A ‘top secret list’ of people being monitored by the police

This should be no surprise – Stuff reports that the police have a ‘top secret list’ (as it should be) of people they are monitoring, including “white supremacists, Muslim converts and people left disgruntled by the Christchurch terror attack” and “disaffected” people with firearm licences, and others with racist and radical views.

As long as there are genuine concerns about these people and the police are operating legally this should be a reassuring thing?

Stuff – Christchurch terror attack: More than 100 people being monitored by police

More than 100 people – including white supremacists, Muslim converts and people left disgruntled by the Christchurch terror attack – are being actively monitored by police.

Stuff has obtained part of a top secret list that names those who are of concern to police following the March 15 terror attack. Stuff has chosen not to name anyone on the list or contact them for security reasons.

It should be a given that Stuff doesn’t name anyone on the list, it would be highly reckless and inappropriate to do so.  Stuff seems have made a habit of praising themselves for doing what is expected (and required) of media.

The list, which is understood to have included more than 100 people, includes “disaffected” people with firearm licences, and others with racist and radical views. Police appear to be placing a large focus on social media, with one person making it onto the list for posting “concerning information”, including how to make their own live feed on social media.

Police deputy commissioner Mike Clement…

…told Stuff the operation was designed to reassure New Zealanders.

This includes raising awareness through increased visibility on the streets, and visits to thousands of schools, religious places, businesses and community centres.

“While the number of reports has increased since the Christchurch attack, fundamental to being safe and feeling safe is the willingness of people to report behaviours that concern them.

“As a result of the help of the community [we have] spoken with many individuals across New Zealand and in a few instances interventions including arrests have been undertaken.”

Canterbury district commander Superintendent John Price…

…also declined to comment on the list’s existence, but confirmed there was a group of people whose actions and behaviour had concerned police. He said the intelligence phase of the operation was focused on trying to understand other people who are of interest in the community.

“There may be some concerns around their ideologies, or the fact they may have access to illegal firearms, so that’s a large part of that, determining and then acting on that information”.

I think that if the police are aware of illegal firearms and access to them then they should be acting on that, not just monitoring them.

“A lot of it is generated through people telling us, looking through social media and other information streams that come into the mix. You scan your information sources, you then analyse those information sources and get to a point you can assess the risk of the threat level.”

“If we consider that people may have access to illegal firearms that would raise a concern, it may be that the people are expressing views that we may think is not aligned with our way as New Zealanders”.

“If we think there’s an inherent risk through that intel we will act on it depending on how considered the threat is to the community as a whole.”

Not surprisingly, there is nothing much new about this apart from increased efforts after the mosque killings.

The intelligence model was nothing new, with police regularly using it for other areas of heightened focus to establish more informed information, including family harm, burglaries, volume crime and organised crime.

Clement asked that people remained “vigilant”.

“Be aware of your surroundings and if you see something that doesn’t look right or is suspicious, report it to police. We would sooner investigate those concerns in a preventative way even if those concerns were unfounded.”

If any of your saw things said of concern online would you report it to the police?


More from Gezza:

A Wellington convert who describes himself as “probably the most radical Muslim” in the city says he is happy to co-operate with police and understands their concern.

The man, in his 30s, said he was probably on a top secret list, obtained by Stuff, that names some of more than 100 people police are monitoring since the March 15 attack.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112302738/radical-muslim-convert-happy-for-police-to-do-due-diligence

Leave a comment

27 Comments

  1. Geoffrey

     /  29th April 2019

    If Stuff has all or part of the list, it is not Top Secret. There should be no way that such a list should be be able to be acquired by Stuff and no way that a decision to publish or not be left to Stuff.
    Our security measures are already in a shambles without this sort of nonsense from a media agency.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  29th April 2019

      We don’t know that they have the names.

      They’d have more sense than to publish them if they did have them; I suspect that this would be a crime.

