The Dim-Post

April 10, 2013

Now you’ll be humming that ‘No one is to blame’ song for the rest of the day

Filed under: intelligence,Politics — danylmc @ 11:06 am

Here’s a really obvious point, but I haven’t see anyone else make it so I’ll just throw it out there: Key’s announcement that he plans to respond to the GCSB’s habit of illegally spying on New Zealanders by making it legal for them to spy on New Zealanders is the same as National’s previous response when the police were caught illegally spying on New Zealanders. No one gets held accountable, and the law is changed to enable the previously illegal activity.

The message to government agencies – that they can break the law and violate people’s rights with impunity because the government will never prosecute them and will rewrite the law to whatever they want if they get caught – doesn’t seem very compatible with National’s nominal values of  freedom, responsibility and limiting the power of the state over individuals.

About these ads

71 Comments »

  1. I don’t have a problem per with the GCSB being involved with spying on NZers, it seems its their tecnology that gets used by the SIS and police.

    We’re being spied on anyway by the SIS and the police, the issue to me is the oversight of that rather than GCSB involvement.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

  2. “doesn’t seem very compatible with National’s nominal values of freedom, responsibility and limiting the power of the state over individuals.”

    thats because the values they claim arent the ‘values’ they seek – its just PR coating

    Comment by framu — April 10, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

  3. I don’t have a problem per with the GCSB being involved with spying on NZers…

    That’s nice. Do you have a problem with say being beaten to death by the Police, so long as the right technology is used and correct procedure is followed?

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

  4. What urgent threat to our security, pray tell, demands such a massive extension of the powers of state surveillance over it’s citizens? Sounds like the nascent police state doesn’t like the law cramping it’s style, so at first they ignore then when found out, change it.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 10, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

  5. That’s nice. Do you have a problem with say being beaten to death by the Police, so long as the right technology is used and correct procedure is followed?

    Well of couse I would,

    But i wouldn’t have a problem with GCSB being involved with any surveillance that brought the perpetrators to justice.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

  6. This is the blog equivalent of Danyl standing next to a kid whos feuding with another kid whispering slyly “are ya gunna take that from that punk, are ya huh huh?!”

    In this case one kid is Mr Media knucklehead and the other is Key.

    Comment by TransportationDevice A7-98.1 — April 10, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

  7. Where’s the New Zealand Herald with its ‘DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK’ (Apos for the caps, but you know what I mean) headline when you need it?

    Comment by Christopher T — April 10, 2013 @ 1:31 pm

  8. What urgent threat to our security, pray tell, demands such a massive extension of the powers of state surveillance over it’s citizens?

    Copyright infringement. Dangerous INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!

    Comment by MikeM — April 10, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

  9. I’m not trying to knock the Clark govt here, I’m genuinely curious, but was it an intended purpose of their 2003 legislation to make illegal the sort of actions that have been found to be illegal. Or was this an unintended consequence?

    If it was an intended consequence then wouldn’t they have monitored the GCSB to see if it was having the intended effect?

    From skimming through the report I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that prior to 2003 it was normal practice for the agencies to co-operate to a degree and that the 2003 legislation was meant to clarify the status quo.

    The spooks carried on as the had done believing that nothing much had changed since no one told them things had changed.

    Along comes Dotcom and some very skilled and motivated lawyers who spot the the hole in the law.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 1:37 pm

  10. NeilM, fortunately NoRightTurn has gone back and read the relevant debates for you. It seems pretty clear what Parliament’s intent was.
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/no-excuse-for-gcsb-spying.html

    Comment by RJL — April 10, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

  11. That doesn’t show it was the intent the to deal with the specigic type of cooperation – lending technical support – that is now at issue.

    If it was, why did they not make sure it didn’t happen?

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

  12. You are truly ridiculous, NeilM.

    Comment by RJL — April 10, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

  13. I thought it was an interesting question.

    The Kitteridge states the type of cooperation the GCSB to the domestic intelligence and police was long standing.

    If it was the purpose of the 2003 legislation to put an end to it then why did those who wrote the legislation never check they had achieved what they set out to achieve?

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

  14. “…That doesn’t show it was the intent the to deal with the specigic type of cooperation – lending technical support – that is now at issue.

    If it was, why did they not make sure it didn’t happen..?”

    This comment is sailing dangerously close to the Pete George reef.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 10, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

  15. Perhaps Labour really did intend to make illegal these particular actions but just overlooked checking to see if the GCSB were complying.

