Lydia Pearl

Mum of 3; ready to put the world to rights!

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@2ETEKA What a cunt!

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@1nzmw Not just that - Indian-run businesses which only employ their own family, mates and temple-goers

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@1nzmw My daughter can't get a job. Even the college says it's impossible to get jobs round there.

I wonder why?

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@Infideliter2022 Sorry for your loss. Losing a mum is so hard - you don't truly get it til it happens. May she rest in peace.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@NZMAGAMike Fuck em. They knew they had the debt when they left. This country gave them the education but got none of the benefit. They ignored multiple comms from IRD.
Choices boys! Bad choices!

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@Marine1065 Shove bells on and they'd be Morris dancing.
Shows their priorities - they've bailed a pedo to move into his home which backs onto a local primary school. Said NOTHING to the school or community.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

Outwardly cringing right now

[AppleBear @AppleBear365]

NZ Citizen: Hello, is this 111? My house has been robbed can you send help?

111: I'm sorry all our police a busy right now. We can send someone around in 4 or 5 days.

What the police are busy with👇

[Holyhekatuiteka @2ETEKA]

For months Luxon has been blarping on saying that WP was wrong - that the India FTA doesn’t allow mass immigration

It’s now been revealed that National are panicking after realising it does and are trying to surreptitiously place blocks on Indian Immigration - terrified that India will find out about the changes and come down on Luxon like a ton of bricks.

So this awesome deal, which cements the Paris agreement and co-governance which National and Act are pretending to be unaware of, has also been exposed for what it is - an Immigration deal.

This FTA is bad in every which way, and voters know it - which is why both National and Labour are bleeding.

Send it back to the select committee stage and let National/Act/labour take it the election for us to have our say on this absolute dog shit deal.

[Ani O'Brien @aniobrien]

Unbelievable. This is peak Chloe Swarbrick. She tried to get one of our trade partners to do an “independent investigation” into us because she doesn’t like our current approach to climate change.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@Suitandtie9999 What a whiney little cuntbitch!

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@Goto_paulcastle When fellow WEF stooges say someone is good, they're probably evil cunts who are wanting to see us all controlled.
Good riddance to the prick. He should've listened to his people.

[Restore Reason @RolyPolyFish]

@Lifeonwheels95 I remember when medical professionals assured us COVID came from a wet market bat.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@Keir_Starmer Let's hope the next leader has the balls to stand up and save the UK. You sure as fuck didn't.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@SamCKx He's no longer the PM. You can remove your tongue from between his cheeks now.

Maybe then you'll see the light.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@vonderleyen You're as bad as each otherr
other.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

As the election draws nearer, my likelihood of ticking a box for blue decreases. Their role in increasing the levels of surveillance in this country is sickening.

[Douglas Brown @darkwaterjack]

This government is presiding over the greatest expansion of State surveillance capacity in NZ in recent memory. Done without fanfare, or even being minimised by govt Ministers. Three Bills, two before Parliament and one that is coming, are making these changes.

The first bill is the Telecommunications and Other Matters Bill. A small part of this Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013, changing only a couple of words, but the effect of those words is enormous. As a result of those changes, the government can now insist that overseas providers of end-to-end encrypted (E2E) communications provide it with an interception capability, a ‘backdoor’, into those communications.

Basically, the government is legislating to force WhatsApp, Signal, Apple’s Messages, Facebook Messenger, and any other E2E messaging service to give it ‘backdoor’ interception access when required. If they don’t, the government will be able to literally ban their use by New Zealanders.

When this was proposed overseas, messaging services and the tech community pushed back. For some reason, that hasn't happened here. The Free Speech Union and I opposed this, but the Select Committee has not chosen to listen to us, and the changes are going through. The only problem is that if the E2E messaging services were to provide such a backdoor, there would be no end-to-end encryption. A backdoor open to a government is open to everyone with the requisite skill to exploit it. The foreign governments backed down, but NZ is not deterred by technical impossibilities; it is made of sterner stuff than that!

The second bill amends the Policing Act. It has been presented by @MarkMitchellMP, the police minister, as simply restoring to the Police some common law powers taken away by a recent Supreme Court decision. That is patently and unequivocally false. The Police Commissioner is now also saying that it gives them the operational capacity to introduce body cameras, but that is disingenuous.

The wording of the Bill gives the Police powers that allow them to make an end run around the Privacy Act, the Search and Surveillance Act, and private property owners' rights, and that far exceed any common-law powers they ever had.

Historically, Police surveillance has been legally permitted only for people suspected of crimes. To be fair, the Police often forget this, hence the recent Court case, as well as the Privacy Commissioner and the IPCA throwing a fit at the Police a couple of years ago over randomly photographing young people for ‘intelligence purposes’. Under the new Act, surveillance will be allowed for ‘an intelligence purpose connected with a function, or an activity, of the Police, or any other lawful purpose connected with a function, or an activity, of the Police.’ In other words, the Police can conduct surveillance of the NZ public for any reason they can come up with. There is no limit.

Further, the Police will now have the authority to conduct surveillance against any private property, so long as they do it from a public space. The Police could, for example, legally set up a surveillance site in a hillside park that could easily look into private property, 24 hours a day. No warrant required; no suspicion of wrongdoing needed, even. They just need to “consider that the information will or may support the Police in performing a function, or carrying out an activity, of the Police”.

And if they can’t be bothered coming up with a reason like that, they can do it under the ‘any other lawful purpose’ justification. Like, I don’t know, checking every backyard in the city for a cannabis grow.

Except that if they are using the same camera they use on the Eagle helicopter, they can see more than your backyard; they can read what is written on the paper stuck to your fridge door.

