×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Zealand Spy Agency To Vet Network Builds, Provider Staff

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the criminals-in-uniform dept.

Privacy 92

Bismillah (993337) writes "The new Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act of 2013 is in effect in New Zealand and brings in several drastic changes for ISPs, telcos and service providers. One of the country's spy agencies, the GCSB, gets to decide on network equipment procurement and design decisions (PDF), plus operators have to register with the police and obtain security clearance for some staff. Somewhat illogically, the NZ government pushed through the law combining mandated communications interception capabilities for law enforcement, with undefined network security requirements as decided by the GCSB. All network operators are subject to the new law, including local providers as well as the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, who have opposed it, saying the new statutes clash with overseas privacy legislation."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not Illogical (3, Interesting)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 7 months ago | (#46986113)

It's not illogical at all. You just mandate that all traffic goes through a room controlled by the government for "Lawful Intercept." That way you can say that it's done for law enforcement, but the reality is they're emulating the USA and keeping everything while also MITMing anything they feel like.

Re:Not Illogical (2)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 7 months ago | (#46986187)

NZ is one of the "Five Eyes" in the ECHELON group, also sometimes referred to as AUSCANNZUKUS for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and US. It's likely that they don't just emulate the USA and keep the info, they most likely turn it right over to the NSA and their counterparts in those countries.

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986237)

Of course, they trust their fellow English Speakers.

It's them dirty who can't be trusted.

Re:Not Illogical (3, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 7 months ago | (#46986571)

Americans don't speak English.

Re:Not Illogical (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46987049)

Americans don't speak English.

Nor do Australians or most British. At least, both would be inscrutable to someone trying to sound like the queen of yesteryear, if you add in colloquialisms.

Re:Not Illogical (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 7 months ago | (#46993659)

At least everyone else spells English words correctly.

Re:Not Illogical (3, Insightful)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 7 months ago | (#46986609)

Oz Can Suck Us is what I read every time.

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46988013)

yes in effect the gestapo now runs their internet

Re:Not Illogical (3, Insightful)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 7 months ago | (#46986369)

Facebook, Google and Microsoft have opposed it because it the GCSB is getting in on their game. I used to live in NZ. Despite the Kim Dotcom saga, the govt there is still to be less feared than the American Big Data industry. If you ever get the chance to see the locally produced Cops show 'Motorway Patrol', you will see the usual fears of govt and law enforcement don't apply in this place. I believe NZ is currently rated the least corrupt country on Earth.

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986617)

Yeah well, when's the last time you lived here?

To misquote Roger Rabbit, "there's simply no justice in Aotearoa anymore."

Is has been and is being systematically dismantled. And is heartbreaking to watch. :-(

What happened to the Canterbury Regional Council's elected members (replaced with centrally appointed stooges, PRE earthquake, "because dairy industry") is right out of Putin's Russia. It's disgusting.

The country has no longer any protection when a nasty player like Muldoon gets back into power. And they will get back into power at some point, because those sorts of people love power.

Re:Not Illogical (1)

baker_tony (621742) | about 7 months ago | (#46986707)

Still, we're one of the least corrupt countries in the world!

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987351)

Wasn't that based entirely on the perception of corruption, rather than measurable corruption? Right now, we're looking a lot worse than we used to, what with Collins' ongoing pre-planned off-the-cuff governmental "private" dinner bullshitting.

Re:Not Illogical (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 7 months ago | (#46987979)

Not if you're even considering this legislation, you're not. Your state may not be corrupted by the commercial sector, but it is surely corrupted by the security sector. Not all corruption is financial.

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986643)

If you ever get the chance to see the locally produced Cops show 'Motorway Patrol', you will see the usual fears of govt and law enforcement don't apply in this place.

then they simply don't need any of these domestic spy laws in the first place and they should be repealed.

oblig. "you must blow on the pie"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Not Illogical (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46986839)

It is not possible to have government without corruption. You must accept one to have the other and vice versa.

