Bryce Edwards: Liberty under threat?

Glenn Greenwald (L) and John Key (R) have differing views on whether New Zealand has been involved in mass surveillance.

Will tomorrow's Dotcom/Greenwald Moment of Truth revelations about state surveillance in New Zealand actually change anything in the lead up to polling day? Should the public really be concerned about this issue? Do any of the allegations amount to an 'abuse of power' or an attack on liberty? To make up your mind about these questions, it's essential to watch some of the interviews from the last day - in particular, TV3's 12-minute Interview: Glenn Greenwald and TVNZ's 9-minute Interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald. Also of great interest is Q+A's interview, Dotcom's lawyer Bob Amsterdam: this is NZ's Watergate.

Prime Minister John Key has had an opportunity to reply to some of the issues raised - watch TVNZ's Government considered mass surveillance but ruled it out - John Key (9:51). See also, Michael Botur's The GCSB does not conduct mass surveillance on Kiwis - Key.

For reaction in the Twittersphere to the arguments of both sides, see my blog post Top tweets about Glenn Greenwald and New Zealand spying.

But it's in the blogosphere that some of the more interesting and forthright discussion has taken place. Blogger No Right Turn has been the most outraged by what both Greenwald and Key have stated. In his post, John Key lied to us about spying, the argument is put forward that 'this isn't just a political scandal. If true, its a crime on a massive scale... If the GCSB has been engaged in anything like what the NSA has been doing, the entire organisation should go to jail (either for directly intercepting or disclosing communications, or as a party or co-conspirator in the above). And so should any politician who signed off on it'.

A second No Right Turn post, "National security" or "National's security"?, responds to John Key's stated intention to declassify and distribute GCSB documents in order to prove his point: 'Its worth remembering that Key and his office are already under investigation by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for politically-motivated declassification decisions. I think this proves the case. It also shows that our "national security" apparatus is politicised and rotten to the core. Time to shut it down'.

The blogger also makes the call for those inside the security apparatus to do what the PM is doing and release their own documents: 'There's now no reason for anyone in the GCSB, NZDF, SIS or MFAT not to do the same. My PGP key and email address is in the sidebar, and I'll publish anything classified you send me. Let the leaks begin!'

The Internet Mana Party has been equally scathing of Key's intended use of security documents to make his case. According to Laila Harre and Hone Harawira, as reported by TVNZ, the Release of spy documents is an abuse of PM's authority.

A defence of the Government and the security agencies is strongly made on David Farrar's Kiwiblog, with a guest post by Charles Finny - see: Finny on Five Eyes. Not only is the point made about the value of New Zealand's security alliance with other western powers, but also how the Labour Party has traditionally been strongly behind the way the agencies work: 'What we now call GCSB is as much a creation of Labour as it is the National Party.... I can't believe that a Labour Leader would align himself with these forces and put this agreement and our position in it so much at risk. If his senior colleagues do not call Cunliffe on this, shame on them too. Our national security is too important to be put at risk by short term political opportunism'.

Farrar, himself, adds: 'David Cunliffe is now trying to buddy buddy up to Kim Dotcom and his hired speakers. If Dotcom's allegations are correct (which of course they are not), then this happened under the Cabinet David Cunliffe sat in. Is he saying Helen Clark lied to New Zealand? or is he just desperately trying to win back some votes on the left?'

Another blogger - this time from the left - backs up some of these points about Labour - see Stephen Keys' Greenwald, GCSB and the war on dissent. But more than that, Keys makes the case for why the issues being discussed about state surveillance are vitally important in a democracy, and therefore in the lead up to an election. He quotes Greenwald to illustrates this: 'when we know we're being watched, or think we're being watched, we engage in conformist behaviour, we limit the choices, we explore less... it's an assault on democracy, it's an assault on individual freedom'.

So will the revelations about state surveillance lead to debate and discussion over the next five days about New Zealand pulling out of its security alliance with western powers? This type of conflict was partly foreshadowed last year, in a column, Is cyber spying New Zealand's new anti-nuclear issue? At this stage, however, the opposition parties appear to be fairly limited in their promises about what they would do about the security agencies if they become the government. It's mostly about implementing reviews.

For more details about the whole debate, and why Dotcom thinks the revelations point to an attack on liberty, see Steve Kilgallon's Kim Dotcom to reveal spying details. This article also provides more information on Monday night's proceedings: 'Greenwald would speak first at the meeting tomorrow, while simultaneously releasing a report of his investigation on the news website The Interceptor. Dotcom would speak last, he said, providing "short and simple" evidence Key lied. Snowden will appear by video link, as will another exiled whistleblower, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange'.

Finally, for some humour on the subject of The Moment of Truth, see Andrew Gunn's Here comes a mega-download, which suggests that the revelation might be more of a 'nappy-changer' than a 'game-changer'.