Aardvark DailyNew Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 19th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.
Content copyright © 1995 - 2014 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk
Please visit the sponsor!
I recall debating with a representative of CAA, whether their "policies" with respect to drone operation in New Zealand were enforceable.
The guy from CAA argued "yes they were". I argued "no they aren't".
It seems that CAA were confused between "policy" and "regulation" -- two completely different things.
The fact that, despite much sabre-rattling and threats, CAA has never bought (to my knowledge) any prosecutions under their "drone" policies and have recently done almost a complete 180 on the subject is pretty effective proof that I was right.
Over in the USA, exactly the same thing has happened -- but far more definitively.
Obviously it's an election year.It seems that Labour are grasping for any straw that might give them a small edge on polling day and they're now proposing a Digital Bill of Rights for NZers.
What is a DBOR?
Well we don't know for sure yet -- but it seems it will provide is with certain rights for privacy when online.
Why should the online world be treated any differently to the "real world?" Surely any provisions specific to the digital world could just as easily be included in the existing Bill of Rights legislation -- rather than going through the onerous process of creating yet another new piece of legislation from scratch?
Besides which -- it seems that any Bill of Rights created by government is bound to have specific exemptions that allow its protections to be set-aside whenever the government feels it prudent to do so.
I've always thought that our BOR was little more than a placebo -- designed to fool NZers into believing they had some measure of protection against a corrupt or dishonest government. The reality (IMHO) is that the BOR has insufficient teeth and its provisions are too easily set aside by any government that finds them "inconvenient".
Why would a Digital Bill of Rights be any different?
I'm sorry but this looks like a cheap attempt to win the votes of those who are concerned about the way government can now ride rough-shod over their right to privacy by tapping phone calls and monitoring emails, web-surfing and other online activities.
An opposition will always rally against giving the government of the day more power -- yet, strangely enough, when such extra powers are introduced, a change of government almost never sees them repealed.
Work that one out for yourselves and don't be fooled by any opposition party's promises to protect you from evil government. Once they become government -- their perspectives change markedly.
Sorry, the headlines haven't been updated today
(sorry Forums are stuffed at the moment)
Remember, this is purely a gift, you'll get nothing other than a warm fuzzy feeling in return.