PM releases report into Dotcom surveillance

Print

Heads could roll over GCSB error

3News NZ

Kim Dotcom

Kim Dotcom

By Angela Beswick and Lloyd Burr

An independent report into the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) surveillance of Kim Dotcom and an associate has identified two failings.

The report, compiled by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor, found the GCSB did not thoroughly check information provided to it by the police about Dotcom’s residency status.

Mr Neazor also found the GCSB did not interpret the law around surveillance correctly.

“In this case it was recognised that Kim Dotcom was not a New Zealand citizen. He was classed as the holder of a residence class visa in a particular category, but it was not apparent to the police of GCSB that he thereby fell into a protected category,” Mr Neazor says.

Police documents about the raid on Dotcom’s mansion explicitly state he is a New Zealand resident. Mr Neazor says the failure of the GCSB to double check the information police gave them was also a factor.

“Because he should have been regarded in such a category, collection was not allowed under the GCSB Act and in that way, illegal,” he says .

The report says the spying on Dotcom had concluded before the GCSB realised what they did was illegal and the information they gathered did not relate to the United States case against him.

The director of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher, has this afternoon apologised for the way the bureau handled the case.

“We got this wrong,” he said.

“Both factual errors and unacceptable errors of legal interpretation were compounded, most especially by our treating those interpretations as fact for too long. It should not have happened.”

Prime Minister John Key welcomed the report’s findings into the “unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals involved in the Megaupload case”.

Mr Key has sought an assurance that there are no other cases of people’s communications being intercepted unlawfully. As a result, the GCSB will be reviewing past cases back to 2009 when the Immigration Act was changed, and will report to Mr Key and the Inspector-General as soon as possible.

The GCSB will also:

  • Establish new approval processes in the support of Police and other law enforcement agencies. This type of operation is halted meanwhile;
  • Agree with Police and other law enforcement agencies how to confirm immigration status, before operations in support of law enforcement activity are undertaken within New Zealand.

Proposed changes will be submitted by the GCSB to the Inspector-General in advance of their implementation.

“I have been assured by the director that these changes will be implemented as quickly as possible,” says Mr Key.

“I would like to place on record my thanks to the Inspector-General for compiling this report in a prompt manner.  I also believe it is important to place on the record that the unlawful activity occurred before the current director took up his role.”

Mr Fletcher says he knows it will take time for the bureau to regain the trust and confidence that has been lost.

“But I also know that we will be able to do so, and be able to re-establish the high standard of accountability expected of us.”

3 News

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

29/09/2012 1:37:41 p.m.

Jim Seaview wrote:

QUOTE 1: "The director of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher, has this afternoon apologised for the way the bureau handled the case. “We got this wrong,” he said. “Both factual errors and unacceptable errors of legal interpretation were compounded, most especially by our treating those interpretations as fact for too long. It should not have happened.” QUOTE 2: Mr Fletcher says he knows it will take time for the bureau to regain the trust and confidence that has been lost. “But I also know that we will be able to do so, and be able to re-establish the high standard of accountability expected of us.” WITH ALL THE RESOURCES of the NZ Government the GCSB could not determine whether Mr Dotcom had NZ Residency. Surely you could have phoned Mr Dotcom and asked him!!! The GCSB has displayed a level incompetancy that defies all logic and was paid for by the hard working, overtaxed, overRated, diligent, struggling tax payer and we did not receive value for our tax dollars. Mr Fletcher - your organisation was there to protect the security of the people of New Zealand, not to spy on bonafide residents carrying out their normal, (legal in NZ) business activity. The GCSB has to be re-established with competant staff. The existing staff have to go. Einstein once said "you cannot fix the problems of this world by the level of thinking that created them?" I didnt realise that Albert had ever studied NZ Politics!! Spy world is all about perception and value for money.

29/09/2012 1:39:42 a.m.

Key is a flystrip PM Jonno wrote:

Rob (at 9:22:59 pm), of course you can find out the truth. Here's some to get you started... Perfect10 is a CIA related internet porn company. Their goal is to smear reputations and drag people into interminably long and dollar consuming legal battles. Dotcom is a Perfect10 target because he has a thing for operating independently and his Megaupload service inadvertently helped less powerful people to produce and share their own large files of everything from home-made musical performances to home recorded footage produced in difficult to access global hot-spots...

