Recent Posts...
Page 2 of 25
Archive
Cowboys are gay (plus NGA and Telescum) | Apr 28, 2006 00:54
View the gallery for this post
Shane Thompson says he asked Telescum to upgrade his Xtra connection on Sunday, and it was done before the sun set on Monday. Meanwhile, the upgrade for my connection with Orcon is still sitting in the goddamn queue, nearly three weeks after the original request.
The explanation given by Russell's Telescum insider only explains why new line orders and third-party ADSL connections have to be separated - it doesn't explain why Telescum seems to be prioritising Xtra customers over customers of other ISPs. Oh, alright, it's pretty bloody obvious *why* Telescum is prioritising Xtra over other ISPs, but I was under the impression that Telescum has moved to a strategy of appeasement now, in the hopes of avoiding the dreaded regulatory bitchslap. We're on to you, buddy.
I think I got the sentiment right the first time: Die dirty telcos, die die die.
Reader Matthew Sew Hoy notes that cable is a pretty economic option, too - he's getting a 2Mbps connection with 20GB a month for $69, which isn't too shabby. Of course, cable is only available in Wellington and Christchurch, and via my arch-nemesis, TestiCular.
Rob Russell complains about Telescum installing obsolete equipment that doesn't even *support* broadband out in the country.
--
Hope some of you made it to The Great Dictator on ANZAC Day - otherwise, it's on again today, but only if you don't have a job to go to.
The South Park segment from The Aristocrats is on YouTube (Hat-tip: Phil Steele), and here's the NGA for this week (click on the cartoon to view it).
Just two more recommendations: Manderlay is my pick for the festival. It's only a sequel to Dogville in a very loose sense, so don't worry if you haven't seen it. It's set around a small cotton plantation in the South that didn't quite pick up the fact that slavery was over, some 70 years after the civil war. Our heroine, travelling through in daddy's convoy, is determined to make a difference. The whole thing is consciously staged as a thought experiment on the nature of freedom - and it's pretty bleak. Orwellian bleak.
And the last one, A Fistful of Dynamite, is foolproof. I mean, a Western about a bandito and a dynamiting Irishman robbing banks and blowing stuff up in the middle of a revolution? How could you go wrong? Going in, my friend advised me that Brokeback has been the outing of the entire profession: All cowboys are gay.
[Minor spoiler follows, but it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't make sense when you see it anyway - the whole cinema was hysterical with laughter, and I don't think it was meant to be funny.]
Okay, so James Coburn (the dynamiting Irishman) had some nice boots, so what? But then came the flashbacks. It was easy to dismiss at first - with slow-motion soft-focus close-ups accompanied by twinkly fairy music, who *wouldn't* look gay? But then in every shot of Coburn with his girlfriend, his affectionate male friend would also be in the background, getting all slow-mo and soft-focused as well. Even when he's kissing her, his "good friend" would just be hanging over his shoulder smiling approvingly and start nudging him from behind. With his elbow.
Then he started prancing. I don't mean skipping. I mean full-on, I've-watched-Sound-of-Music-too-many-times prancing. In slow-motion and soft-focus.
And then... and then there was the last scene...
Judging by the audience response, it rivals Brokeback to the Future.
[P.S. SPL has wrestling scenes - that is, real martial arts fighters Sammo Hung and Donnie Yen actually pull wrestling (real- and pro-) moves off on each other, which is a first that I've seen. Doesn't have much else going for it, though...]
The Good, the Bad and the 256k | Apr 26, 2006 18:29
Now is a good time to upgrade your internet connection if you're not already suckling from the sweet bosom of a 3.5Mbs line. I'm not - and I'm pissed about it. I put in the order weeks ago, and Orcon tells me that "Telecom are only able to provision a set amount of orders from [Orcon] each day" and that I was just going to have to wait.
Anyway, I've been shopping around, and here's the low-down:
[Note: All except Iconz offer a $10 discount if you sign up with them for toll calls, too. They do cheap international calls, but they don't have the capped national deals that Telecom do, so our flat's ended up going back to Telecom for toll calls, even though it means we lose the $10 discount with Orcon - one or two $3 Weekend calls more than makes up for it.]
