Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Reports

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Reports are hard to find and don’t seem to be available online, so we’ve uploaded them. Here they are:

Will post 2012 once available.

UPDATE 29/08/13: Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2012 now available.

UPDATE 18/09/13: Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2013 now available.

28 Comments Posted

  1. Interesting to see that (page 9, 2011 report) one of the I-G’s “Work Plan” items (which date from 2008), with regard to the GCSB, is a:

    “Review of the Bureau’s means of confining its activities to foreign persons and foreign organisations and excluding NZ citizens or permanent residents from surveillance.”

    That worked out well…and it’s a bit odd for the I-G and GCSB to be claiming the legislation is unclear, now, if the I-G has supposedly been banging on about exactly this point since 2008.

  2. This is supposedly about the activities of the GCSB.. NOT Mr. ‘Dotcom’ ?

    Surely that is the question.. the activities of Mega Upload & other ‘scumbags ?’ is not being discussed here.. is it ??


  3. police source said Wormald has argued the answer to his question has been taken out of context. He said he was asked about “physical surveillance” and was not referring to the snooping of emails and phonecalls which GCSB is understood to have carried out.

    Asked if police obtained their own interception warrant allowing them to listen to Dotcom’s conversations, Wormald replied: “We certainly did not.” When Davison moved on to questions about the December 14 meeting between police, Crown Law and US authorities, Wormald said he would “rather not” name the other group in the room – now known to have been the GCSB.

    Davison finally says: “So apart from the surveillance which [the police surveillance team] might have been going to undertake on your behalf was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand to your knowledge?” Wormald replies: “No there wasn’t.”

    So GCSB used the Echelon capabilities to spy on Dotcom. This suggests Hagar may be right.


    The “spooks” at the centre of the latest Dotcom scandal may have intercepted communications by camping out near the German millionaire’s house and deploying specialist snooping equipment.

    Author and journalist Nicky Hager, whose 1996 book Secret Power lifted the lid on the shadowy Government Communications Security Bureau, said the agency’s spies were “not spies in the normal sense”.

    “They’re technicians . . . and they are the people who do a technical job.”
    Hager’s book traced New Zealand’s involvement in the global Echelon network, which spies on communications, including emails and phone calls. He interviewed a number of GCSB staff for the book.

    The GCSB’s involvement in the Dotcom case has raised questions about how and what information was collected on the internet entrepreneur.

    Hager said the fact the GCSB operated without warrants limited its options, because any snooping which necessitated planting a device would require one. “They can legally go out and listen to the airwaves, because that’s not planting a device.

    “So they could theoretically sit on a hill and pick up signals. Those signals intelligence officers are very good . . . they pick up all the local radio signals so basically they would be picking up his mobile-phone traffic.”
    The other way they could spy on Dotcom was through the Waihopai listening station, which is part of the Echelon network. “They’d actually just plug in his email address, his name, his company name whatever and see what comes off it.”

    “But in New Zealand I don’t think they would do this. They would just have someone camping nearby, or sitting between there and the next mobile tower.”

  4. Russel is right about one thing – the parallel with the teapot saga.

    There’s currently mass hysteria in the media and opposition, and in a few weeks everybody’s going to wonder why there was such a big fuss over something so minor.

    Another parallel – the irony that Kim Dotcom is squealing about having his phone tapped – when in the past he’s boasted about doing EXACTLY that to make money. He even said he was selling access to peoples privates phone systems for $200 a pop.

  5. Armstrong, O’Sullivan and Holmes – in unison. This is more than a mistake, this is incompetence on a grand scale or …

    maybe it’s a sign that the days of this government are numbered, maybe it’s a sign that some bureacrats serve someone other than us – others of their class/estate and not us the people of their own country.

  6. Mr Key said he had made it clear he expected better from both the GCSB and the Security Intelligence Service in future.

    However, former GCSB acting director Simon Murdoch warned his political masters that the bureau was under strain just four months before its work on the Dotcom case.

