Figure 1: The Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane, did all that he could to
assist in the introduction of a legal, fair and just photo driver's licence
that did not impinge upon the tenets of the Privacy Act. On every turn he was
sidestepped or not allowed to become seriously involved in the consultation
process leading to what was, finally and illegally, foisted upon the New Zealand
The LTSA, under the guidance of Reg Barrett, with the active participation of Prime Minister Jenny Shipley (Nat.), Transport Minister Maurice Williamson (Nat.) and Treasurer Bill Birch (Nat.) seemingly wanted New Zealander's to be positively identifiable by surveillance camera technologies, which were illegal in New Zealand. All indications are that they set out to defraud the public, Parliament and either win the favour of, or sidestep, the Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane. When he showed, in the early stages, that he was going to be a problem to their illicit scheme, he was ignored and deprived of his right to participate on behalf of the public in the consultation process.
The sought after "draconian technologies" were introduced by stealth through the backdoor.
The following is the Privacy Commissioner's own archival "chronology of events" or "Time Line", reproduced with explanations of his entries. The "Time Line" document was acquired under the Freedom of Information Act by researcher, Wesley Liddle from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner:
PC Privacy Commissioner.
LTSA Land Transport Safety Authority.
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment.
LTR Land Transport Draft Rules
LTB Land Transport Bill.
1. 27/2/95. Privacy Commissioner registers interest in the Driver Licence review.
2. 24/7/96. Meeting between the Privacy Commissioner and LTSA to discuss the photo ID Driver Licence. The LTSA agrees to undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment.
3. 29/7/96. Letter received from the LTSA to the Privacy Commissioner agreeing that the Driver Licence format raises Privacy issues.
4. 12/3/97. Letter sent by the Privacy Commissioner to the Minister voicing concern over the lack of a Privacy Impact Assessment from the LTSA.
5. 16/4/97. Letter from the LTSA to the Privacy Commissioner related to the lack of a Privacy Impact Assessment and asking for assistance.
6. 4/6/97. A meeting is held between the LTSA and Privacy Commissioner to discuss the LTSA draft Privacy Impact Assessment. 24/11/97.
7. 24/ 11/97. The Privacy Commissioner receives a copy of The Land Transport Bill.
8. 27/12/97. The Public release of the Yellow Draft of the Land Transport Bill LTR91001.
Important historical fact: The Privacy Commissioner comments in a fuller Timeline document (pg. 2, 2nd sentence from the bottom) that no copy of this publicly released Yellow Draft Rule was sent to him. The LTSA had made the closing date for submissions the 21st of January 1998. It is significant that this release occurred between Christmas and New Years during a "Public Holiday". The closing date for submissions was also within the normal holiday period for most New Zealanders. This was a deliberate ploy by the LTSA to "sneak" something past a distracted Public while they were preoccupied with the festive season, family and holidays.
9. 27/12/97. The Public release of the LTSA's Privacy Impact Assessment (UPON REQUEST ONLY).
10. December 97. Proposed LTR91001 released. No copy
sent to the Privacy Commissioner.
11. 27/1/98. The Privacy Commissioner becomes aware
of the release of the Yellow Draft LTR91001 and supporting
Privacy Impact Assessment, the public submissions for which have closed six
days previously. The Privacy Commissioner lays a complaint with the LTSA that
he was not sent a copy of the Draft Rule when it was publicly released.
12. 31/1/98. Public submissions close on Yellow Draft.
13. 14/4/98. Polaroid Press release.
|Copyright © 2001 - 2002 Polaroid Corporation|
Important Historical fact: This shows that the LTSA purchased full "digitised technologies" 8½ months before there was even an Act of Parliament to legitimise such a purchase. Moreover, the type of purchase was utterly against the wishes of Parliament and recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner, who had stated:
"Accordingly, I wish to place on record my desire that the LTSA formally
consult with me if it proposes to recommend proceeding with any of the more
controversial privacy-invasive proposals in the discussion paper including any
While the Land Transport Bill was being discussed in Parliament, all discussion up until and including 24/11/98 was related to an analogue photo in the traditional sense (i.e. such as could be submitted to Internal Affairs for a passport). On 24/11/98 a late concession by Parliament was allowed for the physical photos to be scanned for digital storage purposes (i.e. in the same way that Internal Affairs stores submitted passport photos received through the mail ref. Privacy Impact Assessment 1997, pg. 12, Title, Storage of Digitised Image, paragraph 6).
Note: The existence of the Privacy Impact Assessment document was never known to the general public and never intended to be known. Researchers are encouraged to acquire a copy for personal study through the Freedom of Information Act 1990. This will show what the LTSA secretly intended to do all along and what they introduced by stealth.