Low-end users
Iconz offer the best overall plan, with a speed of 2Mbs and a 1GB traffic allowance. That's only enough to peck at multimedia material, but if that's what you do, then this is probably the best deal. $40/month. Excess usage at $20/GB.
ihug has the fastest plan, at 3.5Mbs, but has a much smaller traffic allowance (250MB, or 500MB if you have toll calls with ihug as well). This poses a problem, since they charge additional traffic at 6c/MB (=$60/GB). This is okay if you know you're really not going to download much, but if you're not going to download much, then the 3.5Mbs connection is redundant, anyway. $40/month, or $30 if you have toll calls with them.
Xtra has two plans aimed at low-end users. One is identical to the Iconz plan, except it's $10 more - but you get a $10 discount if you get calls with Telecom. Sure, you're encouraging anti-competitive behaviour, but you don't have to worry about dealing with Telecom *and* a separate ISP. $50/month, or $40 with tolls. Drops you down to 64Kbs once you reach your traffic limit.
Xtra also offers the worst plan in the country. Their Xtra Broadband Basic gets you a 256Kbs connection with 200MB of data. For a 4/5th of the price, you get 1/8th of the speed and 1/5th of the traffic. Go figure. $40/month, or $30 with tolls. Excess usage at $20/GB.
Mid-range users
All 5 ISPs I looked at (Iconz, ihug, Orcon, Slingshot, Xtra) offer a near-identical 3.5Mbs plan with 10GB traffic allowance for the same price. ihug's stands out (a little) for offering an additional 5GB allowance on top of the $10 discount if you do toll calls through them.
At the mid-range plan, ihug doesn't charge for excess usage, it just slows down your connection to 64k once you reach the traffic allowance limit. At 10 or 15GB, that should take a while. Unless, of course, you're one of the...
Users who may or may not be engaging in illegal and immoral infringements of intellectual property
For users who use 20GB a month, downloading what is certainly education and legal non-proprietary material, ihug's high-end plan (at $90) is $10 cheaper than anyone else. At 40GB of traffic each month, ihug still comes first-equal with Slingshot ($110), while Xtra, Iconz and Orcon costs around $150.
But Slingshot's got flexibility - Xtra and Iconz charge $20 for each gigabyte over the traffic allowance, ihug charges $5, Orcon charges $2, but Slingshot charges a mere $1.67 for the first 3GB, all the way down to 60c/GB if you're getting 50GB's worth. This means an ability to download as much as you please without having the high fixed costs. Perfect for downloading, um, Scientology DVDs and stuff.
Best. Hitler. Ever. | Apr 24, 2006 15:39
For ANZAC Day: Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, on at the World Cinema Showcase.
It is, without a doubt, the finest Hitler spoof that has ever been - or will ever be - created. Chaplin's caricatures of Hitler's angry-man oratory makes a jackass of his maniacal vitriol, and paired with his own big, fat, sausage-wielding Mussolini, they do one awesome fascist-jam.
It's a fantastic piece of satire, a work of genius in its own right, but at the end of it, Chaplin throws the fiction out the window to deliver a genuine and personal speech.
Even reading it now brings a tear to my eyes.
Maybe it's the context - first screened in 1940, Chaplin's messages of humanity feels tragically, heroically hopeless; yet here we are, in an age where we have every reason to be hopeful, and that message resounds more than anything I've heard in my lifetime.
I'll leave you with a snippet of the speech (the full speech, including an audio version, can be found here):
To those who can hear me I say, "Do not despair." The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die; and the power they took from the people will return to the people and so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers: Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel; who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate; only the unloved hate, the unloved and the unnatural."
Happy ANZAC Day.
(The Great Dictator is showing at Academy Cinema tomorrow (ANZAC Day) at 13:00 and on Friday at 13:30.)
No Nudity. No Violence. Unspeakable Obscenity. | Apr 21, 2006 01:43
View the gallery for this post
The World Cinema Showcase is now in Auckland! More reviews next week, but The Aristocrats is on tonight and Sunday only, so I figured I should get in quick.
