My government, the USA, most certainly draws lines over what videos, possesion of which, might land someone in prison. And, you know, for a good reason.
Sure, and so does New Zealand’s, and so does the DPRK. The difference is in where those lines are drawn.
The filming of the commission of a terrible crime, right?
…“its just an opinion” isn’t a defense of your disgusting mis-characterization, even in IMHO.
LOL. As if that makes your case any stronger.
I’m not in the mood to indulge your idle curiosity.
Can you not be arrested and imprisoned in the United States for possessing content that is deemed “illegal contraband”? Aren’t there federal law prohibits the production, distribution, reception, and possession of certain objectionable content?
There are only a handful of articles on this case: all of them an easy google search away. I’m not your monkey. You’ve got enough time to vigorously defend the characterization that New Zealand is a tyrannical shithole but you can’t spend 30 seconds on google to find out the basic facts of this case? Are you being fucking serious?
LOL.
You are objectively wrong.
Your government does threaten your citizens with arrest for possession of objectionable materials. Thats an objective fact.
I’m not sure you’re in a great position to be lecturing others about being unaware of the basic facts of this case, but since you seem to be trying, do you now recall if it was “target identified” or “target acquired”?
I will answer briefly but if you want to go into detail take it up in ATMB.
The registration agreement states that you can not post anything that violates U.S. law. Anything else would not be practical.
As for linking to the video in this instance? I have not spoken to any other mod and I cannot speak of what they would do it in any forum that I don’t mod. Most likely I would not allow it just on the basis of basic human decency not any particular law. My personal feeling is that the video is out there, if you really want to find it it’s easy enough, there’s no need for us to post it here.
If you need to hear the opinions of other mods or the admin start a thread in ATMB.
Yet again, you cant hit the point with a fucking nuke let alone your beloved M4
…a quick google seems to indicate a number of news organizations have corrected “target acquired” to “target identified”. As always with these things early reporting got things wrong. There are a few local people speculating that he wasn’t just in possession of the video, but he was streaming it live. That’s an important distinction, one that might not necessarily be explicitly covered by existing laws which is why he was arrested under the existing framework. But that’s speculation. Its not even a week since the shooting. More information will come out. He will get his day in court. Its not like we are a tyrannical shithole or anything.
This came up earlier in the thread:
(emphasis mine)
It seems that’s not entirely correct, or at least downplays New Zealand skipping over some of the ex post facto protections Americans generally enjoy:
source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12214083
Two other points:
-
I can’t readily imagine a more doublespeak-esque title than “Privacy Commissioner” given John Edwards’ sordid role in this.
-
What country worthy of the label “free” has any use at all for a “Chief Censor”?
…“sordid.” LOL.
Aotearoa. We are one of the most free countries on the planet, as I have already comprehensively demonstrated. What country worthy of the label “free” locks kids in cages and separates them from their parents? What country worthy of the label “free” routinely throws women in jail for having consensual sex? “Land of the fucking free” my ass.
I think your “freedom calibrator” needs fixing.
We know you’ve got the knack for whataboutisms down pat, but do you have any thoughts on New Zealand turning fucking FACEBOOK into a champion of privacy? Facebook!
Hearing New Zealand described as a shithole is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.
…give me a fucking break. The statement "What country worthy of the label “free” has any use at all for a “Chief Censor” is so ridiculously hyperbolic that my response was entirely appropriate.
What the fuck are you talking about now?
Read the article I linked to in #129. Facebook seems unwilling to aid New Zealand in tracking down the “criminals”. Bravo to them for that, even though they’ve got about as checkered a past as any large corporation I can think of on protecting users’ privacy.
…no, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Your claim was that “New Zealand turning fucking FACEBOOK into a champion of privacy.” That literally hasn’t happened. Your cite doesn’t show that happened. What on earth are you talking about?
Facebook appears to be standing up to New Zealand’s request to out their users. They are protecting their users’ privacy. Are you really not able to connect those dots?
…New Zealand is a country. New Zealand can’t request jack-shit of facebook. The Privacy Commissioner doesn’t speak for the country and him “calling on” Facebook to do something is indistinguishable from any other private citizen calling on Facebook to do something.
And?
I’m not that good with conspiracy theories sorry. Is that your speciality? Can you connect the dots for us? Maybe even post a few memes, for good measure?
This is absurd. Of course it can, via its elected / appointed officials. We use this formulation all the time: e.g. “The USA imposed sanctions on …” means the administration did it, in their official capacity as agents of the government, and by extension the country, not as private citizens.
There’s no conspiracy theory here. Perhaps the term of art “turning fucking FACEBOOK into a champion of privacy” is what confused you? It was a colorful way of pointing out that New Zealand’s request was such an egregious violation of users’ privacy that it appears to have driven even Facebook, a company with a spotty-at-best record of protecting their users’ privacy themselves, to resist and protect their users’ privacy. That’s how far out in left field New Zealand is on this.
…not absurd at all. The opinion expressed by the Privacy Commissioner is clearly outside his official remit, you know this right?
“New Zealand” hasn’t made a request. The Privacy Commissioner was expressing his opinion (which you have been clear about, he is absolutely is allowed to do) when asked a question about how he interpreted the law. But this is entirely outside of the Office of the Privacy Commission’s remit. He doesn’t have the authority of the New Zealand government to make any formal requests of this nature and he hasn’t. Perhaps you should do some research into the Privacy Commission to understand what their role is, what powers they have, so you can put the statements he made into the correct context before you make outlandish claims.
Which is exactly why the response from Facebook didn’t address the direct question from the Herald because they literally couldn’t. The statement that the "company ordinarily would not share account details unless there was “something like an imminent threat of violence” does not exclude “extraordinary circumstances” and is about as “boilerplate” a response you can give.
Oh and one more thing. Claiming that New Zealand is a “tyannical shithole” or that “New Zealand turning fucking FACEBOOK into a champion of privacy” aren’t “colourful turns of phrase.” They are deliberately antagonistic hyperbolic mischaracterizations and you really should stop doing that.
I don’t think HE knows this. Here’s what I’ve learned about the dipshit this evening:
There are two separate Twitter accounts: one for John Edwards, bloke on the street, sharing his private musing about the world (@JCE_PC), and a separate “official” one for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (@NZPrivacy). Maybe if he’d just stuck to offering his private opinion about Facebook on his private Twitter account or his radio interview, you’d have a point. But he didn’t do that. Just take a look at his official account’s tweets over the last couple of days:
If that’s not enough to dispel your routine about him just being some private bloke on the street sharing his private opinion about things, here is the official Facebook (ironically) page of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Scroll down a couple of posts there and you’ll see things like “Privacy Commissioner urges crackdown on harmful livestreams” and “Facebook and YouTube have yet to give any indication that they will suspend live-streaming until their systems can better ensure that the videos uploaded respect decency and censorship laws.” Why the fuck are they posting things “outside his official remit” on the official Facebook page for his office?
But wait, there’s still more. It seems that this particular dipshit has had a bee in his bonnett about Facebook for quite a while now. A year ago, from the Guardian:
Get that? He’s already been issuing “statutory demands” and threatening Facebook with legal action from his office, the one in which he acts as part of the New Zealand government.
And they’ve got posts about that on the official New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner website - Privacy Commissioner: Facebook must comply with NZ Privacy Act:
That’s an awful lot of official resources for something that’s supposedly “entirely outside of the Office of the Privacy Commission’s remit”.