Re:Not Illogical (1)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 7 months ago | (#46994813)

The isn't black and white, and there'll always be someone trying to rort the system for personal gain. But I much prefer an NZ govt level of corruption than a US one...

Re:Not Illogical (1, Insightful)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 7 months ago | (#46987215)

I believe NZ is currently rated the least corrupt country on Earth.

Don't believe it... just understand that in NZ, the authorities are much better at hiding it.

Corruption, hypocrisy and graft remains rife in this country it's just that we're a nation of 4.4 million sheeple who really don't give a damn.

The great Kiwi saying "she'll be right" is killing this nation because nobody is prepared to stand up and speak out when they see people in power doing bad things and abusing that power.

Re:Not Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987537)

As an ex-Kiwi, I thought the problem was that most NZer had left, only a residue remain ;-)

Re:Not Illogical (1)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 7 months ago | (#46994857)

I can only assume you don't travel much. I lived there for 15 years and I travel a fair bit. I can assure you based on my experience, whatever little drama you think is important is horse piss compared to the shit that is going on everywhere else. NZ might not be perfect, but it's about as fair a place as you get in this world.

Re:Not Illogical (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987485)

I think Facebook, Google and Microsoft should do what Obama's dad should have done: Pull out.

Re:Not Illogical (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#46987575)

but the reality is they're emulating the USA and keeping everything while also MITMing anything they feel like.

The lawful intercept for the fibre connections is MITM-proof. Unless they are going to make Chorus spend billions re-doing the network, the "read only" taps will be useless for MITM attacks.

When they routed Kim Dotcom's traffic through the government MITM servers just before the raid (illegally at the time) the hit in performance was enough that it was noticeable and traced.

The government just isn't that smart.

As an immigrant... (5, Funny)

DigMarx (1487459) | about 7 months ago | (#46986129)

I have permanent residency (and thus voting rights), and I think tha**THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND IS DOING THE RIGHT THING**his is a load o**JOHN KEY IS A GREAT MAN**ollocks.

Re: As an immigrant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986147)

This now an election issue
If you dislike govt. Cybercrime vote people in who oppose this bill.
Break the prism.

Re: As an immigrant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987777)

That only works if the majority (or at the very least a large minority) of the voters do the same. Most people don't understand or don't care about these things, or there are other issues they consider more important.

What I can't understand is... (3, Informative)

Kittenman (971447) | about 7 months ago | (#46986183)

... why NZ is seen as a hot bed of terrorism, naughtiness and general mayhem. The lead item on the news last night was a political hopeful having to pay back about $350 after claiming on a flight for a friend. Wow. This isn't a country where much happens.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 7 months ago | (#46986249)

Most likely they are getting strong armed by the USA or the EU.

Re:What I can't understand is... (3, Interesting)

ASDFnz (472824) | about 7 months ago | (#46986327)

Most likely they are getting strong armed by the USA or the EU.

It is the US, ever since 9/11 the US has mandated a pile of legislation changes that their trading partners must make.

With any luck NZ will make the changes and then never enforce them.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 7 months ago | (#46987415)

Whats it going to take to get some politicians elected in a country like New Zealand who will stand up and say NO to the USA (and to the spooks) on issues like warrantless surveillance, spying and all this other crap.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 7 months ago | (#46988175)

They told the US where they could put their nuclear powered and/or armed vessels in 1984 and have stuck to it. That's is NZ's one bout of teenage rebellion. Now they have "grown up."

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 7 months ago | (#46990903)

The kiwis didn't specifically target the US, they went 100% anti-nuclear because of an act by the French government that (other than the fact that it was carried out by the French government) clearly fits the definition of a terrorist act.

Re:What I can't understand is... (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46986739)

The EU is busy with the Ukraine and how to sell Russia as the bad guy, doubt they have their fingers in that, too.

Re:What I can't understand is... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 7 months ago | (#46986681)

This isn't a country where much happens.