When the promo for The Aristocrats went on about how obscene it was, I thought it was just PR fluff. I've spent four years in student media; I sat through Irreversible; I've looked upon the Muhammad cartoons with my own mortal eyes. How bad could one little documentary about comedians be?
Rather than give a synopsis of the film, I'll refer you to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 section 3(2). It defines "objectionable" with 6 different categories. Each category covers a particular kind of behaviour, which, because my mother reads this blog, I won't describe here.
Suffice to say, my mother would not approve. Actually, it's the sort of thing that Big Bertha down in Cell Block D would not approve.
In a mere 89 minutes, The Aristocrats doesn't just touch on one of these categories, or even two. It covers all six. Thoroughly. Repeatedly. Often simultaneously. I think they only did necrophilia twice, but all the other ones they, er, rammed though again and again. Flogged like a very funny dead horse. Can't remember if there was flogging. No horses though. Can't say the same for other animals. There were beef entrails, but I was a bit confused about where they came from.
[Update: I take it back. There *was* a horse. A three-pound Shetland pony, in fact. You don't want me to tell you the rest.]
It's all part of a single joke that gets retold by a gaggle of comedians. The joke itself isn't really particularly dirty. It's more like a vessel. A vessel that allows the comedian to commune with unspeakable beings in the deepest, darkest planes of Hell and channel its very essence, of which earthly dirtiness is but a feeble imitation.
And when they manage to tap into that essence, rays of filth blast out from their mouths, as if they were possessed by a deified Rodney Dangerfield.
And it's really bloody hilarious. The energy, imagination (eww...), skill and uninhibited glee that accompanies the filth is what makes the movie, but at its core, it really is a very simple examination of the essence of dirty jokes. It's the dirty joke of dirty jokes. It's the ideal of obscenity. It's the thing that makes your average dirty jokes want to write indignant letters to the editor and boycott its products.
So yeah, it really is pretty goddamn obscene.
A range of medium is explored - it's got straight stand-ups, actors, a mime (so very, very wrong), physical comedy, magicians, jugglers, a South Park skit (Cartman tells the joke); one guy even tells the joke as a card-trick.
Bob Saget nearly breaks down from the overwhelming power of his own obscenity; the South Park lads live close to the Hellmouth anyway, and their appearance just felt alarmingly natural; Sarah Silverman never tells the joke, but still manages to channel its power.
And if gospels were meant to be sung by a chorus angels, then this joke was meant to be screeched by Gilbert Gottfried. I've never liked him before, but really this is his joke, through and through.
It's on at 20:30 tonight at the Academy Cinema and again on Sunday at 20:15.
[P.S. Had an interview with Simon Pound on bFM yesterday, talking about the international student community and such. Check it out.]
In the meantime, here's the latest installment of Newtown Ghetto Anger:
Boys will be boys | Apr 19, 2006 11:52
The police has finally revealed that Wan Biao was the victim of a (obviously blotched) kidnap plot. I'm not quite sure why they were keeping this back, since a post on Skykiwi.com on the 16th (Sunday) cites Consul Li of the Chinese Consulate-General in Auckland as saying that they received a fax from Chinese police saying that a Chinese student in New Zealand has been kidnapped.
I was going to blog about this yesterday, but I got seriously sidetracked while reading through the rest of posts on Skykiwi. First it was "more Chinese ppl should die! hahahaha!", "fuck you Chinese people" (in Chinese), then the Chinese people lashed back, saying that us Kiwi Chinese are up ourselves and that we're kidding ourselves if we think our skin will turn white, that we're never going to be New Zealanders and that we're not Chinese anymore. *Then* the original poster declared that he was actually Korean, and the thread then went on to call Koreans an inferior race, with a brief pseudo-historical spiel on Sino-Korean relations and imperialism in the nth century. One poster pleaded for people not to stereotype Chinese people as criminals, the next poster agreed, saying that if the Koreans wants to say it to his face he'll fucking kill him. Cellphone numbers were traded in as a modern variation on throwing down the gauntlet, and more obscene threats and macho posturing ensued.
