Thoughts regarding the doctored Pelosi video

Interesting thoughts and theory:

Ultimately it was a test. A test of how far one can go in doctoring video before platforms react and remove/downrank/censor the content. It was useful and served multiple purposes (as do most actions taken by these manipulators).

The eventual baseline method which will be used is even more subtle. Video Manipulation propaganda is headed toward customized recognition response which will be able to withstand platform scrutiny.

I’ll explain:

  1. The architects of propaganda gather info on who is hate-driven or can be persuaded to be hate driven. This data set already exists.
  2. Imagery and articles which trigger that segment’s hate response are then casually accompanied by a visual cue (ex: purple & green stripes).
  3. By including the subtle visual cue into targeted annoyances/imagery or alongside anger-inducing political articles via targeted advertising spots, the architects train the hate segment (and perhaps their periphery of friends) to react a certain way when that cue is seen.
  4. Visual cue is subtly doctored into the background of political target (ex: Pelosi) videos and the result is censorship-safe hate propaganda against a target. After all, how would you ever force Facebook to censor purple & green stripes?
  5. [The reality will be much more covert.]

What I think is pretty much certain is that there will be people and groups of people and organisations and probably governments going to great links to work out how to distribute more effective propaganda and fake news and attacks on people or parties or governments.

We need to be aware of this, and take care in what we accept as legitimate and what we need to be sceptical about.

Propaganda and attacks on oppoents and on populations have been happening for a long time. What has changed is technology, the technical means of creating and propagating propaganda.

Arps pleaded guilty to distributing footage of mosque attacks

Christchurch man Philip Neville Arps has pleaded guilty of distributing video of the Christchurch mosque attacks. He told police that modified coverage (with cross hairs and a kill count added) was ‘awesome’.

That sounds despicable, but does it justify a prison sentence? He was remanded in custody when arrested, and seems likely to get a custodial sentence.

Stuff: Philip Arps guilty of sharing livestream of Christchurch mosque massacre

A Christchurch business owner who admitted sharing the Christchurch terror attack livestream told police he thought it was “awesome”.

Philip Neville Arps pleaded guilty on Friday to two charges of distributing the mosque murders video and was remanded in custody for sentencing on June 14.

When questioned by police about the massacre –  in which 50 people were murdered and 39 more shot and wounded – he replied: “I could not give a f…, mate.”

So maybe I shouldn’t give a fuck if he is imprisoned.

Arps asked for Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll to have him assessed for a possible home detention sentence, but the judge ruled it out, indicating Arps would be jailed.

His lack of empathy doesn’t help his case. His sentence is likely to be affected by whether he shows any remorse or not.

I see some need for deterrent sentences  – this seems well up the seriousness scale. If a strong signal needs to be sent he seems a good candidate for copping a jail term.

He is one of 10 people police have taken action against for objectionable publication offences relating to the video of the Christchurch terror attack, including a 16-year-old male.

I presume (hope) these are the worst examples that have involved more than just downloading or viewing the video.

Dunedin vigil and 2 minutes silence for Christchurch terror attacks – video record

Video coverage of the Dunedin vigil on Thursday 21 March, where 15-18,000 people gathered to pay their respects to those killed in the Christchurch terror attacks on Friday 15 March 2019.

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

About a thousand people gathered at Dunedin’s Al Huda mosque in Friday 22 March 2019 for two minutes silence to remember those who fell victim to the  terror attack in Christchurch a week earlier.

Otago Daily Times coverage:

The call to prayer echoed across a packed Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin last night.

As the sun set, members of Dunedin’s Muslim community knelt in silent worship, surrounded by the flickering candles of a city united in support.

About 15,000 people have turned up to Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin tonight to pay their respects to those affected by the Christchurch terror attacks.

Close to 1000 people gathered outside Dunedin’s Al Huda mosque were welcomed with a karakia ahead of a national call to prayer and two minutes silence’ to remember those killed in one of New Zealand’s darkest days.

