2019-03-17 - New Zealand Police: "We would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc"

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, was asked about @Null's email during a press conference today.
View attachment 700480

It's important for people like Mike Bush and John Michael to understand that the more you try to suppress something, the bigger it becomes. That being said, in times of tragedy, it's imperative to reflect on what matters most:






















:story:
 
Speaking of hakas, is anyone as unimpressed as I am with them? Nice expression of emotions, but hardly intimidating.

They weren't originally supposed to be intimidating, they were used as a type of augery. Warriors would perform them before raiding season and if the elders felt that every part of the haka was performed correctly then the omens favoured war. Lining up and doing it at another countries rugby team to 'intimidate' them is an embarrassing conceit that everyone just politely puts up with and it accomplishes nothing but making them look like autistic fucking idiots.
 
So, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, was asked about @Null's email during a press conference today.
View attachment 700480

Jesus, could you guys imagine KF being mentioned on press conferences at national fucking television a few years back? Journalists scribbling on their notes about some New Zealand-sounding agriculture forum? I can't.

someone get me off this timeline, i want the jace years back
 
Jesus, could you guys imagine KF being mentioned on press conferences at national fucking television a few years back? Journalists scribbling on their notes about some New Zealand-sounding agriculture forum? I can't.

someone get me off this timeline, i want the jace years back

I couldn't have imagined it even last week.
 
So, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, was asked about @Null's email during a press conference today.
View attachment 700480


A mention of the Farms at a police press conference prompted by a meme-spewing mass murderer. Real life is becoming more and more internetty with every passing month.

2019 is shaping up to be an interesting year.
 
A mention of the Farms at a police press conference prompted by a meme-spewing mass murderer. Real life is becoming more and more internetty with every passing month.

2019 is shaping up to be an interesting year.

I doubt that even Null foresaw this when he sent his "lol, nope" response.
 
The slaughter of unarmed women and children is abhorrent in every way. It's a tragedy on a human level, and I think it needs to be recognized and treated as such.

It does not mean that we should now embrace the 'religion of the peace' or support its ideology. I find it very ironic that the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, is now trying it's hardest to cover a backwards cult in tinsel and roses, all out of some warped sense of solidarity.

700496


New Zealand's response:

The list goes on. The police request in the OP is just the tip of the ice berg for this collective insanity. I'm remaining optimistic about this just being a strong emotional response that is temporarily clouding the collective reasoning of this country.

This tragedy should not be about Islam, it should be about 50 human beings that have lost their lives at the hands of a madman. Call me a literal nazi, but is this knee jerk reaction not what the guy wanted all along?

This has turned into an epic rant so I'll stop here.

Also hello. I have just joined this community as a free speech refugee. I heard you have cows.
 
The slaughter of unarmed women and children is abhorrent in every way. It's a tragedy on a human level, and I think it needs to be recognized and treated as such.

It does not mean that we should now embrace the 'religion of the peace' or support its ideology. I find it very ironic that the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, is now trying it's hardest to cover a backwards cult in tinsel and roses, all out of some warped sense of solidarity.

View attachment 700496

New Zealand's response:
The list goes on. The police request in the OP is just the tip of the ice berg for this collective insanity. I'm remaining optimistic about this just being a strong emotional response that is temporarily clouding the collective reasoning of this country.

This tragedy should not be about Islam, it should be about 50 human beings that have lost their lives at the hands of a madman. Call me a literal nazi, but is this knee jerk reaction not what the guy wanted all along?

This has turned into an epic rant so I'll stop here.

Also hello. I have just joined this community as a free speech refugee. I heard you have cows.
Of course the government wants everyone should give up their free will and their right to free speech. This is just the beginning.
 
Last edited:
It does not mean that we should now embrace the 'religion of the peace' or support its ideology. I find it very ironic that the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, is now trying it's hardest to cover a backwards cult in tinsel and roses, all out of some warped sense of solidarity.

This hijab shit is just fucking cringy and weird as fuck. Why the fuck do this? Do you go to a Holocaust memorial and spin a fucking dreidl? Does a white guy go to Wounded Knee and pound a drum and wear a fucking feather headdress?

This just makes no sense at all. Fuck this shithole country.
 
Internet Providers are racing to earn virtue points by censoring parts of the Internet that may be offensive
Honestly, you can really stop there.
The act was a senseless display of violence against innocent people. It is inexcusable and abhorrent.
The reaction, however, is wrong.
The restriction of information, for any reason, is a fundamentally dangerous idea that can bring nothing but problems by the precedent it sets alone.

I'll drop the snark for a moment and be real:
I don't like this video. I don't like that it exists. I don't like the people celebrating what it depicts. I don't like the fact that we have it, and I don't like the fact that this is the stance we have to take.

But it does exist, and we do have it. And to try to take that away, to deny it exists, to try to pretend it's not there?
That's dangerous. Governments can't be trusted with that kind of power. Internet Providers can't be trusted with that kind of power. People in general can't be trusted with that kind of power. Even if it disgusts us, any attempt to erase something like that is just unethical.
I don't fail to understand why the NZ government is reacting the way it is, but this is setting a precedent that is a step too far.
The beauty of the internet in the first place is that it offers free access to information to everyone. The slightest erosion of that idea risks legitimate damage to the concept as a whole.
 
Allowing people to view CP increases the market and encourages people to create more CP for profit. Nobody is making terrorist attack videos for profit.