When the Police Minister says that the law simply gives the Police back powers they already had, it is so wrong as to be laughable.

Then there is the third piece of legislation, the so-called under-16 social media ban. Which hasn’t even been introduced yet, but for which the Dept. of Internal Affairs has already been given $30 million to implement.

This legislation will require every person in New Zealand to provide proof of age to every designated social media platform before accessing social media. If you are over 16, you will be permitted to continue. In fact, assuming we adopt the Australian model, the government won’t have to designate a platform; unless a platform is excluded, it will be subject to the requirement to perform an age-check.

In other words, the government is going to impose a gate on your access to social media. This will include platforms you might not consider social media; so long as you use that platform to communicate with others or receive communication from them, they qualify. You will have to show your age and, almost certainly, your identity, before you can use it. If you choose not to provide that information to the social media platform, you will not be permitted to use it.

The government has not provided us with any reasons why this is necessary. It has not provided any research that justifies it. There is no overwhelming evidence that it is necessary. And it is clear that, although superficially popular, when the methods necessary to implement it become known, it becomes exceptionally unpopular. Yet, the Minister for State Control, @EricaStanfordMP, is keen to proceed with this as soon as possible. That is because this is not based on evidence, but on ideology.

The ideology it's based on is not just about keeping children safe, a noble concept that relies on strongly debatable and heavily contested social science. It is also about protecting them from information that politicians and activists don't like. Misinformation, disinformation, harmful information, call it what you will. Politicians can dress it up as protecting children from harm, but when it boils down to it, the UK government in recent days has come into the open with the reasons why it feels a need to take control of social media, especially for under-16s, but even for older young people. Or adults.

The recent attempted beheading of a Belfast man, which saw riots following the distribution of the video on social media, particularly on this platform, prompted the UK Labour government to immediately call for controls on this platform, plus explicit calls for control of social media algorithms in order to prevent what is called misinformation from spreading. In fact, what the UK government wanted was for genuine, truthful information to be prevented from spreading, so that bad news it didn't like would not spread, and criticism of its policies and the consequent public response to their effects would not be felt.

But this policy is doomed to failure. The Australian implementation has shown that it is easily circumvented, not only by using a VPN, but also by children themselves, who find simple workarounds.

It also creates a privacy and information-protection nightmare for the people of any country in which it is implemented. The UK is already finding this out through its existing online safety laws and is now looking at banning VPNs and other measures that might be used to circumvent the rules.

To comply with laws designed to satisfy regulators, social media platforms, or the security firms they use to ensure their customers are over the age of 16, have to store some form of data. Unfortunately, that makes them an irresistible target for hackers. Even government systems in places like Estonia and India have been targeted and breached. More recently, Discord was breached, leading to the identification of a huge amount of its users' private data.

There is also the problem of what happens with the next government or the one after that. Whilst a supposedly centre-right government may say it is only concerned about the safety of children on social media, the Department of Internal Affairs has no such pretensions. It simply wants to regulate the internet, and it will do so by any means necessary. It will spend its time patiently convincing politicians, if not this government, then the next or the one after that, to allow it to become a super-regulator, imposing its view of what is acceptable on the public of New Zealand. And you'd be surprised at what the Department of Internal Affairs considers acceptable or not. I assure you, they do not align with the views of the average New Zealander. Put bluntly, the Department of Internal Affairs is a pack of wowsers.

Which brings me back to the beginning. This is all being done under a @NZNationalParty-led coalition government. The biggest increase in state surveillance capacity in a generation is being undertaken by a supposedly centre-right government. That is because the National Party lacks senior politicians with a strong commitment to liberty. People like Erica Stanford and Mark Mitchell are politicians whose first impulse is to use the power of the State to ensure the safety of the people, as they see it. Whether the people like it or not. And they have been quite open about that.

For Ministers such as @chrisluxonmp, Stanford, and Mitchell, an increase in the government's power over the private individual is a feature, not a bug. Keeping children and the public safe is worth trampling on the freedom and privacy rights of those same people, or invading the family in order to be a Nanny State.

After all, you cannot put a price on public safety, now, can you?

https://t.co/OSDIKG7j82

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

It genuinely amused me that people think replacing Starmer will make things better.

From Boris Johnson's election onwards, we've been shuffling the bollards on the Titanic.

You have to actually change direction if you want to avoid crashing into the iceberg:

- End Net Zero
- Make business viable again
- Get welfare under control
- Fund defence
- Ensure equality under the law
- Arrest criminals and keep them in jail
- Deport illegal immigrants and close the border
- Bring the civil service to heel

Burnham will become as unpopular as Starmer within months since he isn't going to do any of that.

[Lydia Pearl @LydiaPearl]

@JPMasters Oooohhh. Mansplaining on women's breasts.
Could you hate females any more?

[wealthmoose @wealthmoose]

🚨🌎 14 governments.

Same social media ban.
Same timing.
Same language.
Same justification.

🇬🇧 United Kingdom
🇫🇷 France
🇩🇪 Germany
🇪🇸 Spain
🇮🇪 Ireland
🇳🇱 Netherlands
🇧🇪 Belgium
🇩🇰 Denmark
🇳🇴 Norway
🇸🇪 Sweden
🇫🇮 Finland
🇦🇺 Australia
🇳🇿 New Zealand
🇨🇦 Canada

Your government didn’t dream this up.

It received it.

Carney sat at Davos before he was PM.

He called Canada part of the "new world order."

Then called that speech meaningless.

The laws aren’t meaningless.

They’re arriving on schedule.

Video: @BlendrNews

#CdnPoli #Carney #WEF #BillC22