Dunedin’s Muslims gathered at the mosque in Clyde St for Friday prayers today, exactly one week after the Christchurch mosque shootings, in which 50 people died, while others are gathered outside.

Friday prayers were held as usual at Dunedin’s mosque yesterday, but on the street outside about 1000 supporters stood silent.

The crowd gathered outside the Al Huda mosque to join others throughout the country in listening to an Arabic call to prayer, which was broadcast on television and radio at 1.30pm, followed by two minutes of silence.

Fifty candles, one for each person killed in the Christchurch mosque attacks last Friday were lit on the footpath outside the mosque’s gate.

In Dunedin, the Al Huda mosque, in Clyde St, quickly become the focal point for an outpouring of both grief, and a support for the city’s Muslim community, that grew as the week went on.

How the Christchurch killer was apprehended

NZ Herald has what they say is exclusive information about how the person deemed responsible for the Christchurch mosque massacres was apprehended.

NZH: Christchurch mosque shootings: Police reveal how they caught the alleged gunman

The Herald has exclusive details about how the officers, after hearing there was an active shooter on the loose in the city, took to the streets to find him – and stop him.

The officers, who the Herald has agreed not to name, are both based in smaller towns out of Christchurch.

That town has been named in other media coverage.

Their boss rural response manager Senior Sergeant Pete Stills said the pair had travelled into Christchurch to attend a training session at Princess Margaret Hospital in Cashmere.

The training was held on a disused floor of the hospital and was around room clearance and dealing with offenders in armed incidents.

“They were actually training when the call came through that there was an active armed offender in Christchurch,” Stills told the Herald.

“They had their work vehicles there with them with firearms in them.

“They operationalised themselves and got into one car, they decided to skirt the city, they thought that’s what the offender would do – rather than drive through the CBD.

“They were driving on Brougham Street because they thought if he’d just been to Linwood [the second mosque attacked] that’s a route he might take.”

Moments later they spotted a suspicious car.

“They saw someone fitting the description of the offender coming towards them,” Stills said.

“The car was weaving in and out of lanes with its hazard lights on.

“They confirmed the rego, that it was the right car, and did a U-turn.”

Stills said the officers have more than 40 years of policing between them and had the experience to handle the situation.

“They were trying to catch up with him, they were discussing tactics – did they want to pursue him?”

Stills said the officers weighed up a pursuit, where the gunman could have got away and “unleashed” on more innocent members of the public.

They also had to consider whether pursuing him would cause a crash which could also be fatal and involve innocent road users.

“They decided to bring it to an end as quickly as possible and they decided to immobilise the car by ramming it,” Stills said.

They rammed the gunman’s car on the driver’s side and footage supplied to the Heraldshows the officers dragging him out of the passenger side.

Stills said one officer saw “high risk” items in the back of the car and ran back round to the police car to radio the information in and warn other police.

He believed those items would put his colleagues in danger and wanted to tell them to stay back.

While doing that he lost sight of the alleged gunman and was worried for his colleague so he abandoned the plan and went back to the passenger side.

“He yelled at members of the public to get back,” said Stills.

“The car posed a danger.”

Once the alleged gunman was contained both officers used the radio to alert other police to the situation.

While police chases are controversial I don’t think there will be much if any criticism of this one.

Stuff: Video captures act of bravery as police arrest Christchurch shooting suspect

NZ Herald:  Exclusive footage of mosque shooting arrest: Suspect dragged along sidewalk

 

Law on audio and video recordings

This post from June 2017 has had a lot of search hits over the last couple of days in relation to the Jami-Lee Ross recording and threats of releasing more recordings, so worth a re-post:


The Todd Barclay saga, in which the Police decided not to prosecute Barclay for making audio recordings of an employee in his electorate office in Gore (the Police are currently reviewing that decision) has raised the issue of what can and can’t be legally recorded.

Video recordings are legal:

Surveillance video is common in public and in work places.

The Privacy Commission website states that it is “usually unfair to record someone without telling them”.