What do you mean by profit? Every single tard who is filming himself going on a killing spree does it for profit! If it's not for money and business interest (on a bigger scale it is though), then at least for attention from other sickos. Having their bullshit "message" heard by millions is worth more to them than money, it's the most profit they can ever get in their life. The entire "business model" of terrorism is to spread the message and they're doing great thanks to mass media. Of course this kind of success encourages other terrorists and retards, nobody would seriously deny it. It seems that only the higher natural occurence of pedos in society compared to terrorists is what makes having a video on your computer legal or illegal.

I meant that more views/downloads of a CP video leads to a higher demand leads to more videos being created/more victims. The same does not apply to the terrorist attack video. Plus, nothing can be gained from CP other than sick enjoyment from pedophiles; the video of the shooting provides important context to the situation that we wouldn't have known without it. The dead muslims are still victims, but we know what happened to them now and the authorities in all parts of the world can use the video to better be able to prevent future terrorism victims.

If there's a demand, then there's always a supply, see above. What can be gained from possessing a copy of an evidence of a crime shouldn't be relevant if access to information is an "inalienable right". It can be used to identify the perp and the vicim, to see what happened and how it happened, for education/research purposes and so on. Of course you could also masturbate to it, but if that's the standard to define legality, nothing would be legal. Why should only "journalists" or law enforcement be allowed to see it? Are they above everyone else? I'm not even talking about CP necessarily, since everyone's ass starts clenching just hearing the word. What about snuff, bestiality or (adult) rape videos? There's lots of stuff produced besides CP with the sole intent to entertain the sickest of the sick, so where's the line and should there be one to begin with? There are already laws to punish any kind of involvement in the actual crime (production, distribution, incitement etc.) - that seems to be enough to discourage all kinds of criminals including terrorists, whistleblowers and credit card "hackers", but somehow it's not enough to discourage pedophiles? How are they so special?
 
Last edited:
I'm an Australian and in one night my country's internet turned North Korean. If this is their idea of limiting the spread of the footage, then clearly Telstra's boss failed at basic human psychology. It's called the Streisand Effect, the forbidden fruit is always more desirable. I had to switch internet provider because I can't miss a single day of Yanderedev drama. Hopefully this isn't how free press dies here in Oz. I call bullshit on their excuse for the protection of the masses. The guy fucking streamed the attack on Facebook, why isn't it blocked, huh? That's right, they just have money to bribe their way past the hypocrites, for everyone has their price.
 
What do you mean by profit? Every single tard who is filming himself going on a killing spree does it for profit! If it's not for money and business interest (on a bigger scale it is though), then at least for attention from other sickos. Having their bullshit "message" heard by millions is worth more to them than money, it's the most profit they can ever get in their life. The entire "business model" of terrorism is to spread the message and they're doing great thanks to mass media. Of course this kind of success encourages other terrorists and exceptional individuals, nobody would seriously deny it. It seems that only the higher natural occurence of pedos in society compared to terrorists is what makes having a video on your computer legal or illegal.



If there's a demand, then there's always a supply, see above. What can be gained from possessing a copy of an evidence of a crime shouldn't be relevant if access to information is an "inalienable right". It can be used to identify the perp and the vicim, to see what happened and how it happened, for education/research purposes and so on. Of course you could also masturbate to it, but if that's the standard to define legality, nothing would be legal. Why should only "journalists" or law enforcement be allowed to see it? Are they above everyone else? I'm not even talking about CP necessarily, since everyone's ass starts clenching just hearing the word. What about snuff, bestiality or (adult) rape videos? There's lots of stuff produced besides CP with the sole intent to entertain the sickest of the sick, so where's the line and should there be one to begin with? There are already laws to punish any kind of involvement in the actual crime (production, distribution, incitement etc.) - that seems to be enough to discourage all kinds of criminals including terrorists, whistleblowers and credit card "hackers", but somehow it's not enough to discourage pedophiles? How are they so special?

It is not your inalienable right to watch children getting raped wtf is wrong with you.
 
I agree. Some of these sites (like archive websites) might get unblocked, but you can kiss certain sites goodbye from here on out.

They probably already had these sites on a list and were just waiting for some excuse to block them all at once. What a cucked shithole of a slave country.
 
Honestly, you can really stop there.
The act was a senseless display of violence against innocent people. It is inexcusable and abhorrent.
The reaction, however, is wrong.
The restriction of information, for any reason, is a fundamentally dangerous idea that can bring nothing but problems by the precedent it sets alone.

I'll drop the snark for a moment and be real:
I don't like this video. I don't like that it exists. I don't like the people celebrating what it depicts. I don't like the fact that we have it, and I don't like the fact that this is the stance we have to take.

But it does exist, and we do have it. And to try to take that away, to deny it exists, to try to pretend it's not there?
That's dangerous. Governments can't be trusted with that kind of power. Internet Providers can't be trusted with that kind of power. People in general can't be trusted with that kind of power. Even if it disgusts us, any attempt to erase something like that is just unethical.
I don't fail to understand why the NZ government is reacting the way it is, but this is setting a precedent that is a step too far.
The beauty of the internet in the first place is that it offers free access to information to everyone. The slightest erosion of that idea risks legitimate damage to the concept as a whole.

My thoughts exactly. I realize my first post may come across as a bit alarmist, but have a read of this:

Democracy has worked due to the inherent pressure release valves that representation and dialogue offer society. Stifling free speech, discouraging dialogue and trying to create an ideological monolith, will eventually make a lot of people feel like they only have a voice through violence.

There is no universal truth in this world, yet these people not only believe they know what it is, they are positioning themselves as the custodians of everything good and moral. Anything that doesn't align is hate speech and must be repressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back