      Reply
      • Geoffrey

         /  29th April 2019

        “Stuff has part of a Top Secret list that names….”
        So I reckon we do know. Their simply having the list is major security issue.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th April 2019

          I could say that I have it. It wouldn’t mean that I do have it.

          Reply
          • Geoffrey

             /  29th April 2019

            To declare that one is in possession of a Top Secret document would invite, I would think, a significant establishment reaction: whether or not that is true. Let the process begin.
            Before going too much further though, it is probably as well to establish whether or not Stuff is referring to Top Secret as defined in statutory regulations flowing from the Official Secrets Act, or just information that some agency has classifieds as not being in our best interests to release. Either way, playing with state secrets of any sort, just to make a story should bring some serious bad news as a consequence.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  29th April 2019

              Serve them right either way.

              If they’ve hacked it, or are making a lot of a little, they deserve all they get.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  29th April 2019

          If I said that I had them, would you automatically believe me ?

          Well, then.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  29th April 2019

            I think that people are a bit more than ‘disgruntled’ about the mosque murders.

            Reply
          • Geoffrey

             /  29th April 2019

            No kitty, but I would race you down to the station to make sure. If it transpired that you did not, I would punish you for washing my time. If you did have a list of the names, I would use whatever Act was appropriate to punish you and discourage others from being as irresponsible.

            Reply
  2. Crky

     /  29th April 2019

    This is interesting on a number of levels.

    “If we consider that people may have access to illegal firearms that would raise a concern, it may be that the people are expressing views that we may think is not aligned with our way as New Zealanders”.

    Man, hate speech legislation could be grafted onto that insight with ease.

    Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  29th April 2019

    ‘ radical views. ‘…
    ‘people are expressing views that we may think is not aligned with our way as New Zealanders”.’

    ‘“There may be some concerns around their ideologies’

    and who is the objective arbiter of interpretation?

    Keith Locke was ‘watched’ for decades…on the basis of…??

    Reply
    • NOEL

       /  29th April 2019

      Come on back Blazer???

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  29th April 2019

        thanks for that…note in 2015…he actually makes clear and cogent points that the state do not want to acknowledge…’The definition of “subversion” in the NZSIS Act also encompasses inciting “the overthrow by force of the Government of New Zealand”,

        We know the GCSB have yet to reach a level of competence that engenders any trust on their ability to make NZ safer.

        They have admitted they did not even know the law in their dealings with imagined threats to NZ.

        Locke has been under surveillance decades before the GCSB was formed.

        The S.I.S has a history of bungled missteps going back to the Sutch case.

        The N.S.A seeks to reboot McCarthyism with ‘reds under the beds ‘ scare tactics promoted by the U.S financial demons.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  29th April 2019

          I saw something recently in the legislation covering Parliaments Intelligence Committee ( I had thought it was just set up under parliaments rules)

          Part of it prevents the MPs including PM and leader of opposition from asking about ‘sensitive intelligence ”

          (2)
          The functions of the Committee DO NOT include—
          (a)
          inquiring into any matter within the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security appointed under section 5 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996; or
          (b)
          inquiring into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information; or
          (c)
          originating or conducting inquiries into complaints by individuals concerning the activities of an intelligence and security agency that are capable of being resolved under any other enactment.

          Its a charade – what does it matter that other methods can be used. These are selected MPs including PM.
          Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996

          Reply
  4. Kitty Catkin

     /  29th April 2019

    This might look like a tangent, but I think that it’s important and related in its way.When I looked up this story, I came across Neighbourly. I am no longer with them as I was angered by the fact that they had shared my information when I had personal, targeted emails from organisations; one in particular. I had a look out of curiosity just now and was glad to be out of it.

    If anyone is in this or thinking about it, look it up on Stuff and see what you are letting yourself in for. They share your name and email; they track what you do online (!) and generally seem to expect you to sign away all rights to privacy. It seems like a nice, friendly way to let people know what’s happening in their area, but it’s actually intrusive and, I would say, unscrupulous.

    Reply
  1. A ‘top secret list’ of people being monitored by the police — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s