Are you kidding? There are orcs everywhere!

Just start referring to the GCSB as the Eye of Sauron and be done with it.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 7 months ago | (#46987937)

... why NZ is seen as a hot bed of terrorism, naughtiness and general mayhem. The lead item on the news last night was a political hopeful having to pay back about $350 after claiming on a flight for a friend. Wow. This isn't a country where much happens.

Because it never was about terrorism. It was about controlling the actions of the population. Staying in power. That, and sucking up to the US, since the US pays countries for access to the data.

Re:What I can't understand is... (3)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 7 months ago | (#46988901)

Why is terrorism seen as such a threat in the US? According to this [nationalgeographic.com] , 2600 americans were injured by air fresheners in 1996. Here's a list of injuries and deaths due to terrorism [johnstonsarchive.net] . If 96 was a good indication, it looks like air fresheners are BY FAR the bigger threat.

Politicians, law enforcement, and media sell fear. That's the real reason why NZ is ramping up anti-terrorism.

I'd really like to see a law requiring citizens to take a low dose of anti-anxiety medication. Everyone over the age of 16. We'd colonize mars by 2030, cure cancer, solve climate change, prevent overpopulation, and end most violent crime if we would just stop wasting so much fucking time, energy, and tax dollars in stupid illogical fear.

And yes, I have seen "Serenity" and I'm willing to risk it.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46991967)

I wonder if part of the post war boom wasn't because the little fears just couldn't compete with the very real fear from combat.

Re:What I can't understand is... (1)

delt0r (999393) | about 7 months ago | (#46998627)

I'd really like to see a law requiring citizens to take a low dose of anti-anxiety medication...We'd colonize mars by 2030, cure cancer, solve.....

Warning label reads: May cause apathy, tiredness and reduced creativity.

Re:What I can't understand is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46990845)

NZ is a nice little testbed for other countries to try this stuff out on, the NZ govt is easily rolled over by big business and the interests of other countries the NZ govt likes to be 'friends' with. NZ is very much a nanny state now, and the govt will use any excuse it can get its hands on to implement new taxes and quietly take away rights of its citizens for their 'own protection'.

Anyone with half a clue leaves.

Re:What I can't understand is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46995419)

You're not wrong.

In 2005, a cat got stuck in a tree. It made national headline news for a week.

I wish I was kidding... [nzherald.co.nz]

Trouble with other countrys' standards (2)

davecb (6526) | about 7 months ago | (#46986345)

If you have to have software that's designed to meet a required lowness of confidentiality, you'll be the only country writing it. You probably won't trust another tin-pot country's software, and will have to keep doing it all yourself.

Vendors want to sell software that meets the highest standards, so they can sell it into lots of countries, not write individual specials for every tin-pot dictator on the planet.

Image how much fun it will be, trying to write your own routers, your own google, your own facebook, etc, etc. All so you can lower the quality.

I imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987139)

I see huge boost to the local economy, when money stays in circulation there instead of going to china in exchange for modern day pearls. I see those lower quality programs and equipment gaining foot hold in other countries as well, because they can be sold for peanuts. They are already written, so all extra income is extra income. This drives more money to local economy. I see people being quite happy with the routers and lower quality software they get. Just look at the USA, they were perfectly happy with their crappy cellphones, internet, cars, and everything when they didn't know other places had better things. They even thought they had the best! It's all about marketing.

Re:I imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987283)

Not to mention, other countries certainly want their own share of "good jobs". They don't want billions of dollars sent to silicon valley.

Re:I imagine (1)

davecb (6526) | about 7 months ago | (#46988293)

Historically, software that can only be sold in one country has suffered badly in the marketplace against software that can be sold everywhere. I first saw that at GEAC, when they were certified in (if memory serves) Germany and started seeing many more sales in countries we'd never heard of before (;-))

Re:Trouble with other countrys' standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987465)

> Vendors want to sell software that meets the highest standards

Yep. That's where those "free trade" deals like TPP [wikipedia.org] and TTIP [wikipedia.org] and their ilk are about to fix. That's why all sorts of vendors are in on the deals while we idiot-consumers aren't supposed to know what's in there.