[Update: Moderators have cleaned up the board since the weekend.]
God knows, people who have flame wars on discussion boards are a small, vocal and fucked up minority who represent no one but their online alter-ego selves. It's still pretty depressing to see how immature some of these kids are.
But that's the point - a lot of international students are just pimply teenagers. Just as university hostels around the country are full of first-years from small towns, ill-adjusted to their new-found freedom, looking to drink themselves into a stupor every night, most of our international students are fresh-faced young-uns who are every bit as immature as their Kiwi counterparts.
Most 18-20 year-olds are simply not equipped to deal with moving to a new country and establishing a new social network from scratch with people of an entirely different culture using their very limited language abilities.
Imagine if 30,000 first-years from Palmerston North suddenly got dropped in a Chinese city.
Of course they're going to stick together. Of course it's going to make it more difficult to integrate, to learn the language, which will reinforce their isolation, etc. And it's this isolation that keeps law enforcement at arms-length and makes them vulnerable to crime.
--
I use to be a tutor in the Commerce department up at Victoria University. I never took commerce, but it was basically a "politics paper for commerce students". (Just, you know, don't want people thinking that I've ever studied commerce or anything.)
Most of the tutors for that paper caught a lot of people plagiarising. On the low-end, it was just failing to reference material, which was understandable. Most international students caught for this claim that they thought they were supposed to use content from the textbook, to prove their knowledge of the course material, and we generally let it slide.
On the high-end of offending, some were pretty stupid. I've had one student hand in an essay from a previous year - forgetting that the topics have changed! The worse one though, was an extremely well-written essay with "Click here to return to top" at the end.
In between, a lot of students tried to plead their way through. It was tough - their parents have spent a lot to get them here. Contrary to stereotypes, many international students come from poor families who have sacrificed a lot to get them here. But the fact remained that their English wasn't enough to get them through Shortland Street, let alone a university paper (even a commerce paper). Though the course was piss easy, they just didn't have the language skills.
And they passed. Not because of their pleading, but because the powers-that-be wanted us to pass them. A high fail rate will scare away students, and those who fail first year courses will probably drop out, losing money for the university.
It felt like a part of a scam, whereby the university passed students with a nudge and a wink, confident that the student will be too scared to tell their parents that they have no idea what's going on. And the longer they stay, the more difficult it will be for students to come out and say it's been a waste of time.
--
The point where the poor quality of education and social isolation connects is the education industry and the government, which are obsessed with getting the numbers up without thought to what the students are actually getting out of it. They miss the point that they're no longer bringing international students to New Zealand, they're simply bringing international students in to a community of international students that they've created.
And they've created a monster - what do you think happens when you put 30,000 freshers together and leave them to their own device?
NGA: God loves a long weekend | Apr 13, 2006 22:20
View the gallery for this post
Plenty more phishes in the sea... | Apr 12, 2006 17:11
Mike O'Donnell, Head of Business at TradeMe, confirms that a phishing attacking is doing the rounds, but says that only around 75 TradeMe users have had their passwords stolen. Presumably a great deal more people received the email, but O'Donnell says that users are wising up and becoming less likely to be suckered in.
The compromised accounts were picked up by TradeMe's own internal systems that specifically detects accounts that have been hijacked by phishers (phishermen?), though O'Donnell wouldn't tell me how they work, as that would allow them to be circumvented.
O'Donnell also makes the point that TradeMe has 1.2 million users, and that only 75 were affected. All the flagged users have been contacted to have their passwords changed.
I've had a fantastic response to this issue. Thanks to everyone who wrote in.
Matt Nippert, formerly of the Hutt, suggests one way of scamming these accounts:
How's about listing expensive items for sale (you know, microdot cellphones, wall-size televisions), collecting the money and not delivering?
Usually, people are suspicious of first-time sellers trying to fence heaps of pricey goods - the trade history acts as quite a good incentive for good behaviour. But if you can steal an account with a track-record of credibility? You're home and hosed."
TradeMe deals in trust, so it makes sense for people to try to "steal" that trust. However, you'd still need to collect the money. I suppose a fake bank account is possible (though requiring a whole lot of effort and a different criminal skill-set); or you could get people to send cheques.