    In its annual report last October, Mr Murdoch wrote that it had been through four CEOs in a year, there had been several efficiency reviews, a fiscal tightening, and an office move.

    He said these “stresses” were the primary factor behind a workforce survey that showed “staff concern about levels of drive, clarity and alignment”.
    He also wrote that in some of its intelligence-gathering work “GCSB struggled to make headway because of critical staff absences”.

    Labour has claimed Mr Key neglected his duty to oversee the bureau, and yesterday, the party’s deputy leader, Grant Robertson, said the concerns raised in the annual report were a further sign of this.

    A Cabinet meeting is taking place. An aide enters and whispers in the Prime Minister’s ear. He stands up.

    Prime Minister: Ladies and gentlemen, Operation Sauerkraut has been successfully carried out. The multimillionaires in Hollywood can sleep soundly tonight. The threat to civilisation as we know it is over.

    Deputy Prime Minister: What about the threat to our parliamentary majority?

    Crush the rights of workers, commit a few illegalities – all to serve the interests of US corporates – and these people are negotiating for us in the TPP talks?

  7. In the planning of Operation Debut, police asked the Government’s spies to track internet millionaire Kim Dotcom and his associates – and if he presented any risk to officers on arrest.

    Despite the resulting over-the-top swoop on Dotcom’s mansion, featuring armed police and helicopters, Dotcom presented no threat. However, indignant at his treatment, the 39-year-old German tech mogul has since exacted his revenge on Government figures and top public servants.

    He and his legal team have exposed a series of legal blunders which threaten to blow the case apart, impugn New Zealand’s international reputation, and potentially expose the Crown to a massive law suit. From Prime Minister John Key to the officer in charge of the case, reputations lie shredded in the fallout. Those caught up in that fallout so far:

    Quite a list so far, I wonder if it might be found to be a little incomplete.

  8. For the real conflict in this story isn’t between political parties. Rather, it is a power struggle between largely faceless public servants and our democratically elected MPs.

    As in any episode of Yes Prime Minister, one can imagine Acting Prime Minister Bill English signing off the suppression order on the surveillance as a Sir Humphrey Appleby-like spook mutters darkly about the ”need to know” and ”national security”.

    Just what the police were doing calling in the bureau in the first place is as curious as the spooks’ spectacular incompetence in not identifying Dotcom as a New Zealand resident.

    Those are, as Dotcom’s legal team rightly observe, very concerning matters and the public has every right to know what occurred.

    I suspect Key will feel more confident in holding the feet of the spooks concerned to the fire if he has the support and encouragement of other political leaders.

    Opposition parties would also do well to remember that the same bureaucrats who have seemingly exceeded their statutory powers and acted illegally in the name of our Government could well be doing the same, if they were on the Treasury benches, and it is in the interests of all that their bumbling misdeeds be exposed.

    It is easy to say the buck for whatever has gone on should stop somewhere in the Beehive, but it would be tragic if, having secured a political scalp for one party or another to hang from its belt, our Parliament didn’t probe further into the systemic and cultural environment that has allowed this farce to snowball.

    It’s interesting that a former PM, Geoffrey Palmer supports there being no further investigation because our “security” organisations should be kept secret. And he is a lawyer who once wrote a book called Unbridled Power – presuming it was not an apology for some having this power and not those who are accountable to us, what changed once he he became a politician in government?

  9. Mr Key told Parliament this week that the GCSB realised it had broken the law about a week before it told him on September 17, but there has been no explanation of how the penny suddenly came to drop after so long. Until that is cleared up, there will be a lingering suspicion that the bureau came clean only when it became obvious that its operation would be made public during Dotcom’s High Court battle against extradition to the United States.

    Separate to Justice Neazor’s inquiry is the serious matter of what Dotcom’s lawyer, Paul Davison, described in the High Court this week as inconsistencies in evidence Detective Inspector Grant Wormald gave the court last month, when he said there was no other surveillance of Dotcom.