They'll get the standards "suitably lowered", no worries.

Re:Trouble with other countrys' standards (1)

davecb (6526) | about 7 months ago | (#46988351)

It's a genuine risk if standards get lowered in some areas, as eventually they could "surround" the EU with a desert of lower standards and enable more and more poor products.

It looks like an attempt to protect NZ ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986409)

If you actually read the linked article (yeah - I know this is Slashdot but just this once...) the only effect it will have is to make it so difficult to setup business in NZ.

Can you imagine the delays and effort involved in liasing with Government for such a matter - let alone discusisng your technical network infrastructure, co-ordinating change management, etc.

It would be worth bringing this before the WTO for consideration.

As a father I do understand this... (1, Informative)

seoras (147590) | about 7 months ago | (#46986465)

If I were John Key and I had a daughter in a Paris art school I'd want to keep her tits off the screens of millions of voting Kiwi's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401561/Does-know-shes-Daughter-New-Zealand-Prime-Minister-bizarre-erotic-photoshoot-posing-octopus-Big-Macs.html

Re:As a father I do understand this... (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 7 months ago | (#46986585)

Her tits are covered....

Re:As a father I do understand this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986611)

If I were John Key and I had a daughter in a Paris art school I'd want to keep her tits off the screens of millions of voting Kiwi's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401561/Does-know-shes-Daughter-New-Zealand-Prime-Minister-bizarre-erotic-photoshoot-posing-octopus-Big-Macs.html

Do you really want a man who raised a dirty whore like that running your country?

Re:As a father I do understand this... (1, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46986719)

Why should I care about whether his daughter shows tits, ass or cunt?

He's a crappy head of state, that, and that alone, is the reason why you should not want him to run your country. For all I care he could swing his dick in front of the cam on his state address, if he only did a decent job.

Re:As a father I do understand this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987801)

He's a crappy head of state

No. He is not even a head of state at all. He is the head of government.

Re:As a father I do understand this... (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46989671)

Whatever he is, how is his work in any way influenced by the amount of tittage shown by his daughter?

Re:As a father I do understand this... (0)

baker_tony (621742) | about 7 months ago | (#46986731)

A dirty whore you'd do.

Re:As a father I do understand this... (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 7 months ago | (#46988775)

This is why we get shitty leaders. It shouldn't matter if his daughter is naked in a photoshoot (and I hardly think that qualifies as whoredom, AND who gives a shit). Who cares if Chelsea is pregnant. Who cares where Obama's Uncle lives(or whatever that one was). Who cares if Anthony Weiner's weiner is on the internet. Etc etc etc...

It should matter what their voting record is. It should matter how they'll do the job.

P.S. This strange fascination with sexual "purity" is really annoying and only seems to come out in the dirtiest of folk. Go read The Ethical Slut and stop worrying about it so much.

Just putting the pieces in place... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986491)

...before applying the hammer. As has been repeatedly pointed out, this was done by the Nazis, the Soviets, and plenty of other authoritarian regimes shortly after (or just prior) to their rise to power. Once the ubiquitous surveillance and low security or legal cracking in is place, they can go ahead with the coup since the media has always been complicit and the only hole is the internet. Remember, this isn't in some 3rd-world country, but in nations that have access to the best electronic warfare tech--and jamming the unlicensed bands is incredibly easy.

So what? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 7 months ago | (#46986559)

All network operators are subject to the new law, including local providers as well as the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, who have opposed it, saying the new statutes clash with overseas privacy legislation.

They already famously route everything through the United States and its complete lack of privacy laws anyway. What do they care?

Don't tell me the likes of Facebook, Google and Microsoft are worried about their image as protectors of user privacy...

Re:So what? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46986701)

User privacy? Fuck that, they're afraid of a loss of revenue. Why pay them for it when you can get the info yourself?

Majority Rules (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#46986591)

As with the United States and Australia, the people of New Zealand (and other democracies and democratic republics) elect their government and thus have control over their politics.

One must assume that in all of these places, the majority agree with these policies.

Shocking? To me, but apparently, I'm not in the majority.

Re:Majority Rules (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46986705)

As long as corporations decide who we get to vote for, it doesn't matter who you vote for.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

mynamestolen (2566945) | about 7 months ago | (#46987265)

You are dreaming if you think all these countries are democracies. Without proportional representation you don't deserve to call it democracy. You don't even deserve to call it majoritarianism (which seems to be your bent). In the non-democratic USA, FPP is a disgusting joke. EVEN if there was democracy, you don't put this sort of power into an unaccountable body such as NZ is doing. The cost of liberty is proper analysis of the problem. So back to square one for you.

Re:Majority Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987543)

Without proportional representation

This.

Granted, if we in the US had proportional representation, in equality to that which was laid down by the founding fathers, our Congress would currently be the size of the pre-Empire Republic senate of Star Wars. I quote:

The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand

We should presently have 10,463 (as of roughly 2012) members of the House of Representatives.

This might be a clusterfuck in terms of getting legislation passed, sure, but - we have such a clusterfuck now. And it would certainly aid in bitchslapping lobbyists.

Re:Majority Rules (4, Interesting)

mudshark (19714) | about 7 months ago | (#46987425)

You don't know much about NZ government, then. So much for those assumptions of yours.

The TICS legislation was introduced as an exercise in ass-covering along with another bill which made illegal electronic surveillance performed by the GCSB "lawful" ex post facto. Both bills were overwhelmingly unpopular and submissions from the public and interest groups were practically unanimous against.

Several opinion polls have indicated that the majority of the NZ population disagree (many vehemently) with their government on these laws, and when they passed it was only with a one-vote majority in the Parliament courtesy of an MP who is the sole representative of his minor party (who himself only got into office because of a pre-election backroom deal with the National party). The best part of all this is that this deciding MP was himself under suspicion of leaking internal documents about illegal conduct by the GCSB, and that his email and that of the journalist he was corresponding with were snooped on in the process.

For a tiny little island nation we sure do have more than our fair share of idiot politicians and inept law enforcement. Not to mention a system of government whose relationship with democracy grows more tenuous by the year and which resembles a bunch of nice ideas thrown together without any guarantees, such as an immutable and entrenched Bill of Rights. The GCSB and TICS legislation have done considerable harm to the notion of privacy as a basic human right in this country with dragnet surveillance and full feed-through to the NSA of whatever gets picked up.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 7 months ago | (#46987505)

The problem even in countries like New Zealand is that the only people who are willing to stand up and say NO to this kind of crap are fringe parties with no real chance of getting any political power.

Here in Australia the 2 big parties want to change the voting process to make it even harder for the little guys to get into parliament.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 7 months ago | (#46992999)

The problem even in countries like New Zealand is that the only people who are willing to stand up and say NO to this kind of crap are fringe parties with no real chance of getting any political power.

Here in Australia the 2 big parties want to change the voting process to make it even harder for the little guys to get into parliament.

Thats nothing, in Mongolia they are trying to make it so that if you don't have seats in parliament you can't run in an election!

Re:Majority Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46995477)

Not true. "Fringe parties" in NZ stand an excellent chance [wikipedia.org] of getting political power.

Much good it does us, as you can see.

Re:Majority Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46995791)

Clearly getting a seat in parliament doesn't constitute political power if it can't prevent human rights abuses like the TICSA.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

X.25 (255792) | about 7 months ago | (#46988145)

As with the United States and Australia, the people of New Zealand (and other democracies and democratic republics) elect their government and thus have control over their politics.

One must assume that in all of these places, the majority agree with these policies.

Shocking? To me, but apparently, I'm not in the majority.