Alf West, over at Scambusters, cites one case where this problem was avoided by the scammer skipping the country - after collecting almost $21,000 from TradeMe buyers.
West suggests that it may be the work of a Romanian group that Scambusters have been following. This group usually posts fake auctions and requires you to wire the money via Western Union. The site also has a range of other documented TradeMe scams.
A few readers suggest that the aim may not be TradeMe itself. Many users use the same passwords for all their transactions, and so having access to their TradeMe passwords may allow them to get access to other accounts.
Duane Griffin, however, points to a more insidious possibility - extortion.
My guess would be a good old-fashioned protection racket. TradeMe gets a note saying, 'Nice business you got there. Shame if something was to happen to it'. Apparently this sort of thing is quite common in certain sectors, although the attacks are usually DDoS campaigns. See, for example,
[this story on cyber extortion]."
It's a very interesting suggestion - especially since TradeMe is now owned by a big-ass multinational sugar-daddy with deep pockets. However, Mike O'Donnell says emphatically that TradeMe has never been the victim of extortion attempts.
[Geekspeak begins]
Heather Gaye explains that fake page is only generated by a programme on the server, and the captured password is processed by this programme.
Since the code is invisible to anyone without access to the web server, it's not really possible to work out exactly what's happening to your details. Mind you, most likely the culprit (excluding the possibility that they're a shit-hot hacker) has admin rights to that server, so if you can find a Korean scuba-diving enthusiast to help with the translation, you might be able to track down your culprit, or at least follow the breadcrumbs a little further."
Mark Montgomerie also notes that the email server is a known spam server.
Duane Griffin sums it up:
Probably not much point trying to follow the email trail, most likely it will just lead to innocent but insecure third-parties. The host harvesting the details also looks like a cracked 3rd party server. The site it is on seems to be a legit company.
The page is being generated by a PHP script and it is just sending the details to itself. What the script then does with it is impossible to tell without cooperation from the server admins or their ISP. TradeMe's security team and/or the cops will no doubt be looking into that as a matter of urgency. If the attackers are sensible they will be sending the data somewhere they can pick it up untraceably, though. If they are smart they will be virtually impossible to trace."
[Geekspeak ends]
WARNING: TradeMe Scam in Progress | Apr 11, 2006 22:46
TradeMe is under attack. More precisely, a "phishing" campaign is targeting New Zealand emails in the hopes of penetrating TradeMe. Why? I don't know...
I received an email entitled "TradeMe Account Security Measures" from TradeMe:
We recently noticed one or more attempts to log in to your TradeMe account from a different IP address.
If you recently accessed your account while traveling, the unusual log in attempts may have been initiated by you. However, if you did not initiate the log ins, please visit TradeMe as soon as possible to check-up your account information:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/members/login.aspx
Thanks for your patience.
Sincerely, TradeMe
The last real phishing email I received was purportedly from Westpac. It sounded like it was written by a bunch of Russian teenagers (it probably was), so it didn't stand much of a chance. But this one was good - good grammar, good spelling, got the corporate tone down. It could've fooled me.
Unfortunately for them, I have multiple emails, and my Salient account has never been used for TradeMe. And my trusty open-source email client (Sylpheed-Claws) warned me that the trademe.co.nz link was a fake that took me to http://wandokrc.or.kr/bbs/trademe.php (DO NOT ENTER YOUR DETAILS HERE) instead.
It looks perfect. But then, of course it would, since they just copied the TradeMe page and altered some of the code so that it collects your login details.
I've been trying to do more sleuthing on this, but unfortunately I've reached the limits of my geek prowess, so - and this is one of the experimental aspects of this blog - I'm asking you, dear readers, to help. Think of it as open-source journalism.
[Geekspeak begins]
I'm not sure if there's much of a trail, but so far, I've linked the original email (see below) to a server called www4.pcdc.net. The WHOIS search came up with nothing, so I can't go any further with the email trail. There's a reference to http://adamisasexybitch.us/, but I don't know what to make of it.