    That being the case one would expect Labour to come our strongly opposing Key’s planed changes.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

  16. But i wouldn’t have a problem with GCSB being involved with any surveillance that brought the perpetrators to justice.

    Sure. But you’re not defending the application of justice.

    You’re defending the right of the State to perpetrate violence against the citizenry on the basis that even though the conduct is illegal (a) it happens today and (b) that it’s OK with appropriate “oversight”.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

  17. @NeilM,

    You appear to be expanding your previously expressed “it’s all a matter of legal opinion and who can say what the rules are anyway?” approach to include “it isn’t really important what the law said, it’s whether I’d be happy with the law saying what has been done”. Which I’ll simply note isn’t really a good recipe for government under law.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — April 10, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

  18. I expressed my personal opinion that I had no objection to the GCSB giving the sort of assistance they have to the SIS and police and that for me, again a personal opinion, the issue was one if oversight.

    No where did i say anything like would you allege.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 4:21 pm

  19. That should be

    “I expressed my personal opinion that I have no objection…”

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

  20. A friend of mine was relating a tale of a first year student who loftily informed her that “…since it was a matter of his opinion, facts did not enter into the debate”.

    I beleve that student must have been NeilM

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 10, 2013 @ 4:29 pm

  21. If I express an opinion it’s an opinion, I’m not claiming anything else. That’s why I make sure that when I do I use qualifiers such as “the issue to me”.

    It’s a discussion isn’t it?

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

  22. You know what the GCSB is supposed to be doing instead of spying on us? From their website (an interview on Nat Rad this morning reminded me of this)
    “ensuring the integrity, availability and confidentiality of official information through information assurance (IA) services to Government; and
    contributing to the protection of Critical National Infrastructure from cyber threats.” They go on to define IA as
    “the formulation of communications and security policy;
    “the promulgation of standards;
    “the provision of material, advice and assistance; and
    “IA assessment and inspection services for government departments and authorities.”
    Does anyone else see this as covering the now too many to count security screw ups in government agencies over the last few months?
    There was another one this morning relating to the NovaPay system, fortunately an easily managed one.
    So maybe less spying and more security assurance would be in order.
    I am sure everything listed above is totally legal too.

    Comment by Roger Parkinson (@RogerParkinson) — April 10, 2013 @ 4:52 pm

  23. I think Kitteridge found that the GCSB and the legislation governing if hadn’t kept up with chsnging technology.

    Out of interest, I’m currently working one health sector in NSW and getting info about other people via email is quite common. Today I got sent someone else’s pay slip.

    And check out what happened to the health pay service in Queensland, complete disaster costing millions and jobs.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

  24. @NeilM,

    Well, let’s make it simple, then. Do you have a problem with GCSB acting in breach of the statute governing its actions?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — April 10, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

  25. @Andrew, they should act within the law definitely

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 5:37 pm

  26. Well thank fuck you two have agreed on something

    Comment by Tim — April 10, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

  27. Obligatory youtube link: http://youtu.be/4Fiba80YVyM

    Comment by ropata — April 10, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

  28. I think Kitteridge found that the GCSB and the legislation governing if hadn’t kept up with changing technology

    This is bullshit self justifying logic.

    The GCSB gets subsidised NSA tech to eavesdrop because of their legally defined mandate ‘5 eyes’ relationship. This is entirely appropriate in their role as an externally focused agency.

    The SIS being a domestic spy agency, does not have this access. They want the gear but do not have the mandate or money to get it. Millions of dollars for domestic counterinsurgency technology is not a good business case, even though they tried hard with the Uruwera case.

    Rather than setting up the SIS appropriately to do their job, successive governments have cheaped out, causing a legislative issue.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 6:38 pm

  29. What are you frothing about Gregor? There is a vast difference between getting NSA subsidised spytech vs having the internal structures and legislative governance to use it appropriately. And why can’t the GCSB be legislatively mandated to act as a service agency for the SIIS, see second sentence. Seems most are getting rabid about the politics rather than considering the fault to be with successive GCSB executives (and Governments) to push for needed change.

    Comment by Tim — April 10, 2013 @ 7:02 pm

  30. Tim – Simply, stating that legislation governing the GCSB has not kept pace with the technology is spurious. The SIS has fixed and radio interception capability today. It’s just not in the same league as the GCSB’s (i.e. it is unlikely to be able to intercept international traffic) and is subject to tighter controls and oversight.

    The legislation is just fine. People have been caught out taking shortcuts for the sake of expediency. That is neither a technology or legislative issue.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 7:28 pm

  31. The legislation is just fine. People have been caught out taking shortcuts for the sake of expediency. That is neither a technology or legislative issue.