Can I record someone without telling them?

Whether making an audio or visual recording of someone without telling them will breach the Privacy Act will depend on the circumstances in each case. In particular, it will depend on who is making the recording and why they are making it.

If you are an individual and you are making a recording in relation to you own personal, domestic or household affairs (for instance you’re recording a personal conversation with a friend), there is an exception which says that, generally, the Privacy Act won’t apply to what you do.

However, if you collect, use or disclose personal information in a way which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, this exception will not apply. In other words, someone could make a complaint about you.

If you are making the recording for any reason, other than your own domestic, personal or household affairs, the general rules about collection of personal information will apply. In particular, it’s usually unfair to record someone without telling them.

You should also keep in mind that there may be other laws which apply apart from the Privacy Act – for instance, recording a private conversation that you’re not involved in will often be a crime.

That seems to be what Barclay was investigated for.

On usually unfair to record someone without telling them:

Can an agency make a video or audio recording of me without telling me?

Generally speaking, an agency must tell you if it is collecting your personal information.

However, there are some cases where an agency could collect your information without telling you. For instance, it might not have to tell you it was collecting your information if this would undermine the agency’s purpose for collecting the information in the first place, or if it would endanger the safety of any individual.

If you believe an agency has collected your information without telling you, we suggest that you contact the agency and ask to speak to their privacy officer to see if you can resolve any concerns you have about this directly.

If you’re not able to resolve your concerns, and you believe you have suffered some sort of harm as a result of the collection of your information, you can make a complaint to us.

Or make a complaint to the Police, as Glenys Dickson did in the Barclay case.

Andrew Geddis comments on this in It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup

…it’s not an offence to record yourself in conversation with others, even if they don’t know you are doing so. Nor is it an offence to record other people without their knowledge if they are not engaged in a “private communication”.

But the allegation against Barclay is that he left a dictaphone running when he wasn’t in his office so as to record what Dickson was saying in conversations with constituents.

Also in Police take another look at Barclay secret recording investigation

Geddis said the alleged breach in law on which Barclay was investigated needed to tick three boxes to be proved.

The first was there needed to be a recording with an “interception device”, as the law phrased. In this case, he said, the “device” was alleged to be a dictaphone.

Then it needed to be proved it was a private conversation – in this case, said to be the electorate office where Dickson worked.

The third element was proving that the recording was made intentionally, he said.

“If you could prove all three elements, the offence carries a jailable offence of up to two years.”

Conviction to the two-year point is the trigger which forces MPs to resign from Parliament.

Steven Price at Media Law Journal (in reference to the Bradley Ambrose case):

It’s a crime to intentionally intercept a private communication using an interception device. A private communication is one that is made under circumstances that may reasonably taken to indicate that any party to it desires it remain private, but:

does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.

Although a battalion of journalists were about a metre away behind a window, let’s assume that Key and Banks couldn’t reasonably expect it to be overheard, and that the circumstances indicate that both desired their conversation to remain private.

In an electorate office if the conversation was in an open office where others were present and could hear it then it may not be private. But if Dickson was the only person present then it could be private.

The only issue, then, is whether the interception was intentional. On the paper’s account, it was inadvertent. In fact, it says, the cameraman tried to retrieve his recorder before the conversation but was stopped by Key’s security folk, and didn’t know that the recording was even happening. Now, I don’t know anything more than has been reported. But I wonder whether there is room for doubt about whether the cameraman genuinely didn’t know that the conversation was being recorded.

If it could be established that he did know, then he has committed an offence.

Bill English has said (in the now public police statement) “I had a conversation with him regarding Glenys Dickson leaving his office and he said to me that he had recordings of her criticising him”.

Barclay has said “I have read and Mr English’s statement to the police and accept it.”

“Recordings” is plural. It could be difficult claiming that more than one recording was accidental.

We will find out next week what the Police decide to do and whether they re-open the case or not.

National’s campaign video

National Party blurb:


National launches first 2017 election video

National launched the first of its 2017 election videos at its annual conference in Wellington today.