The fake login page itself is right here. I've looked through the page source, but have been unable to find where the page is submitting the information to. It's probably because I wouldn't know a Java applet from my arse. Help?
[Geekspeak ends]
Suffice to say, this is obviously a scam to steal your password. And obviously, don't give them your password! Make sure you check the URL bar at the top of your browser. If it doesn't start with http://www.trademe.co.nz, then you're not really at TradeMe.
But the bigger question is - why? Why would someone want TradeMe passwords? TradeMe does not keep customers' bank account numbers, and their credit card numbers can only be used to pay TradeMe. So even if I got hold of someone else's login, bought gold bullions on his account, I'd still need to pay for the bloody things (with my own money) before I could get my hands on them. And I'd need a physical address, which surely is the downfall of any internet criminal.
The worst that I can do is make the user commit to a whole lot of transactions that would never be completed, and to funnel more money into TradeMe. This makes me *very* suspicious.
Given that there is no obvious financial gain, I can only guess that this is an attack on TradeMe itself. Perhaps this has something to do with TradeMe's recent sale. Or perhaps a competitor is trying to discredit TradeMe. Or perhaps there's a way to profit off stolen accounts, but I haven't thought of it yet.
It's more than an act of whimsy, though. The perpetrator was skilled, had access to an email server, and most importantly, had some kind of spam list (a good spam list is worth good money).
And unlike the Westpac scam, this wasn't just a crew that targeted banks everywhere and just chanced upon a bank in New Zealand. They were aiming for TradeMe.
If you've received this email, please drop me a line. Maybe a pattern of who's been receiving it will begin to emerge. And if you've got more information, drop me a line too.
Checking out these fake pages is an interesting exercise, and alerts you as to how a little attention to detail can make it visually indistinguishable from the real thing. Just don't forget to close the page once you're done, lest you forget about it later and try to log on!
And if you're ever in doubt, change your password.
[Email source attached. keith@salient.org.nz is an alias for my Paradise account.]
--start--
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: MUNGED@paradise.net.nz
X-Envelope-To: MUNGED@paradise.net.nz
Received: (qmail 5846 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2006 09:57:50 -0000
Received: from tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz (HELO linda-4.paradise.net.nz) (203.96.152.172)
by internal-pop3-2.paradise.net.nz with SMTP; 11 Apr 2006 09:57:50 -0000
Received: from smtp-3.paradise.net.nz
(tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by linda-4.paradise.net.nz
(Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0IXJ00K5FYCEYV@linda-4.paradise.net.nz> for
MUNGED@paradise.net.nz; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:57:50 +1200 (NZST)
Received: from plus18.host4u.net (plus18.host4u.net [69.94.56.85])
by smtp-3.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD15715B968E for
Received: from www4.pcdc.net (www4.pcdc.net [66.199.181.4])
by plus18.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3B9vmR22906 for
Received: from nobody by www4.pcdc.net with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1FTFd5-00067I-Rs for keith@salient.org.nz; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:57:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:57:47 -0400
From: mailer@trademe.co.nz
Subject: TradeMe Account Security Measures
To: keith@salient.org.nz
Reply-to: mailer@trademe.co.nz
Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/html
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - www4.pcdc.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - salient.org.nz
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [99 32339] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - www4.pcdc.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args: /usr/local/apache/bin/httpd -DSSL
X-Source-Dir: adamisasexybitch.us:/public_html/forums/images/avatars
Dear keith@salient.org.nz
,
We recently noticed one or more attempts to log in to your TradeMe account
from a different IP address.
If you recently accessed your account while traveling, the unusual log in
attempts may have been initiated by you. However, if you did not initiate
the log ins, please visit TradeMe as soon as possible to check-up your
account information:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/members/login.aspx
Thanks for your patience.
Sincerely,
TradeMe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be
answered.
Email ID 376223
--end--
Sidetracked | Apr 11, 2006 03:02
View the gallery for this post
Normal service has been delayed due to World Cinema Showcase coinciding with me getting paid.
Have been to a few films so far, including Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles and Tsotsi.