    Mr Wormald is a member of the police’s Organised and Financial Crime Agency, and led the raid on Dotcom’s mansion. The agency had asked the GCSB to spy on Dotcom in the first place, to ascertain if he posed a potential threat to arresting officers.

    Mr Wormald and the GCSB appear to have some explaining to do

  10. Police officers told the Government’s spies in February that surveillance of Kim Dotcom may have been illegal. But after its legal department reviewed the case, the Government Communications Security Bureau concluded their actions were legitimate.

    Inquiries by The Dominion Post have revealed police first raised the problem with GCSB agents at a meeting on February 16. Mr Key said this week GCSB became aware of the law-breaking about a fortnight ago.

    The law-breaking only became public when Dotcom’s legal team questioned the identity of a “mystery group” of officials who attended a meeting to plan Dotcom’s arrest.

    GCSB attempted to have its role covered up, asking acting prime minister Bill English to sign a ministerial certificate suppressing details in August, while Mr Key was in the United States. The performance of the GCSB’s legal department will now be the subject of discussions between its director, Ian Fletcher, and State Services Commissioner Ian Rennie.

    A police spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the operation debrief took place on February 16.

    Greens co-leader Russel Norman said the GCSB flouted the same laws cameraman Bradley Ambrose was accused of breaching in the “teapot tapes” saga.
    “When he [Mr Key] was taped in a public cafe by a media person discussing matters of public interest, Key kicked up an almighty fuss . . . If Prime Minister Key really feels so strongly about a person’s right to privacy, then he should back my call for the police to investigate the illegal surveilling of New Zealand residents by a government spy agency.”

  11. Dotcom needs no defending (and is getting none from here). Thanks to your beloved incompetent PM, he will have no trouble suing our gov’t. And I don’t think Keys will be getting a Chrissy card from the whitehouse this year 🙂

  12. I realise you are playing the fool here, but I’ll state the obvious anyway – this is not about dotcom. And the only people “defending dotcom” are those whose failure to keep to due process means the chances of going ahead with a prosecution (let alone gaining a conviction) are now dire/dim.

    It must be so simple in the world of your washing machine – oh let’s spin it that anyone trying to hold the government to account is on the side of someone under a criminal investigation – then they will ignore the incompetence of a Key lead ministry and his protection of the tea party enabled corrupt lying minister guilty of campaign fraud. If it becomes a matter of us and them, whose side people are on, then maybe the illegality, lies and tolerance for corruption of those in the coalition government can be put into the past.

  13. SPC says “Why the obsession with throwing mud at the victim of unlawful behaviour?”

    Why the Green obsession with defending someone who
    – made millions from numerous pornography sites that expoit young women.
    – has been conviceted for fraud, embezzlement, and insider trading.
    – is wanted for massive copyright infringement
    – recently tweeted a link to a list of rape jokes he thought were funny.

    And why are the Greens jumping up and down to defend him ? All because one of the two authorities tracking him were technically error in their assessment of his visa – even though the police were still allowed to track him.

  14. Why the obsession with throwing mud at the victim of unlawful behaviour?

    I can only conclude that it is partisanship to the National cause that drives someone to attack anyone directly or indirectly involved in a matter that has exposed their lack of competence. Because it requires a complete lack of respect for both holding government’s accountable and also for protecting the values of our political, executive, legislative and legal society. What else but base political partisanship – the sort that allows Banks to remain in a ministerial portfolio.

    The rights we have, we all have. And thus are defended in every case – what else are we defending?

    I will resort to the point made by Martin Niemoller (a Lutheran) about 1930’s Germany

    First they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist, then the socialists, then the trade unionists, then the Social Democrats, then the liberals, and then they came for those who cited civil liberties and human rights when speaking out for these people, and then they came for right wing Christians who did not get involved in politics – because “we” were not Nazis – and there was no one left to speak out for “me”.