    I didn’t mean to conflat those two issues. I meant the report suggets that irrespective of the illegal activities, the GCSB is a bit behind the times. Quite a lot has happened with the Internet, for example, since 2003.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

  32. “People have been caught out taking shortcuts for the sake of expediency” in your opinion.

    Comment by Tim — April 10, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

  33. *sigh* Trolls.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 10, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

  34. *sigh* Trolls.

    Give him a break, it’s not like this was uncovered while it was happening under Helen Clark or something.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — April 10, 2013 @ 8:26 pm

  35. True, NeilM. But not a huge amount has changed with the actual physics of signal interruption or emanation detection.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

  36. Well there’s a lot more electrons trapped in server farms.

    I’m worried that so many will get caught representing data there won’t be any left over to be what’s being represented.

    Comment by NeilM — April 10, 2013 @ 9:15 pm

  37. No Tim, not in my opinion. In law.
    In my opinion, you’re a fucking idiot.

    Note the difference between the two terms.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 10, 2013 @ 9:39 pm

  38. a postmodern dilemma

    Comment by Sacha — April 10, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

  39. (the representational electrons, that is)

    Comment by Sacha — April 10, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

  40. Key’s announcement that he plans to respond to the GCSB’s habit of illegally spying on New Zealanders by making it legal for them to spy on New Zealanders

    So (a) the GCSB are at fault by breaking the law and need to be swept clean by a fresh broom who is coincidentally a mate; and (b) the law was at fault so the GCSB have done nothing wrong by breaking it.
    Seems to me that you can have one or the other but not both.

    I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that prior to 2003 it was normal practice for the agencies to co-operate to a degree.
    You are wrong.

    Comment by herr doktor bimler — April 10, 2013 @ 11:38 pm

  41. In any case, some people in high places need reminding that 1984 is a cautionary tale, NOT a training manual.

    Comment by deepred — April 11, 2013 @ 12:06 am

  42. Wait, this is about the GCSB? I thought it was about the Pike River report.

    Comment by Jimmy — April 11, 2013 @ 8:55 am

  43. It really, really bothers me that the prime minister is proposing a vast expansion of the powers of surveillance of the state over it’s citizens not for any reason of a great and imminent threat to our security, but merely because it suits bureaucratic convenience to do so.

    And even more outrageous is the way the media and political establishment has also meekly and unquestioningly adopted the same line. Truly, a free society and democracy will end not with a bang, but a legislative whimper approved as common sense streamlining by the Herald’s editorial writers, just before they turn out the lights.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2013 @ 9:04 am

  44. It would be interesting to know if the rate of domestic spying was constant. It would be very interesting if the rate sped up over the last 4 years. Is it known?

    Comment by xianmac — April 11, 2013 @ 11:02 am

  45. “…It would be very interesting if the rate sped up over the last 4 years…”

    The Greens do have more MPs now, so probably it has sped up.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2013 @ 11:17 am

  46. Wasn’t the 2003 act partly a somewhat rushed required response to new post 9/11 international security obligations?

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 11:40 am

  47. NeilM, that is nonsense. Rather than vacantly speculating perhaps you could actually read the hansard of the 2003 debates. Which are here: http://www.vdig.net/hansard/archive.jsp?y=2001&m=05&d=08&o=39&p=46

    The primary issue was to give a legilsative framework and clarifications to the role of the GCSB, in particular and precisely around the very issue of whether or not the GCSB could spy domestically. In the words of Cullen:

    “…I reiterate today that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not set out to intercept the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. Furthermore, the reports of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security have made it clear that any allegations to the contrary are without foundation. The inspector-general has reported his judgment that the operations of the bureau have no adverse or improper impact on the privacy or personal security of New Zealanders.

    Notwithstanding such assurances, the perception has remained in some quarters that the bureau has been insufficiently accountable, and that its operational scope has been inadequately defined. This bill puts the position of the bureau beyond doubt as a legitimate agency of Government.

    I turn to the key elements of the bill. Part 1 contains preliminary provisions concerning the purpose of the bill and relevant definitions. It makes it clear that the function of the Government Communications Security Bureau is to collect foreign, not domestic, intelligence…”

    Comment by RJL — April 11, 2013 @ 11:55 am

  48. “…I reiterate today that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not set out to intercept the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents…”

    Well, the SIS and Police are entitled to spy on NZers, so I guess Michael Cullen was simply stating that GCSB didn’t need to do so.