The Proposition (on again tonight at the Paramount at 20:30) was excellent. Written by Nick Cave, it's partly an Aboriginals vs Colonials Western, partly Apocalypse Now set in the Outback. The latter really snagged me - especially Danny Huston as the poet-guru-psycho villain.
And having been obsessing about accusations and justice over the pass weeks, Accused (on tonight at 18:15) hit me like a ton of bricks. It's a compelling and thoughtful of story of a man accused of sleeping with his daughter, following him as the shockwave of the accusation rips through his life. It's as merciless as Irreversible, but without gimmicks, sex or violence - which makes it far more insidious and brutal.
It's an amazing film, but definitely not a date movie. (I feel compelled to add this caveat in after hearing a story about how, a few years back, some poor schmuck took a date to Irreversible. I doubt he got a second date.)
[Aucklanders: The World Cinema Showcase will get to Auckland on 20 April.]
And here's my tribute to someone who must be feeling lonely right now. Everyone is judging him. He doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself, but he knows he's done nothing wrong. Don't worry - we believe you!
PA Presents: Newtown Ghetto Anger! | Apr 06, 2006 21:54
View the gallery for this post
I'm pleased to announce that one of my favourite local cartoons, Newtown Ghetto Anger, is going to be a regular feature here at Public Address. It's appeared in two publications that I've been involved with in the past - first in Lucid five years ago, then in Salient last year.
In some ways, I think NGA embodies the spirit of our generation.
No, really.
The blank, emotionless faces; the senseless violence; the irreverent nihilism; and of course, my personal favourite, the self-referential post-modernism.
Seriously though, NGA has mastered our generation's second-greatest comic invention - the extremely pregnant pause.
(I think that our generation's greatest comic invention would have to be the pop-culture reference yoink - stealing a pop-culture reference and recontextualising it for comic effect - which is itself a pop-culture reference yoink. We're also good at making meta-neologisms. And for making up words in general.)
NGA is also good for some incisive political commentary, wading his way into last year's Wellington Central campaign from the beginning through to the end. He's got stuff to please the left and the right. A little something for everyone, from font-geeks to pirates.
I'll just link to my favourite NGA of all time, and without further ado, Public Address is proud to bring to you: Newtown Ghetto Anger!
[Hmm. Cartoon strip across column isn't really going to work, is it? Click here for better viewing.]
Legal Beagle (update) | Apr 05, 2006 14:56
PA reader Bruce Thorpe asks why, when a suppression order is in place to prevent prejudicing a trial, it would remain afterwards.
When do suppression orders get lifted?
Generally there aren't suppression orders at all. The jury is simply told not to read any stories in the newspapers.
If for some reason information about inadmissible evidence is suppressed (be it a confession or whatever), the suppression would generally end following the verdict.
Why would suppression orders be continued after trials?
There are a number of possible reasons, but basically only two that actually stand up to scrutiny.
Suppression orders restrict free speech, and whilst District Court Judges, or High Court Justices might like to grant them to save an accused (even an acquitted one) or their family from publicity, or adverse effects on business etc., the only ones that the Court of Appeal are likely to uphold on appeal are protection of the victim and prejudice to judicial process.
Example of the former: man accused of sexually abusing his child. If the name of the defendant is released, people will be able to work out who the victim is and it will be more difficult for them to get on with their life.
Example of the latter: someone is convicted of murder, their name and identifying details are suppressed because they are going on trial later for another crime (perhaps also murder, but not necessarily). If this information was made public, potential jurors in the second trial might find out about the conviction (or even an acquittal) and it might make it difficult for them to receive a fair trial.
In deciding the line between the rights of an accused to privacy etc. and open justice/free speech the Court of Appeal will invariably side with free speech - open justice is more important. But if the right to a fair trial is involved, it's considered more important than free speech.
Legal Beagle | Apr 04, 2006 14:11
When are prior convictions inadmissible as evidence? All the time, apparently. I talk to a lawyer about when and why such evidence gets suppressed. Sorry this intro is a bit terse and without context, but, you know.