  15. So the Greens are putting everything on the line to fight for someone who
    – makes money from the trading of porn of young girls
    – is a convicted fraudster
    – is a convicted inside trader
    – is a convicted embezzler

    All because ONE of the authorities tracking Dotcom, technically shouldn’t have been (although it was ok for the other one)

  16. Of course when an organisation like GCSB is in bed with those performing rendition to incarceration without legal rights/status, a bit of torture and a lot of psychological warfare; well the concept of keeping within legal boundaries yourself becomes a bit archaic.

    When you relate the illegal information gathering practices to the handing over of files to the said country it all becomes self explanatory.

    The said country is a super power accountable to no one on the planet, and anyone in bed with them, from Blair to us, gets its hands dirty. This is what they want from their friends and expect from their allies.

    Of course our resident National Party apologist, wants to make it all about the victim of the power abuse, a bit like how those bearing the burden of the global market system – the unemployed, are portrayed as undeserving.

    There really is a connection between apology for capricous use of power internationally and attacks on the poor locally.

  17. toad says “The criminal responsibility for uploading porn that transgresses the bounds of legality should lie with those who upload it, not with the site to which it is uploaded.”

    So if Kim Dotcom builds numerous websites, like to make money out of sexual exploitation of girls, you think it’s not his responsibility?

    How ethically screwed up are The Greens?

    If you’ve got evidence the the GCSB are spying on other Kiwis, then you should show it.

    Otherwise you’re going all out covering yourself in crap in the gutter to protect just one person – someone who makes millions from porn peddling and exploiting girls.

    What a great look for the Greens.

  18. The old adage, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, the issue of Dotcoms business dealings is not a justification for ignoring law breaking in NZ, the fact is, the public need to have confidence in the security agencies of NZ. If the agencies are not operating as required under NZ law, questions should be answered as to who messed up in order to rectify the problem.

  19. @photonz1 7:28 PM

    You really are clutching at straws. The criminal responsibility for uploading porn that transgresses the bounds of legality should lie with those who upload it, not with the site to which it is uploaded.

    And, without wanting to Godwin the thread, when you start saying that the rule of law should not apply to particular individuals or groups because you have a personal dislike of them, I am sure you know where that heads.

  20. “How many different websites exploiting these young girls did Dotcom have?”
    You’d be better to ask John Banks, they’re close friend ya know..

    Russel is not batting for Dotcom. He is batting for Kiwis (including residents) who are supposed to be free from being spyed on by the GCSB.
    BTW, the GCSB don’t give a scat about porn/exploitation; they only acted because the Yanks told them to because the American ‘film’ industry were losing money.

  21. toad says “Even a scumbag serial rapist like Stewart Murray Wilson is entitled to be treated by fair process under the law.”

    Yeah right – do you really think there’s a single person in the country who beleives the Greens would go into bat for Stewart Murray Wilson in the same way?

    That’s delusional.

    It’s a massive strategic stuff up by the Green if/when the country comes to realise you’re going into bat for someone who made millions off exploiting young women and girls in websites that peddled porn.

    How many girls in those movies were not there of their own free will?

    How many were underage children?

    How many different websites exploiting these young girls did Dotcom have?

    Why on earth would the Greens stand up for someone who does this, over a what is nothing more than a minor technical error in surveilance?

  22. Requiring the enforcers of the law to act within it, has nothing to do with Dotcom’s culpability. However I have yet to be convinced he did anything more than Google, Microsoft and Apple do with their cloud services every day.

  23. @photonz1 5:39 PM

    You really are plumbing the depths there, photonz1. The issue is the accountability of the GCSB (and SIS for that matter).

    Kim Dotcom’s business activities are irrelevant to that, whatever you or I or the “female members of the Green Party” may think about them.

    Even a scumbag serial rapist like Stewart Murray Wilson is entitled to be treated by fair process under the law.

    The issue in the Kim Dotcom case is that both the Police and the GCSB have failed to do that.

  24. Russel – how do the female members of the Green Party feel about you jumping in boots and all to defend someone who made millions out of running numerous dodgy websites that peddled porn of exploited women and girls?

Comments are closed.