“National will continue to strengthen the New Zealand economy under the leadership of Bill English so that we can deliver for all New Zealanders,” Campaign Chairman Steven Joyce says.

“The video, ‘Let’s Get Together’ records the progress New Zealand has made since the Global Financial Crisis and the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes, and the confidence with which we face the future.”

“It’s a clear visual representation of New Zealanders’ hard work and optimism, backed by Prime Minister Bill English who shares their values and wants to see all New Zealanders succeed.

“New Zealand’s economy is doing better than many of our closest partners. It’s no accident. It’s because every day, Kiwis get up and open their businesses or get out on their farms, sell their wares to the world, create jobs and work hard and provide for their families.

“Bill English and the National-led Government are backing Kiwis to succeed. We’ll remain focused on growing the economy with our clear plan to keep delivering more for New Zealanders.

“This election, New Zealanders have a real choice between a stable, future-focused and positive Government under the strong leadership of Bill English; or a negative, inward-looking Opposition.

“This is the start of what will be a typically positive campaign from us to ask Kiwis to give us their party vote in September.”

 

 

Mines rescue members in Pike River video

Mines rescue have put out a video clarifying what the men in the just released Pike River video were doing and where they were doing it.

Press Release: Mine Rescue Trust

MEDIA RELEASE

RE: PIKE RIVER VIDEO FOOTAGE

The video footage shown by media in the last 24 hours shows two Mines Rescue members wearing compressed air breathing apparatus completing final tasks before a robot was sent into the main drift at the Pike River mine.

The Mines Rescue personnel are standing in the end of the 40-foot shipping container that was placed into the mine entrance as part of the initial sealing of the main drift in December 2010.

The video clearly shows the drift in the background. NZMRS personnel went no further than two (2) metres into the drift during this operation. The atmosphere in the entire length of the main drift had been made safe by pumping in Nitrogen and no methane was present.

In late June 2011 NZMRS were engaged to conduct a reconnaissance operation 300 metres into the main drift to select a suitable site to construct a temporary seal. The temporary seal was then constructed at the 170 metre mark. This work was also completed with nitrogen injected to prevent the build-up of methane. All of this has been previously reported and summarised during the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

At no stage have Mines Rescue personnel gone further than 300 metres into the drift.

That’s not how it may have appeared in Newshub’s news item on the video last night.

More from NZH: Pike River: Police say they didn’t deliberately withhold footage

Prime Minister Bill English has strongly rejected claims that police withheld video footage from the families of Pike River victims.

Speaking at his weekly press conference this afternoon, English said families had been shown parts of a video taken inside the mine’s drift six years ago.

The Prime Minister also said the suggestion in a Newshub story that Mines Rescue workers had been deep into the mine after an explosion killed 29 miners was incorrect.

English said police had advised him the families were shown excerpts of the footage at meetings in Greymouth in 2011. Around 30 family members and supporters were at the meetings.

The footage was later turned over to a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the mining disaster.

State-owned coal miner Solid Energy, which runs the mine, considered the footage when it assessed whether the mine was safe to re-enter, English said.

It may take a while to get the full story.

This mess of accounts and claims is in part due to Newshub dumping the video into their news for maximum shock effect without getting the full story first.

 

 

Opposition responses on Pike River

Labour: Why has Pike footage been hidden for so long?

Why has Pike footage been hidden for so long?

New footage of workers servicing a robot in the Pike River drift appears to show that going into the drift doesn’t pose the danger the Government and Solid Energy claimed, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.

“The Government must immediately release all Pike footage and images, and explain why it has kept the public and the families in the dark for so long.

“This new footage casts doubt over the Government’s reasons for blocking a manned re-entry of the drift.

“The sight of men moving confidently inside the drift with only breathing masks on suggests this isn’t the excessively dangerous situation National and Solid Energy portray it as. National claims sending people into the drift would unduly risk their lives. Yet, here is film of two men calmly working in the drift, taking their time to make an ad hoc water cover for a robot.