[Yes - this is a new blog! It's a rebranding that's representative of a new approach, but rather than a lengthy explanation (which is forthcoming), I figured it's probably better to do first and talk about it later. That, and two of the interviews I had organised for the original post fell through. And I broke my phone while trying to MacGuyver it to my dictaphone. Then I broke it again. With a hammer, just to be sure.]
Under what circumstances are prior convictions inadmissible as evidence?
Evidence of prior bad acts, whether they resulted in conviction or not, are generally inadmissible. Your average jury will never get to hear about a defendant's list of previous convictions, no matter how long it may be.
Does the prosecution generally try to get prior convictions admitted?
I don't have detailed statistics, but the prosecution would hardly ever seek to have such evidence admitted. The likelihood that they are going to win any application to have such evidence admitted is very low.
There are two basic situations when the prosecution will seek to adduce evidence relating to a defendants prior actions.
First, the more likely of the options, is when a defendant gives evidence on their own behalf (which most don't). If a defendant is giving evidence and says, 'I'm a good person, I'd never burgle someone's home' and the prosecution know he's got previous convictions for burglary, they're then allowed to question him about it.
If a defendant chooses to put his good character into evidence, then the prosecution can put his bad character into evidence to even things out. Knowledge of this is a major reason why defendants rarely give evidence on their own behalf.
The second situation would be substantially rarer. In situations where the defendant is charged with [offending that] is strikingly similar to [something that] the offender has been convicted [of], the prosecution can apply to the court to be able to admit it. A classic example of such a striking similarity is the English case of Boardman - an accused charged with a burglary in which the offender left at the scene an esoteric symbol written in lipstick on a mirror and it can be shown that in all the accused's prior burglaries he had left the same marking.
(Heh heh, dumbass.) So what does the prosecution need to prove to be able to admit prior convictions in circumstances like this?
It's not really a question of proof. The judge obviously has to be satisfied that an accused actually committed the earlier acts, but this usually won't be too difficult (if there are convictions this won't be a problem), and the judge will have to consider that the earlier acts and the offending currently charged are 'strikingly similar', but that's not the end of it.
Even if these things can be shown, this isn't enough to allow the evidence in, a judge really has to question - 'what does this add to the prosecution case?' and they have to balance that with 'and how will this impact on the defendant's right to a fair trial?'.
The question a judge grapples with, not just when deciding whether to allow similar fact evidence but all sorts of evidential questions, is 'does the probative value of this evidence outweigh its prejudicial effect?'
Isn't that the same as 'is this good or bad for the defendant?'
The prejudice is really prejudice to the right of a defendant to a fair trial. Of course evidence that a defendant is a bad person will harm them, or that they have a long list of criminal convictions. But it doesn't really prove all that much.
Everyone has the right to be tried fairly, and part of that right means being able to defend yourself against evidence that you committed that particular charge alleged.
But how is something that's 'prejudicial' different from something that's just plain damning?
Just because you've murdered someone in the past doesn't mean you've done it again. Knowing that you've murdered someone in the past really shouldn't help someone decide whether you've murdered someone again.
But, the fear is that a jury isn't going to look at it like that.
They might decide, 'this person has murdered before, so they must have done it again.' Or, 'this person has murdered before, so we don't care whether they've done it again. They're a criminal and should probably have got longer last time.'
But if you're charged with murder, or anything else, you are entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
But doesn't it mean that the jury doesn't get "the full picture", especially if the character of the defendant is a big part of the case?
Well, yes it does. Juries miss out on all sorts of 'evidence' - some of it which the prosecution isn't allowed to adduce, and some that the defence isn't allowed to adduce. Decisions about what a jury can or cannot hear are mostly designed to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial.
Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent. And if we started allowing evidence of previous bad acts to be introduced in every trial, then this right would be diminished. Maybe a defendant has turned their life around. Maybe they haven't, but just didn't do this particular burglary, whatever.
The fear is that if a jury hears that a defendant has a long rap sheet, and maybe dozens of previous burglary convictions they're not going to get a fair trial this time. Their past record might mean the jury aren't deciding the question of guilt or innocence of the charge they're hearing, but whether they're a nice person.
Page 2 of 25
Archive