    Comment by Ross — April 11, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

  49. There was nothing in Hansard that indicates this wasn’t part of the post 9/11 security changes.

    I’m mean, there were actual new obligations following on from 9/11 and i was just wondering if this was part of that.

    I’m still a little perplexed though about why Labour never bothered to check if the GCSB had stopped doing what the act was supposed to stop them doing.

    Wouldn’t that have been the sensible thing to do?

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

  50. OK I am calling out NeilM as Pete George. The contextual use of the word “sensible” is a clear give away.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  51. I find what Cullen had to say makes things less clear:

    I reiterate today that the Government Communications Security Bureau does not set out to intercept the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. Furthermore, the reports of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security have made it clear that any allegations to the contrary are without foundation.

    But we knew that the activities of the GCSB that have been found illegal were in fact taking place prior to 2003.

    But Cullen denies this.

    It’s odd. I don’t for moment think Cullen is being duplicitous.

    But either he’s not telling the truth or he dis not consider what the GCSB had been doing as amounting to spying on NZers (which seemed to be a common assumption).

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

  52. That should be

    “But we now know that the activities…”

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 12:32 pm

  53. NeilM, no-one in the debate, at first reading, mentions 9/11. This is presumably because, although the bill was given assent in 2003, the actual debate and the first reading occured on May 8, 2001.

    Thus, it seems desparately unlikely that the bill had anything to do with 9/11/2001.

    Comment by RJL — April 11, 2013 @ 1:26 pm

  54. I’m still a little perplexed though about why Labour never bothered to check if the GCSB had stopped doing what the act was supposed to stop them doing.

    NeilM – I suspect the rationale was JDYFJ, inasmuch as;
    (a) the IG could and would do their job to maintain oversight, and
    (b) the agency could and would do their job, taking the into account the only piece of legislation that directs their activities and follow it to the letter rather than operating on an assumptions based mandate.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 11, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

  55. You’re right it can’t have been in relation to 9/11. I just thought it might have explained why the bill is a bit odd.

    What do you make of Cullen’s comment?

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

  56. Gregor W, Cullen justified the bill thus:

    It is important to the Government that the security and intelligence agencies operate within a clear legislative framework that prescribes their powers and their accountabilities. With the bill’s introduction last Tuesday and the first reading today, New Zealand is taking another important step towards greater transparency in the work of the security and intelligence agencies.

    But then the govt goes on to dslpay an apparent lack of oversight and transparency.

    (I’m angling for a different explanation than incompetence or mendacity as I don’t think the Clark govt was like that)

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

  57. I just thought it might have explained why the bill is a bit odd.

    There is nothing odd about the bill. It is perfectly clear.

    What do you make of Cullen’s comment?

    If any of Cullen’s comments about the GCSB in 2001 were factually incorrect, then it would most likely be because his reports/briefings on the GCSB were factually incorrect. The most likely reason for his briefings to be factually incorrect is that the GCSB had lied when either preparing or contributing to those reports/briefings.

    Comment by RJL — April 11, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

  58. NeilM – Cullen’s comments aren’t odd.

    He uses the words “does not set out to”. He qualifies his statement cited a report from the IG.
    We know now that either the IG wasn’t doing his job very well or was lied to, either by commission or omission.

    There’s no logical flaw here – Cullen (presumably) presented information in good faith that was generated by the IG (presumably) in good faith.

    To think otherwise draws a complicated and pervasive conspiracy between the GCSB the IG and the PM/DPM; all to what end given that there is another agency who is already legally authorised to perform this activity for the State?

    Comment by Gregor W — April 11, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

  59. But then the govt goes on to dslpay an apparent lack of oversight and transparency.

    FFS NeilM, it’s not that hard.

    Parliament changes the law in 2003 to close loopholes in the Act that might be exploited. The IGs role is to perform governance upon the agency that the legislation is pertinent to. How much more transparency and oversight should be required?

    There is no other explanation other than incompetence and or mendacity. It’s just that these characteristics are not coming from where you’re leveling your accusation (in this instance). Occams Razor – look no further than the GCSB for an explanation. Fletcher has even admitted it for Christ’s sake.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 11, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

  60. Ok, the Clark govt introduces a bill the specifically makes illegal certain activities that they claim don’t actually occur. Apparently they take at face value the word of the security service.

    Senior ministers were in the House pouring scorn on Ron Donald’s belief that indeed the agency was acting outside its role and those ministers never ever sort to find our the facts of the matter.

    Then after the legislation is in place the GSCB continues to do what had been explicitly made illegal and the govt continues to accept the word of the intelligence agency that there are not doing these things.