“The robot footage shows the drift is in good shape, with even the pipes largely undamaged by the explosions. There’s nothing in the footage to support National’s claim the drift could collapse.

“The fact that the robot overheats and emits smoke yet no explosion is triggered makes a lie of Nick Smith’s claim that the 98% methane atmosphere in the drift is highly flammable. In fact, as the scientifically literate Nick Smith surely knows, methane cannot explode in a nearly pure methane atmosphere with little oxygen.

“It is disturbing that such important footage, which undercuts the Government’s reasons for stopping a re-entry into Pike, has been kept from the public eye for so long.

 “Why haven’t the families or the public seen this footage before now? For years, the families have been calling for all footage and pictures taken inside Pike River since the explosion to be released. Yet, the Government still hasn’t released that material, and we have to rely on leaks to find out the truth.

“We know, from written questions, that the Government holds 24,000 images and 265GB of footage related to Pike River. The inevitable question, now, is: what other important material is the Government keeping hidden? The families and the public deserve to be able to see it all,” says Andrew Little.

Greens: Smith and National must answer to the Pike River families

Nick Smith and National must answer to the Pike River families

Newly released footage from inside Pike River raises extremely serious questions about the Government’s assertion that it’s not safe to renter the mine, and about what other evidence may have been withheld.

“It simply beggars belief that the Police Commissioner or the Minister never saw this footage”, said Denise Roche, Green Party Spokesperson for Workplace Relations and Safety.

“Especially as Nick Smith has confirmed he knew about this video – and that he never bothered to watch it. That tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him,” said Denise Roche.

“The Pike River Families and all New Zealanders deserve to see not just this film, but all evidence that may have been withheld.

“Nick Smith says the Government will consider this footage but quite clearly the only reason he is doing this is because he has been embarrassed. He needs to commit to reviewing not just this video, but all evidence, and to releasing that so the public can make their own judgment.”

“And that has to include evidence from the experts the Pike River families have been working with to create a plan for safe entry and exploration of the mines’ drift.”

NZ First: Huge Cover-up Over Pike River Mine Re-Entry

There is no doubt that there has been a huge cover up by authorities after the Pike River explosion that killed 29 men, says New Zealand First Leader and Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“Newshub has revealed tonight that video footage exists of a robot and two searchers in the Pike River tunnel months after the fatal explosion. That video footage has been kept secret and never been shown to the families of the victims.

“According to Newshub, it belongs to the police and has been seen by Solid Energy and was ‘used by Solid Energy as part of its extensive investigation into whether the mine was safe to enter’.

“However, this information was apparently not shown to the Pike River Royal Commission of Inquiry nor presented by Solid Energy when they appeared before a parliamentary select committee.

“All along the police and the government have maintained it was not safe for anyone to enter the tunnel.

“This evidence proves otherwise.

“Who the searchers were has never been revealed but the government has allowed a massive cover-up to take place and all those responsible for that should be brought to account.

“The fact is this evidence proves that it is safe for a search party to go in,” says Mr Peters.

English on Pike River video

Bill English has responded to questions raised over the release of the video showing a robot getting 1.5 km into the Pike River mine.

RNZ: PM: No Pike River re-entry despite footage

Families of the 29 miners who remains have been trapped in the mine since it exploded in 2010 say this proves what they have always known – that re-entry is possible.

Re-entry has always been possible, the safety and need is what has been at issue.

The footage, released by Newshub, shows the workers – who were wearing breathing gear – inside the drift of the mine, three months after the final explosion.

What Newshub showed was misleading. The robot video was shown 1.5 km inside the mine entry shaft, but the workers were near the mine entrance (in the first 100 metres).

But speaking to Morning Report, Prime Minister Bill English said he would not reconsider entering the Pike River mine, despite the new footage.

On the face of it, the footage did not change anything about the assessment of the safety of the area, he said.

He said the video footage was available to the people who did a safety assessment for Solid Energy.

