The New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald

Police Porn

One must consider work place computers much the same as the walls of the lunch-room. Yes, it is possible to cut out pictures of Brad Pitt or Naomi Watts and reveal one's dark youthful secret crushes to the world, but one only has to turn 24 to realise it may not advance your cause in the world of the workplace. In a similar way, hijacking the work owned resource (known as "bandwidth") for one's own neferious purposes may seem like a blokish tradition and such theft harmless, but it is incriminating in that it is theft.

3000 police staff were caught with pornographic images. Images that were produced to elicit a "private" reaction, perhaps a physical response such as sexual arousal or even laughter, both arguably "unacceptable in the workplace".

That smoking is "unacceptable in the workplace" bears certain fruit when examined for human rights logic. I have a right to live and you do not have the right to poison me finally won out over the right to destroy ones own heath, that had been finally lost.

That any fool can obtain the most bizzare or obscene material and that some of it may be illegal is a failure of border control/customs (for example, China tries to ban any such internet access), and, until it causes someone to express themselves in harmful manner to another, the police probably have not wanted to know. Now the extremely socially reactive will have good reason to believe that the police can be cured of a reluctance to act in cases such as rape of a sex worker. Such reluctance is assertable because computer forensics turns up porn on the police computer system. That it is made public and by lowering the bar to punish a more managable number of officers and let the rest be warned by their own sense of guilt is an interesting attempt to silence critics. The police in NZ seem subject to extreme policitical scrutiny as the opposition attacks the police minister, Hon George Hawkins, he may be the only real chink in Helen Clark's armour.

Content Skipping and Copyright Law

Content Skipping and Copyright

Internet News

Poor laws require more enforcement than well thought out laws. A new law in the US allows for content-skipping technology to be employed in DVD players so that parents can auto-pilot their children past dubious content in DVDs or other media. Home censorship in the hands of parents sounds excellent in theory. After all in our modern world, we view parents as liable for the actions of their children, so it stands to reason that parents should be the final arbiter of whether a child sees something dreadful or damaging.

In theory. In reality it is a violation of free speech. It is the author's right to be recognised for their own work, and if that work is changed or edited by a machine, then it is no longer a faithful representation of the author's work. Copyright law exists to protect the right of the author to make duplicates of movies, texts or music. Originators should be able to preserve the integrity and meaning of their communications alongside duplication control. Otherwise it is not free speech but encumbered speech.

A film maker or writer carefully structures a story so it works. When parts of it are missing by a mechanical or electronic means, there is nothing the author can do to ensure a faithful reproduction of the work. Most authors would prefer that their work not be distributed in an edited or abridged way.

If you took all the profanity and violence out of Shakespere - what do you have left? Not Shakespere. You have an inferior and less powerful rendition that can not impart the same social meaning as the full product. Inferior representations pollute the integrity of human thought and careful planning. Consumer disappointment is the result. That, and badly educated children who think a Shakespere play is a nice fairy story. Pity them, for when they meet with the real world that contains all its warts, they will have no intellectual resources to deal with it.

It is therefore a very poor law as it destroys the work of creative people and allows robots to rule our thoughts. Not to mention that it defeats free speech, automatically.

Spam

Spam comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes as it evolves to conquer protection against virus infection, trojan horse programmes that lie dormant for some time before being triggered, either by, for example, running a script that runs every end of month. Back ups at that time are essential.

Ferocious spam is also a disservice to those that spam to make money. They employ the same technology as do keystroke relay systems that can silently and efficiently capture every keystroke you type from there on, and then send it encrypted to a storage place. The US Government most likely already records the internet in that very fashion - it is not even a remotely private medium.

The law acts against those that use spam to make money. The law can not keep up with those who use spam to destroy computer data if they are smart enough. The only solution is universal client monitoring. What else is driving the price of raw memory down? Silicon was always going to be a cheap resource, so memory has become less a commodity but almost a consumable product, when old memory becomes slow, it is replaced by another set of initials that can conquer previously impossible speeds. Watch how fast that screen clears! See that curve calculation whizz you by. Watch movies, just like a "real DVD player". Watch anything that's remotely video. Enable the user to infinitely distribute and duplicate works and then reap the legal benefits. The recording industry collects for artists and sues for its own expansion. It has a huge source of readily available data forensics.

It is that field that is of importance. Not only what is left behind, but what transpires. For a change, one is able to make an indelible copy of a news story and record history as it happens. Researching that history is what Google is laying claim to, the searching of the history we weave. Myths can be dispelled, when we can search history.

Spam pervades myths about artificial fortunes that is being offered to you at no cost on the part of some self-acclaimed provender of miracles. For example, supplying you with myths about your computer system security.

Here is the real fact. Nothing on your computer is sacred. Anything is available to the skilled network engineer or systems programmer. Scanning data streams sounds innocuous enough, maybe, but recording every keystroke - that is a real threat. The American Government has spend billions on security and that expresses a need to monitor data streams. The model of a recording device that constantly analyses and decrypts streams of information from a data source is not as unrealistic as it sounds. Of course, the vast majority of data sources (for example the webaddress of a registered media such as a newspaper) can be ignored. But certain patterns of encryption or even delta patterns may reveal the work of terrorists or banks or others.

Of course, it is the trailing of reasons for suspicion that lead the law into places criminals do their deeds, but never before has the historical context so favoured the law. Now that your every thought can be monitored, a police investigation may delve into more than you may think. And fair enough. Personal veracity matters when it comes to money and property otherwise one has to abandon the idea of money and property.

Now that the law has started to act against spammers, and all spammers have left trails that ultimately reveal who they are, the tide of spam is turning into something more threatening. Intimate intelligence and knowledge works both ways.

Spammer sentenced

newsobserver.com | Local & State : First felony conviction and sentencing has now occurred of Jeremy Jaynes who used the internet to peddle pornography and committ fraud.

Will the rest of the spammers suddenly take a pause to hide themselves? The matter will go to appeal, and no wonder, Jaynes was grossing $750,000 per month from his operation. Sending him to jail is a waste of a talented but flawed individual. The question of whether society needs protection from the spammer or if "Free speach" must apply to what is a powerful form of broadcasting are both worthy of discussion.

The law targeting junk email raises constitutional quetions: prison time will be defered until the matter is heard under Appeal.

Cannbis Search Plane Crashed - 2 killed

The New Zealand Herald

Cannabis Search Plane Crashed - 2 killed

A cannabis spotter plane crashed and killed both its occupants. Two more people have died enforcing the prohibition laws. The fact that these laws are flouted by people all over the country is self evident. The fact that more powerful drugs are available over the counter is ignored. The fact that this afternoon, in a public park in central Auckland, thousands convene in a free rock concert. If anyone smokes cannabis there it will be no suprise to anyone but we will probably not see police trying to stop them.

The USA sacrifices lives in risky helicopter mission in a pointless war, and we daily risk hapless contractors' lives in similar helicopter missions seeking to control a cash crop due to the laws they are bound to enforce. Why do they risk their lives? Cannabis does not pose a health risk to users, except that the supply is created by "criminals". In fact the law ensures that a large percentage of the profits from this industry go into "gang" hands.

Cannabis is fairly widely used and criminalisation makes little sense when rather a large proportion of our younger generation are more than likely included.

The most damage is done to the hapless contractors and police trying to control it being grown in the NZ bush.

We may hate speed cameras as a method of enforcement, but at least their use saves lives and risks very little harm to anyone. Removing controls on the speed limit would cause death. But providing a social alternative to alcohol has done good as is evident at dance parties where herbal highs are consumed and sold.

Eradication of vehicle theft

Car Theft more difficult

Measures bring brought into the law to protect owners of vehicles make it far more difficult to steal cars by hotwiring the ignition.

This protects new cars by making it much harder to start a car unless the actual key is used. This will mean that car theft will now have to include key theft. Immobilizers are like locks - they do not make theft impossible but more difficult.

So vehicle theft becomes a more personal crime. Instead of your car being quietly driven away, now your handbag will be stolen first. Is this kind of crime prevention actually therefore helpful? Or does it actually make matters worse by removing the element of balance that the Law (that assumes that people will try and get away with breaking it) invokes?

Measures that make it harder to infringe on the rights of others must be a good thing, but only if they work.

Obtain motor vehicle ownership details - govt.nz - Connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services

Obtain motor vehicle ownership details - govt.nz - Connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services

Who owns that vehicle?

If a vehicle is sold in New Zealand, you can approach the Govenment Vehicle register and ensure it is owned by the seller selling the vehicle. The Government charges for this service.

If you end up buying a vehicle that was stolen during its history, you may end up losing the vehicle. The police should present an online license search where you put in both the persons' name, your own name and drivers license number, and the licence plate. It can then tell you if it is a valid transaction.

The current setup is rather silly, easily and cheaply remedied. Fixing it would make private sales of vehicles safer.

NZ Police : Services : E-crime Unit

NZ Police : Services : E-crime Unit

E-Crime and the New Zealand Police

The NZ Police are travelling around the internet finding forensic evidence of wrong doing. This raises a question, should evidence that amounts to a set of digital switch states, in themselves, constitute a crime or is "fraud" as we know it a redundant concept in the e-world? The attempt by police to somehow "sanitise" networked computers that carry intelligence, the communications of terrorists, means that arguments for laws to convict merely on the presence of evidence start to be won. This of course leaves open a gaping hole when it comes to the ease with which a person may be framed for a crime.

Police work in this regard is demanding but digitial evidence is indestructable. So keeping it is free. Storing it costs next to nothing. Locking it down with encryption is easy, and makes evidence of it (encrypting the date with the right algorithem can produce evidential artifacts that are impossible to fake). Evidence of where you have been has to become reliable. Credit Cards are a convenient form of accountability.

Police find evidence of and use the internet to investigate a crime to help find perpetrators of harm to others. A liberal policy toward pornography has led to the inevitable trails of greedy child pornographers. Emailing, blogging or just surfing on the internet leaves trails behind, and that does not mean it leaves trails behind only on your computer. People running pornographic based business on the internet are doing so with the blessing and consent of the State, now able to detect line-crossers that perpetuate evil toward other people. For the first time ritual abusers have been exposed. The law is there to protect children. Child abuse and slavery are the result of people who abuse others. Catching them requires reliable mechanisms.

Parole

The newish leader of the National Party recently announced a new Law and Order policy. Don Brash, possibly NZ's next PM is taking populist stands on just about everything, appealing to a narrowing of NZ opinion. The law and order policies are to eliminate Parole for violent offenders and increase jail terms with 2 billion being spent on housing an additional 3000 law breakers. Current prison population is about 6000. The cost to the taxpayer of living in a crime free world is already greater than what is spent on it. Will increasing prison populations have the effect of reducing crime or is that a false assumption?

But the elimination of parole will make matters worse for those caught in the new dragnet, those not guilty of major larceny or violence who will come under the forceful eyes of "top dogs" - unofficial ranks of priosoners usually equating to factors such as severity of crime or connections to organised crime.

With increased exposures to malign influences, reintegration of the mild criminal is made less likely.