    I find that all very weird.

    Alternatively the act wasn’t intended to make illegal the sort of technical support that was in fact common practice, it got caught and not found out til the Dotcom case.

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

  61. Does anyone else here have any idea what Neil is on about?

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

  62. I’ll make it simply for you Sanc.

    I’m arguing that either the Clark govt were a bunch of incompetence arseholes or they made a mistake with the legislation.

    And I opt for the latter.

    A mistake based on a sort ov institutional blind spot that got carried over from administration to administration.

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

  63. NeilM, Your argument has been comprehensively dismantled in this thread by people using language which cannot be more direct, a development to which the brain one presumes inhabits your skull appears mysteriously impervious. All in all, either you have a Pete George level of savant-like tunnel incomprehension (but I struggle to believe two such creatures could exist in my lifetime) or you are simple engaged in bad faith concerned trolling as a particularly annoying form of diversion from pinning the blame on your pin-up boy hero John Key.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

  64. The legislation explicitly precludes GCSB involvement in domestic affairs.
    The State employs an IG to provide oversight on behalf of the State across the GCSBs activities to ensure said domestic interfernce does not occur.

    If the GCSB fails to inform the IG of their activities accurately how is it either “incompetence” on behalf of the Clark government (or any government for that matter) or a “mistake with the legislation”?

    Counter-factually;
    (i) what legislation do you think might have been put in place that would prevent GCSB executives from misleading the IG?
    (ii) what competence would need to be displayed by the government, over and above specifically employing a governance official to provide oversight?

    I’m honestly baffled by your logic.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 11, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

  65. Yes Gregor we hear you loud and clear but HOW are the SIS and Police supposed to carry out their duties relating to internal suveilance if the GCSB has all the tech goodies and they don’t?

    Comment by Tim — April 11, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

  66. And Sancy, keep your own concern trolling in check eh chap.

    Comment by Tim — April 11, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

  67. HOW are the SIS and Police supposed to carry out their duties relating to internal suveilance if the GCSB has all the tech goodies and they don’t?

    The short answer is “Legally”.

    The slightly longer answer is that if SIS and the police do not have the tools they think they need, they should request for funding to get it and see if other people think they;1) deserve the funding and, 2) have the need.

    What they shouldn’t do is use the gear of an organisation who has the gear on the condition that it isn’t used against NZers.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 11, 2013 @ 6:48 pm

  68. Agreed PB and what if the GCSB ACTUALLY did think they were allowed legally to spy on behalf and HAD tacit approval or indeed actual approval from VARIOUS governments to do so for a decade and possibly more?

    Why is this issue a problem for THIS government to wear?

    Less hysterics and student union bullshitting more assessment of the situation and how to resolve it.

    Comment by Tim — April 11, 2013 @ 6:55 pm

  69. “Agreed PB and what if the GCSB ACTUALLY did think they were allowed legally to spy on behalf and HAD tacit approval or indeed actual approval from VARIOUS governments to do so for a decade and possibly more?”

    That is whats called an inconvenient truth.

    Comment by Grant — April 11, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

  70. WordPress seem to eat a comment so I’ll repost:

    what if the GCSB ACTUALLY did think they were allowed legally to spy on behalf

    Well ignorance is no excuse basically. We trust the intelligence community to do things in secret, If it turns out the have the wrong idea about what they can do, then that’s a problem obviously. But for me at any rate, there should be no difference between them doing bad things out of ignorance or out of malice. There has to be consequences so that in the future they can’t just claim ignorance again.

    and HAD tacit approval or indeed actual approval from VARIOUS governments to do so for a decade and possibly more?

    Well firstly, again, tough. Approval to break the law is no excuse. But in order to find out if there was approval, tacit or otherwise, we need to have an inquiry with a broad mandate from someone independent of the intelligence community. Which is what people are asking for as far as I can tell.

    Why is this issue a problem for THIS government to wear?

    Because they are the government in power. I’m more than happy for the cards to fall where they may.

    Less hysterics and student union bullshitting more assessment of the situation and how to resolve it.

    Well fine. But complaints that it’s unfair on the government that they are being questioned just because they are in power, and have been less than forth coming, and have been pretty bloody slack all around are no better. In fact, that’s what’s driving the ‘hysteria’ you’re complaining about.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 11, 2013 @ 8:04 pm

  71. gcsb can’t be both hiding their illegal spying from pollies and putting the victims faces on presentations for same pollies…unless they are fiendishly clever

    Comment by insider — April 12, 2013 @ 1:34 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: