Illegal Dotcom surveillance to be investigated

Email
Print

Illegal Dotcom surveillance to be investigated

3News NZ

Kim Dotcom (AAP)

Kim Dotcom (AAP)

By 3 News online staff

The case against Kim Dotcom has taken another blow - after the Prime Minister ordered an investigation into whether the Government Communications Security Bureau illegally spied on the alleged internet pirate.

The GCSB allegedly monitored dotcom's communications in the lead-up to his arrest.

It appears the security agency was unaware that he was a New Zealand resident –which made it illegal to spy on him. Prime Minister John Key says he did not sign off on the investigation into Dotcom.

“It’s normal not to sign a warrant about an individual that GCSB might take an interest in and the reason for that is the law quite clearly prescribes it’s unlawful for GCSB to intercept communications for either New Zealand citizens or New Zealand residents and so on that basis no I haven’t signed any warrants in relation to this case,” he told Firstline this morning.

Mr Key says the agency will be held accountable for the investigation.

“I’m very disappointed in the agency… there is a full investigation taking place headed by the independent retired judge Paul Nazar who is the commissioner in charge of security and intelligence,” he says.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

7/11/2012 5:38:15 p.m.

Grant Ertel wrote:

Who is "independent retired judge Paul Nazar. I have emailed PM office and no reply. I have googled the name over and over but no record. Prime minister in the house referred to the Nazar report. GCSB seem to have no knowledge of this person, can anybody tell me how to get hold of this report, if it exists, Thanks

25/09/2012 9:41:21 p.m.

Then he should know this wrote:

Wait till he finds out the infamous US psychic spies have been deployed to harass New Zealanders. Maybe a journalist could put it to him and gauge his reaction?

25/09/2012 12:54:55 p.m.

David wrote:

Turns out that English Authorised it, but that Key knew a couple of weeks after. Whats my prize? lol National have always been corrupt, thats on thing that will never change about the party. They are immoral and indecent.

25/09/2012 10:49:05 a.m.

dennis wrote:

MR PM. When there is someone standing on your 'tale', it would be extremely advisable to cautiously back up and attempt to turn around. You were not only in a position to 'publicly' comment last Monday but you were required to ensure that that information was given to the Court of Appeal, who were considering on behalf of Dotcom and others versus the MINISTER (s21 EA1999), -The A-G filed the provisional application- the issue of what information is required of the prosecution to provide in support of the Minister's application for extradition of Dotcom and others. This is contempt of our judicial system, to your own unexplained and unexplainable ends. It is dishonest in monetary terms by a factor of 20 over Mr Bank's issue, because Megaupload's income, based on the previous year, is $1m per week. That matter was heard on Wednesday. You and the Solicitor General have deliberately withheld this information accordingly. Perhaps promote him to the bench, and try again!

25/09/2012 10:37:30 a.m.

Allan Murray wrote:

OMG the GCSB is inept they are 'unaware' of a basic fact (residency) about a 'person of interest'. Being an intellegence agency I would think they would have a whole file of information on any 'persons of interest'.

25/09/2012 10:09:58 a.m.

David wrote:

Yes this is set to be investigated and the end results are set to be hidden from the publics eye. There is no transparency where National or the GCSB are concerned. I guarantee that the only reason Key came clean was because he had been found out and his going public was his way of saving himself from utter humiliation. John Key should have made a statement on the day that he found out, he also deliberately went out of his way to avoid dotcom when the man turned up at parliament.. and should have told him then... 4 days after he had supposedly been informed of the breach. Though my money is on the fact that Key knew all along and may have even authorised it himself.