It is amazing how often idiots push this same line, without realizing a pretty major and catastrphic flaw.

But carry on, though.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 7 months ago | (#46989367)

With more then 2 parties, it is quite possible in a parliamentary system for a party to form the government with a minority of votes. eg Canada where our current government scored 38% of the vote amongst those who bothered to vote.

Re:Majority Rules (1)

cardpuncher (713057) | about 7 months ago | (#46989999)

You could certainly argue this where the legislation, as in this case, has passed through a legislature.

The way this would play out in the UK (and appears to have happened in the US) is that you get invited to a meeting in a government office and some people whose exact role is not clear will explain how important they feel it is for you to co-operate in the interests of national security. They might hint at the unfortunate consequences of being unco-operative or of letting anyone know that the meeting has taken place. You then leave and do as you're told.

When the government's policies (and, indeed the laws) are secret, you can't blame the voters, because they don't get to find out what the government is actually doing, as opposed to what it says it's doing. There is an elected government and an unelected shadow government - which, by means of a similar process of nods and winks, makes sure that no-one who stands for election is a threat to them.

Government approval of IT worker precedent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986631)

This is setting the precedent for IT workers to need government certification. It's as dangerous to the operators of the internet, as the net non-neutrality is to the routing policies of the internet.

Not compulsary. (2)

BlakJak-ZL1VMF (256320) | about 7 months ago | (#46987621)

There's no obligation for ISP's to have staff go through security clearances - in fact plenty wont pass the requirements (citizenship/residency for >10 years). ISP's can nominate staff to be vetted and those that're vetted, can be given more background as to why some information is being sought or why a particular issue is being flagged.
Important to note that the GCSB focus here is 'national security' and this isn't quite the same as lawful intercept for other purposes.

Security Clearance Requirement Explained (3, Informative)

BlakJak-ZL1VMF (256320) | about 7 months ago | (#46987759)

The guidance document as published at http://ncsc.govt.nz/assets/TICSA/NCSC-Guidance-for-Network-Operators.pdf states:

> To assist the GCSB and network operators to work together on network security risks, network operators
> may nominate a suitable employee (or employees) to apply for a SECRET level GCSB sponsored security
> clearance.
> Network operators may also, upon request, be required to nominate an individual for security clearance
> (section 75).
> Having cleared staff within network operators allows the GCSB to share certain information about network
> security risks that is classified. While these individuals cannot pass classified information to un-cleared
> colleagues, they will be able to give informed guidance on identifying and addressing network security
> risks.
> If a network operator does not have cleared staff, the GCSB will still seek to engage with them, and share
> what information it can about network security risks.

The legislation itself states:

A network operator must, within 10 working days _after being required to do so_ under subsection (2), (3), or (4),—

        (a) nominate a suitable employee to apply for a secret-level government-sponsored security clearance (a clearance); and

        (b) notify the employee of the nomination; and

        (c) give written notice of the name and contact details of that employee to the Registrar.

- so the vetting obligation isn't an obligation until the Network Operator is 'required'. The rationale for putting staff up for vetting seems sound, but as you can see from the last part of the quote from the guidance, they can still work with service providers that don't have cleared staff.

Security Clearance Requirement Explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46994473)

I did some work for government department that required GCSB approval for encryption standards. They wouldn't tell us what standards we could use, only that we would tell them what we proposed and that they would say whether this was ok or not. After we submitted our proposed encryption standard we never got a response from them. The chances of a network operator ever hearing back from the GCSB is slim to none. They're a stupid incompetent department and this is a stupid law.

Re:Security Clearance Requirement Explained (1)

BlakJak-ZL1VMF (256320) | about 7 months ago | (#46995315)

I too have worked directly with them in the past, and they're not anywhere near as bad as you imply. Like any agency they sometimes need prodding, poking or plain old 'escalating', but as most companies have these problems _internally_ i'm not surprised that it happens between government departments, even in NZ.

