, the Dotcom legal team has asked for the footage, but police refused, until finally the agency agreed that an IT expert for DotCom could come and collect a copy of the footage. When the IT expert arrived at the police station, he found the server completely disassembled, and authorities said they could not reassemble it or give him any footage. Now, no one outside the police agency is sure the footage still exists.”

Here’s what the Police said to me on 13 February:

“Police do not have any equipment which may hold this security footage. This equipment is held by the Official Assignee on behalf of the Crown, not Police.”

And here’s what the Insolvency & Trustee Service said on 17 February:

“The Official Assignee has no knowledge of any security camera footage.”

So what exactly does this footage show that the police and friends don’t want getting out?

^{Image credit: Charbel Akhras}

Someone has finally released the teapot tapes, the recording of John Key and John Banks talking at a Newmarket café, inadvertently recorded by cameraman Bradley Ambrose. This should have happened before the election.

Stuff are probably referring to the partial phone number John Key gives out when they say the authenticity of the tape is confirmed by information in the tape.

Here’s Steven Price on why it’s okay to link to.

Apparently police want to talk to six people who were in the café during the talk, because, you know, they probably recorded the conversation as well! (Or they can provide better details than the camera footage the police have?)

Mirrors: YouTube, SoundCloud and here.

Highlights:
^{(first four based on XboomcrashbangX’s comment on YouTube)}

2:40 National Party are working with someone they would rather not. They are careful not to mention who.

4:08 A lot of Winston Peters’ constituents/supporters will have died.

6:10 John Key purposely doesn’t text John Banks so that it appears they are not working too closely, so they can say that they haven’t been in contact.

6:52 Don Brash is a strange fellow.

7:22 Is that yours? That’s a recording device!

7:40 What’s that? Someone’s recording device. Let’s take it with us.

10:30 It’s right here and it’s still going. [something about turning it on/off.] Take the batteries out.

^{Image credit: Lee Jordan}

The Ministry of Education has released guidelines regarding schools searching students and confiscating their property. The Education Act doesn’t specifically give schools the power to search and the issue hasn’t come before a New Zealand court before, so the guidelines really are just that. It’s possible though that courts would say that searching is an implied power under the general umbrella of a board having “complete discretion to control the management of the school as it thinks fit.”

On the other hand, it could be argued that as significant privacy issues are involved and that the power of search is not specifically given to schools that such searches are not lawful.

The protection from unreasonable search and seizure comes from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act:

“Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.”

Risk to safety

These three words form the basis of the guidelines. The item being searched for must pose a risk to safety.

“Risk to safety means that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that students or staff are at risk of harm from an item that poses an immediate or direct threat to physical or emotional safety.”

I interpret an item posing an immediate or direct threat as one when the student possessing it has an intention to use it right now. In the examples attached to the guidelines, staff involved consider “whether there is an imminent risk to the physical or emotional safety of students or staff …”

I struggle to think of an example where a dangerous item is all at once: not visible (because if it was visible, no search would need to take place), is about to be used, and where it would be a good idea to start trying to search the student rather than try to deescalate the situation so the item isn’t pulled out.

A common sense approach!

So basically, instead of taking the student away from others and getting the police involved to begin with, school staff should involve themselves with dangerous or illegal items, potentially escalating a volatile situation. And of course, the student that won’t willingly hand over an item they’re suspected to have will obviously be happy to comply with an intrusive and legally questionable search.

Violate rights, tell parents later

“Except in exceptional circumstances you should inform parents or caregivers after a search has been conducted (if you have not already contacted them).”

No. Parents should be contacted first, always.

Diaries, mobile phones, and laptops

The guidelines mention searching correspondence under the definition of a search. They state that this would include “written and electronic material (e.g. in a diary, on a mobile phone or on a laptop).” None are mentioned again in the guidelines, except for a laptop in a weak example (see below).

This gives the impression that a diary, mobile phone or laptop could theoretically be searched in accordance with the “imminent risk of physical or emotional harm” criteria. Cue alarm bells. How that criteria could be construed as applying to electronic devices and diaries potentially containing very private material is beyond me.

Lukewarm examples

There is no strong scenario provided with the guidelines where a search should actually be conducted.

Scenario 1: Pornography on a laptop. Example correctly concludes that a laptop isn’t a threat if it’s not turned on and so shouldn’t be searched.

Scenario 2: Students caught smoking marijuana say they were sold it by another student. No search because police have to be called because of the illegal items potentially involved.

Scenario 3: Students are lighting deodorant on fire. Friends of a student hand over their lighters. Student is suspected to still have a lighter. Example says that there is an imminent risk to the physical or emotional safety of students or staff in this situation because “a student could easily be burnt if the activity continues.” Imminent risk, really?

Concludes that “as the risk is significant it is likely that the search should – if it safe to do so – be conducted.” I say education would be better than a search. There’s nothing stopping the student from bringing another lighter the next day after he’s searched. Searching isn’t going to magically solve the underlying problem.

Scenario 4: Hearsay that a student is going to “get” another student and more hearsay about a “knife.” Student seems upset and angry, doesn’t stop when teacher asks him/her to. Example correctly concludes that searching straight away when a situation isn’t calm isn’t a good idea. Example says if staff conclude there’s an immediate risk to call the police. Tick.

Or if the situation isn’t considered an emergency: the student has calmed down, staff don’t feel threatened, they only think a small pocket knife is involved, staff can “proceed to consider … if a search is appropriate in the circumstances.” Except they can’t have it both ways. If the student is calm and wouldn’t use a knife if he/she had one (no imminent threat) then a search isn’t necessary. If the student would use a knife if he/she had one, then the police should be called.

Unnecessary and a breach of BORA

Vanushi Walters, YouthLaw solicitor speaks the truth. If the situation is serious enough for a search, it’s serious enough for the police.

“Search and seizure powers in schools are unnecessary and a breach of the Bill of Rights Act. She said the most appropriate course of action is for principals and teachers to call the police.”

Let’s make the guidelines law

But wait, there’s more.

“The Ministry was also looking in to possible legislative changes to give schools more support in what was ‘a complex legal area,’ she said.”

Give school staff equivalent or greater powers than the police have so they can search students? Okay!

You want to violate my privacy? You’ll have to put up a fight, I don’t consent to this search.

^{Image credit: Hello Turkey Toe}

A van was crushed by rubble following the February Canterbury earthquake, containing Israeli tourists. One of them, Ofer Benyamin Mizrahi, was killed instantly. Michal Friedman, Liron Sadeh and Guy Yurdan escaped. It’s been revealed that Israeli involvement after the quake has been investigated by the SIS and the police.

Fact checking

What appears to be the original Southland Times article that broke the investigation seems to have been poorly fact checked and shows a lack of editorial oversight. Shemi Tzur, Israeli’s ambassador in the South Pacific is said to have flown from Australia, where he is based, except a quick Google search shows that he is actually based in Wellington.

The same article talks about a piece of suspected Russian malware named “agent.btz” and says that “attempts to remove the malware have so far been unsuccessful”, which gives the impression that the computers of the United States Military are still infected. The next part of the sentence states that “new, more potent variations of agent.btz are still appearing”, so what is probably meant is that attempts to eliminate the malware out of existence have been unsuccessful, which isn’t surprising considering the nature of malware and software in general.

Red flags

9000 passports!

The Southland Times article says that Ofer Mizrahi “was reportedly found to be carrying at least five passports.” John Key said “according to his information, Mizrahi was found with only one passport”, of European origin.

The group of three that left Christchurch gave Israeli representatives his Israeli passport. So that makes at least two passports.

Shemi Tzur says that he was handed Ofer’s effects and they contained “more than one passport.” Does that makes at least three passports or does this include the Israeli passport handed off at the airport?

He says it’s common for Israelis to have dual citizenship because Israeli passports aren’t welcome in some countries, which is understandable. However that doesn’t explain why Ofer was traveling with both/multiple passports—I am an expert thanks to watching Border Security on TV and conclude that less eyebrows would be raised at an airport if, when searched, someone wasn’t in the possession of more than one passport.

12 hours

Within 12 hours of the quake the three remaining Israelis had evacuated Christchurch, driven to the airport by Shemi Tzur himself.

This raised eyebrows because they left Ofer behind in the van, but in their defense there was nothing they could have done and it wasn’t like they were leaving someone injured behind. Guy Yurdan, one of the three, said that Ofer was killed instantly.

The advice from many countries to citizens in Christchurch would have been to get out of there as soon as possible. The potential lack of accommodation, food, and water, plus the risk of further aftershocks would have supported their decision to leave as quickly as possible.

A mysterious seventh Israeli

Concerns were raised about a “mysterious seventh Israeli” who was in New Zealand illegally and was reported missing after the earthquake, but weeks later was reported to have left the country. Not sure whether there was anything suspicious about the person apart from their visa situation.

Five Facebook likes

A Facebook tribute page for Ofer came to the attention of investigators because it only had five likes over four months (now 32). Apparently many Israelis don’t have social network accounts. Perhaps those on Facebook who knew Ofer didn’t know of the page? It seems a stretch to say that this is suspicious.

Four phone calls

It’s been reported that Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu phoned John Key four times on the day of the earthquake. John Key says that they only actually spoke once in “those first days.” It seems reasonable that a Prime Minister is hard to get hold of, especially during a state of emergency. I’m not sure what the significance of prime ministers calling each other is, I assume representatives from many countries spoke to John Key as a result of the earthquake.

Two search and rescue teams

There was reportedly one Israeli search and rescue team but then there were two? Either way it seems at least one either wasn’t allowed access to the red zone or was removed from the red zone by armed personnel. According to Shemi Tzur, a team was sent by the parents of Ofer Levy (other Ofer?) and Gabi Ingel, two Israelis who died in the earthquake.

The article says “Israeli families reacted that way when their children needed help anywhere in the world, often because it was demanded by insurance companies.” Insurance companies often demand that families hire and fly to a foreign country private search and rescue teams when search and rescue is already underway by the country?

Strange.

Perhaps stranger is Hilik Magnus, who runs the search and rescue company in question, Magnus International Search & Rescue:

“He served in the Israel Defence Forces in an elite paratrooper battalion specializing in special operations. He fought in the Attrition War, first lebanon war and the Yom Kippur War, remained a reserve officer for twenty years and served also in the intelligence community.”

Stranger?

Their team entered the red zone “accompanied by police, only to retrieve the personal effects of two people who died.” “There was only one rescue team and it was allowed inside the red zone to accompany police to retrieve backpacks belonging to Mr Levy and Mr Ingel.”

One Israel Civil Defense Chief

The Southland Times article says “In the hours after the 6.3 quake struck: Israel’s civil defence chief left Israel for Christchurch.” The New Zealand Herald reports that Matan Vilnai did visit Christchurch, but nine days later. And not from Israel, but from Australia where he was for a visit.

This doesn’t seem suspicious.

A groups of forensic analysts

An Israeli forensic analysis team sent by the Israeli government worked on victim identification in the morgue. A security audit of the national police computer database was ordered after someone connected that the analysts could have accessed it. The police say that their system is secure. Someone from the SIS says that it could be compromised with a USB drive:

“An SIS officer said it would take only moments for a USB drive to be inserted in a police computer terminal and for a program allowing remote backdoor access to be loaded.”—Stuff

It’s questionable why USB access would even be enabled on computers that have access to such confidential material.

Why New Zealand?

Intelligence

Gordon Thomas, who has written about Mossad says that Mossad trainees, possibly picked during compulsory military service, were usually planted overseas in groups of four. He says that the CIA and MI6 have offices in Auckland and have “held high-level meetings with New Zealand spy bosses”. They want to know what sparked the SIS investigation, what investigations were carried out and what passports the group possessed. He thinks New Zealand is a credible Mossad target because al Qaeda cells could expand into the Pacific Rim. Israel would want to know what our intelligence agencies know, what they are sharing and how good they are at getting information.

He says that Mossad has a reputation for using students as agents and that using two couples is “standard Mossad operation style. The reason they have a man and a woman … it’s easy to pass unnoticed, unchallenged, and the woman acts as back-up.”

Passports

New Zealand passports are readily accepted around the world. Anyone gaining one who had nefarious purposes would likely face no contest at a border. Paul Buchanan, who has worked at the Pentagon says that it’s unlikely the four were Mossad agents because of their age and the apparent low-level task of passport fraud they were undertaking, but they might have been recruits operating as sayanins, the Hebrew word for helper. He says that after the September earthquake, Christchurch may have been seen as a good target to get names of New Zealanders to use for false passports.

The three survivors from the van gave an interview to Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, days after the earthquake. It would seem unlike spies to put themselves out in the public eye like that, but maybe that’s reverse psychology. Who knows.

^{Image credits: Ian Rutherford, Ludovic Bertron, J Aaron Farr, Tom Raftery}

Arie Smith-Voorkamp was the face of Christchurch earthquake looting because of the media attention he received. He made it onto at least one of the <insert bad thing here> the looters!12@@#%^## Facebook groups. Shame on the looters! There is no excuse. Who are they to pick on the poor people of Christchurch?

The loot

The story gets interesting when you find out what he is alleged to have stolen. Two light bulbs from an untenanted and vacant building. Police describe the nature of the offending as serious and say that there is a strong public interest in the case. Arie was in jail for 11 days.

Asperger’s

Arie has Asperger’s syndrome which fuels his obsession for all things electrical, including old light fittings. “Sometimes I get that excited about it sometimes I can’t sleep.” He had walked past the building many times, and became fixated on a switch in the shop. Once inside he found that the switch was too modern, but found two light bulbs that he thought he could clean up and display in his house. He says he was not thinking about theft, or the danger he was placing himself in.

Sunday programme

The Sunday programme ran a story about Arie last week, which seemed to excite the Police. Canterbury Central Police Area Commander Inspector Derek Erasmus suggested to the building owners they call TVNZ to try to stop the story going to air.

“On Friday the Sunday programme received an email from Inspector Erasmus advising us that we were under criminal investigation in relation to our story. So we’ll keep you updated on that.”

The victims

Building owners Andrew and Irene Matsis didn’t even know about the “theft” until Sunday contacted them for the story. This seems to contradict the Police calling the offending serious. Surely in serious offending the victims would actually be notified.

“Well since Sunday interviewed the Matsis’ a fortnight ago, senior Police have visited the couple twice. The first time Thursday and again Friday. On Thursday in a press release Inspector Derek Erasmus, said the Matsis’ were now happy for the case to proceed to court, where the matter should be resolved. Sunday spoke to Andrew Matsis just hours ago, he’s happy for the case to go to court but hopes Arie’s name will be cleared.”

On the programme, Andrew says if he knew about the alleged looting he would’ve been angry at Arie for putting himself in danger, not for pinching anything.

Andrew and Irene say they would not have pressed charges if they were contacted by the Police. The interview resulted in the hilarious question: “So… how do you feel about your lightbulbs being stolen?” to which Irene replied: “We do not care about our lightbulbs, he’s welcome to them. And you can tell the Police, I mean we have more important things [to deal with, our] house is falling down and we’re going to worry about light bulbs? No.”

I know stealing is stealing (though is it in this case if the building owners say he is welcome to the light bulbs, abeit after the fact?), but common sense dictates there is a better use of court time and money than to make an example out of someone who offended as a result of a documented disability, who has an unblemished criminal record, and who has already served jail time just because he took a couple of lighting fixtures.

Andrew Matsis: You said you never had any other history of doing anything like that before?
Arie Smith-Voorkamp: No.
AM: First time with the Police?
ASV: Yes.
AM: And they make a court case. What a waste of money.

What do you think? Is there no excuse for looting, no matter the situation?

^{Image credit: Me}

Fuck tha police
Comin straight from the underground
Young nigga got it bad cuz I’m brown

Singer Tiki Taane was arrested earlier this month after singing lyrics from the rap group N.W.A after the police entered a venue he was performing at. The police left and apparently there was no intention to arrest him on return, but he “refused to co-operate” and “he was completely out of control”. The promoter and the DJ were also arrested, I’m not sure what for, however they seem to have been released without charge. Taane was charged with disorderly behavior likely to cause violence.

Association president Greg O’Connor’s account on Close Up was muddled but I think his point was that Taane wasn’t arrested because of the lyrics, rather for his behavior after police returned an hour later to talk to him. Taane says that the officer may have thought that he was being uncooperative and giving a fake name (his birthname—Nathan Glen Taane Tinorau) and a vague address (“At the moment I live in Papamoa and I live in Woodhill and I’m staying at a hotel”). I think what O’Connor is saying contradicts Taane’s lawyer reportedly saying that “he would enter a not guilty plea to the charge tomorrow on the basis his client was not acting in a disorderly way and was excercising [sic] freedom of speech”.

Unless there’s something that O’Connor and Taane are both holding back (which O’Connor says is the case: “…he said that “any right-thinking New Zealander will understand and will be fully supportive of police actions” when the facts emerge”) it doesn’t seem like singing those lyrics were a legitimate reason for arrest—and O’Connor says that wasn’t the reason. But I’m also unsure how allegedly being uncooperative about personal details was inciting violence.

O’Connor talks about an incident occurring at the bar, but between patrons, not involving the police.

It seems to me that the charge, the promoter and DJ being arrested too and the defence Taane’s lawyer is taking about all point to Taane being arrested because of the N.W.A lyrics. Fuck Tha Police is a song protesting against police racism towards black youth and just because it has inflammatory lyrics doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be protected as free speech.

Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. – Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions

^{Image credit: Nick CP}