“The assessment has to be made by the people who are in control of the workplace and the employees.

“It’s their judgment in the end about whether it is safe because if people go in there and they die because of an explosion it is absolutely clear who would be responsible,” he said.

He said he told the families in January that politicans were not the ones who could make the decision about whether to send anyone in.

News media shouldn’t be making or forcing decisions either.

Police also said that the people in the video were not in the drift, but were actually in the portal, Mr English said.

“I’m sure the experts and the police will be able to work through what it means or doesn’t mean.

“We are working with the familes on the un-manned entry.”

Two robots have been taken into the mine and both failed, so another robot attempt has obvious risks of failure.

Labour mis-using taxpayer money?

First a word of caution. This apparent bust comes from the Taxpayers’ Union, who say they are funded and run independently but those involved in running it have close links to National.

They have put out a media release today claiming that Labour appear to be running the campaign for Labour mayoral candidate in Wellington out of their Parliamentary offices. Non-parliamentary activities and electioneering are forbidden uses of parliamentary funded resources.

The Taxpayer’s Union say they have been leaked this email:

LabourStafferMayoraltyEmail

That suggests that “we” from the Labour’s Party Whips office have produced a campaign video for “our Labour candidate for the Wellington Mayoralty”. It is a least a bad look, and it may breach Parliaments rules.

Labour were warned about misuse of Parliamentary resources earlier this year. The Taxpayers’ Union was also involved there. From Speaker’s Warning To Labour Over Parliamentary Funds:

Some weeks ago Labour sent an email in the name of Paul Chalmers, the Project Manager at Labour House, to Labour’s Auckland supporters detailing how Andrew Little had opened a Auckland office that will be “the centre of the Labour and progressive movement in Auckland and the place to co-ordinate the local government and General Election campaigns.”

The email also called on “like-minded partners” to share office space and other facility resources.

It appears that Andrew Little and his MPs are pooling together taxpayer resources to open a campaign office in central Auckland for the Party and Phil Goff’s campaign for the Auckland mayoralty. Use of taxpayer resources in this way is clearly against the rules.

The Speaker has confirmed that the Parliamentary Service will be monitoring Mr Little’s spending and has written to him setting out the rules for taxpayer funded out-of-Parliament offices.

The letter from the Speaker to Labour begins:

Speaker2Labour1

And concludes:

Speaker2Labour2

That is a very clear warning to Andrew Little. Labour should be well aware of these rules anyway.

MPs campaigning for local body office while paid for by taxpayers is suspect, although it has both potential benefits and disadvantages.

Not surprisingly David Farrar has also posted on this, fairly carefully, at Kiwiblog: Lester’s campaign being run from Parliament?  Farrar is heavily involved with the Taxpayers’ Union.

But regardless of the source this does look quite dodgy from Labour, especially after already being warned by the Speaker.

Given there past actions I presume the Taxpayers’ Union will advise the Speaker about this, but don’t expect significant repercussions – that’s why parties keep flouting Parliamentary rules, because they think they can keep getting away with it.

But this is not just flouting Parliamentary rules. It is flouting democracy, giving some candidates an unfair advantage over others.

Now I don’t know if this refers to the same Lester campaign video:

Wellington mayoral candidates get creative and cringeworthy with online campaign videos

Wellington’s mayoral candidates have taken to social media, releasing online campaign videos to sell their message to voters.

Labour candidate and current deputy mayor Justin Lester takes an active approach attending various community events and has citizens endorse him. Robinson says Justin ticks nearly every box with his video.

“He shows that he is embedded in communities, in a variety of communities and people trust him and people endorse him. While people are talking about him he’s actively engaged in a whole variety of environments.

“You can’t fault this video I would have to say in my 17 years of campaign video watching this is the best campaign video any NZ candidate has ever produced.”

Claire Robinson believes anybody running in an election should follow the lead of Wellington’s candidates and campaigns will continue to evolve with technology.

I don’t know what Robinson would think if Parliamentary resources were used to make the video.