When Jefferson said... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46986689)

When Jefferson said "Where governments are afraid of the people, there is freedom" he obviously didn't take into account the possibility that governments could preemptively terrorize its people to avoid having to be scared of them.

Re:When Jefferson said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46989321)

Actually, I think that is exactly what he was counterpointing.

Jefferson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46993893)

ya, it's quite clear it's meant as "as opposed to what we just went through for several decades-plus where we feared the state, if we keep the state afraid of us, there will be freedom"

Does this mean... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 7 months ago | (#46986783)

A service provider (also defined in section 3 of the TICSA) is;
a) means any person who, from within or outside New Zealand, provides or makes available in
New Zealand a telecommunications service to an end-user (whether or not as part of a business
undertaking and regardless of the nature of that business undertaking);

Does this mean they can go after TOR and VPN operators wherever they are?

Re: Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987305)

Yup

Re:Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46995667)

That's what the law says, but no. Law is not extra-territorial in nature. At best they could arrest and charge such a TOR or VPN operator if they entered the country.

My country can write whatever dumb-ass laws they want, but that doesn't give them the power or authority to enforce those laws extra-territorially. The only way they could do that is if another country cooperated and extradited someone here to face charges, and that would be an egregious violation of human rights.

It'll probably happen :(.

This is pretty bad news for me, as I am NZ's leading internet traffic engineering expert, and NZ security clearance rules preclude me from gaining security clearance (dual nationality, no degree). I guess I'll be moving to my other homeland (which I've never been to) if I want to have any sort of career at all.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 7 months ago | (#46996035)

This is pretty bad news for me, as I am NZ's leading internet traffic engineering expert, and NZ security clearance rules preclude me from gaining security clearance (dual nationality, no degree).

Wow! That sucks. Any chance of getting "grandfathered" in?

I am seriously considering getting off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46986827)

The internet for good.

wow NZ talks straight (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 7 months ago | (#46987051)

I double checked, the NZ law is actually called the "Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act of 2013". No bullshit Patriot Act doublespeak. Give credit where credit is due.

Re:wow NZ talks straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987583)

Before the Police could just turn up to an ISP (and would) and demand a copy of someones hotmail emails, not having a clue how the internet works. How all warrants have to come from a team that (shock horror) understands how things work. All dark fibres have to be tapped but the teams know how it works, its limits and wont demand that you give them all traffic from your entire ASN. All Police warrants come from this team now, making the network providers job a lot easier

The ACC, Revenue, Ministry of Ag/Hort can still turn up on a ISP door and demand data, WITHOUT a warrant.

Um.. Not exactly. (1)

BlakJak-ZL1VMF (256320) | about 7 months ago | (#46987619)

Demand without a warrant? There still needs to be a legal basis for the ISP to breach their customers privacy.

sh1t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987325)

log on then The [goat.cx]

Boarding office (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987337)

Time to buy a one-way ticket and leave NZ.

What does Kim Dotcom think of this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987373)

I wonder what Kim Dotcom thinks of this: http://websitenews.co/hosting/news/new-zealand-spy-agency-to-vet-network-builds--provider-staff

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987395)

... the new statutes clash with overseas privacy legislation.

Meaning: We already do that for the NSA/DEA/FBI and you're not invited.

Attack on Mega? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46987877)

Kim dotcom moved to New Zeeland and started Mega. After being prosecuted for running MegaUpload.
Maybe this is to hurt him and his business? They also stormed his house like he was a terrorist, so maybe the anti-piracy have their claws in the NZ government.

Re:Attack on Mega? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46988619)

don't worry he wants to have a political party now and you can bet that NZ taxpayer will pay for its spying on a permanent resident while being sheep to US MPAA interests.

So... (1)

woboyle (1044168) | about 7 months ago | (#47042783)

Just who did the behind this bribe? What a TERRIBLE act! I used to have a lot of respect for NZ, but no longer. Sorry Kiwis, but I won't be visiting your beautiful land any time soon... :-(
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?