29/09/2012 1:19:11 a.m.

dennis wrote:

To Robert. The impression from the tone of the information laid may have have resulted an intended impression. I can assure you it is exaggerated. For example, 3 of the counts (racketeering, money laundering and copyright infringement) are alleged as conspiracy between directors and employees of the Company. It is put to the Grand Jury that these gentlemen were part of a World wide criminal conspiracy. In actual fact, none of them have a criminal record other than a very minor detail from filing a paper out of time in Honk Kong. You will read that Mr Dotcom did have a computer hacking conviction many years ago and was also charged and convicted on an insider trading charge about 10 years ago. I believe that these convictions are now wiped in the origin countries and he came here with a clean slate. I presume in answering immigration questioning he is presented with the awkward question about criminal record. Although having a clean slate, and his past history wiped, he still answered the questions honestly and declared the convictions that had been wiped. As they effectively no longer exist that information should have gone nowhere other than to whom it was passed. To attempt to ignore the clean slate would, in my view, be contempt of the other country's Law and Court. The term you have used "copyright burning" indicates that you have a wrong impression of his business activity. Effectively he has a huge computer network storage facility (like a warehouse) that he leases at a cost of more than $10million a year and anyone can put files there for storage and then access them at a later date or from another place. The problem is that many people, for whatever reason, leave their data open for anyone to access. So the allegation is that there is a regime in America requiring Americans who operate such public storage facilities and internet service providers in general, to police this access and remove any public links to copyrighted works. There are civil remedies for this form of breach and literally huge amounts can be sought in damages by that remedy. However, somehow this company, and this country are being used to form a test case to see if criminal liability is a remedy to alleged breaches. This form of secondary infringement has never been charged as a criminal offence in New Zealand and according to Megaupload's lawyer neither in the USA. His money was earned by advertising on the web pages and a fee if you wish to increase the speed of the data transfer. Otherwise the service was free. If, for example, you wished to send a 40 megabyte file to Justice Paul Neazor your email provider will probably require that to be broken into 3 different files. For free you could send the complete file to Megaupload and just send a 'link' which is a unique string of letters or characters, to Paul. Hence there are primarily non-infringing uses. Thank you for you interest if you have read this far. If you were at all interested to find out more there is an interview between Campbell and Dotcom that basically repeats what I have attempted to explain. That you may access at http://kim.com

28/09/2012 8:10:12 a.m.

Mal wrote:

@JOHN. Agree. Prosecute them.

28/09/2012 3:20:46 a.m.

GCSB enjoyed Dotcom's Content wrote:

It all started when the founder of Perfect10, a US internet porn company, filed a law suit against Megaupload. Perfect10's proprietor claimed Perfect10 site content was replicated in breach of copyright on Dotcom's servers by Dotcom users. How the Perfect10 content got onto Dotcom's servers has never been publicly disclosed. Nor has anybody investigated the possibility that Perfect10 may itself be in breach of copyright conventions. It could be that Perfect10, owned by a technologically capable internet expert who also happens to be a rival of Dotcom's (Dotcom provided a competing internet porn service online according to a relatively reliable source), uploaded Perfect10 content to Megaupload deliberately to undermine Dotcom's other more respectable venture in providing a large fast, popular and very efficient file sharing service. That the GCSB became involved is hardly cause for wonder. As Patrick Gower speculates, the men at the GCSB are often deployed in routinely boring work and apparently welcomed the opportunity to investigate Dotcom's more exciting private communications. Red faces all around now boys!

28/09/2012 1:44:13 a.m.

Neuron Leak wrote:

Questionable cases exist that pre-date 2009. I know of one case specifically since at least 2008, where communications have been intercepted on a 24/7 basis for almost five years. I also know of New Zealand residents and citizens who feel their communications were intercepted before (and after) the highly controversial Urewera raids of October 2007. It's my understanding that these cases are ongoing. Will these cases be reviewed as current since 2009, or will these long-term disturbingly questionable cases be ignored? ...It must be very convenient not to review questionable cases involving the GCSB and pre-dating 2009 if there are a lot of them.

27/09/2012 10:10:49 p.m.

jonno wrote:

Whos watching the watchers.The investigation will go nowhere. Key will still walk away from all this in the end .You know you have corruption when nothing ever sticks to certain MPs. .

27/09/2012 10:05:11 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

I wonder if anyone intends to challenge Key and English on their lies. Why is Key allowing his security agencies such free reign.. is it so that he can deliberatel deny all responsibility for their actions?. When is anyone going to question whether any of the other security agencies involved like the SIS briefed key before he said he knew? he seems extremely vague on the issue.

27/09/2012 9:56:34 p.m.

Ken wrote:

Heads could roll? How about starting at the top...John Key, and Bill English on the grounds of incompetence and obfuscation ( that’s a big word for not telling the truth) National are goners! Never again.

27/09/2012 9:37:41 p.m.

Angela wrote:

John Key is a fraud, hes been exposed time and time again. He is willing to break the rules for the Americans.. where is our sovereignty? First he sells our assets, now hes selling our residents.