14. August. Signed contract with Unisys.
This relates to the sophisticated software package for the new Photo Driver's Licence scheme. Unisys create large law enforcement or government networking software for most State and Federal Government agencies in the United States.
Important Historical Fact: Again, this purchase was 4-months premature, as there was no Act of Parliament that could be used to legitimise the purchase. Other premature aspects of purchase in (April 1998) included 3.2 million "blanks" from Security Plastics Ltd., of Christchurch, who produce "smartcards" like credit and bankcards. Also, the computer hardware was purchased from Sequent Computers Ltd., NZ and the special digital cameras came through Polaroid or suppliers like JVC. The majority of equipment would be used at 200 digital image capture stations, including Police Stations, throughout New Zealand. Parliamentarians were not, at any point of the discussion, through to passage of the Bill, discussing anything to do with "digitised imagery" for the general photographic method. "Parliament never voted for a digitised photo driver's licence. All Parliament voted for was a photo driver's licence" (The Hon. Peter Dunne correspondence with Martin Doutré, Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:50 AM).
read 24th November)
Second reading of LTB (Yellow Draft) in Parliament
doesn't effect Parliament debate (Not Government Policy).
16. December 98. Public release of the Green Draft of LTR91001. See Exhibit.
Important Historical Fact: To our knowledge the first time a copy of the Green Draft (an altogether different Land Transport Bill description incorporating "high tech" references) was seen by a member of the public is when a "leaked" copy turned up in the letter box of Lois McInnes, campaigner for civil liberties. Only after Lois sounded the "public alarm"in late December 1998 could copies be acquired under the Freedom of Information Act 1990.
This Green Draft description was never announced by gazette notice calling for public submissions related to it, was never tabled in Parliament or subjected to Privacy Impact assessment and yet it's description was used by the LTSA to create the new digitised image driver's licences. Parliament voted a certain way and yet the LTSA implemented something utterly different, which was beyond the "scope" of the true 1998 Land Transport Act.
For the LTSA to have had authorisation to implement Green Draft policy it would have been required to submit a Substantive Supplementary Order Paper (proposing major changes to the Bill before the House) while the Bill was still on the table of Parliament. That is the law in New Zealand and the LTSA have deliberately and without authority circumvented the law in order to get (by stealth) what they wanted. On that basis alone the new photo licence, in its present format, was not authorised by Parliament and is clearly illegal. There were no public submissions before the select committee on a photo licence of that description. Our Parliamentary system has stringent inbuilt checks and balances and subordinate government departments are not permitted to implement anything beyond specific items or definitions written into Acts of Parliament. In view of the arrogant attitude displayed by the LTSA, one wonders why they didn't reintroduce "slavery" or bring in "euthanasia" as add-ons to the 1998 land Transport Act. The LTSA, obviously, are not bound by any of the normal checks and balances imposed upon we "mere mortals".
17. Final reading in Parliament. Lianne Dalziel speaks. IMPORTANT see Exhibit.
18. 3/12/98. Parliament pass Land Transport Bill.
The above sorry chronology of events show that the LTSA deceived and defrauded the people of New Zealand, with considerable help from the ruling National Party Executives (releasing public money to the LTSA for premature purchases, etc).
Eight & a half months before there was even an Act of Parliament to legitimise any form of purchase the LTSA, in an unprecedented move that is contrary to our law, entered into ultra expensive contractual arrangements with an overseeing contractor, Polaroid Corporation. This was to buy special cameras, computers, smartcard blanks and software for, what appears to be, an illegal facial recognition programme, which was to be foisted onto the people of New Zealand without their consent.
Although never publicly admitted, direct and circumstantial evidence shows that the type of digitised images to be produced were Visionics/ Polaroid FaceIt Facial Recognition images for national, de facto ID cards. The specialised cameras acquired, if used in conjunction with a software package developed by Visionics Corporation, are capable of measuring the geometric makeup of a person's face...i.e. the distance from the tip of the nose to the chin, the width of the brow or distance between the eyes. This form of identification imagery, using mathematical algorithms, is as effective as a fingerprint in the identification of individuals. Anyone so photographed can be positively identified in a crowd by special surveillance cameras. Street mounted cameras in Tampa Florida, which were scanning all bypassers, had been set up to send an immediate signal to Police when a "wanted criminal" (formerly digitally photographed using "FaceIt" software technology) passed the cameras. It appears very apparent that :
The worst part of this deception stems from the fact that the (Yellow Draft)
"Bill" on the table of Parliament had nothing in it about "digitised"
and doesn't to this very day in the main body descriptions. Also,
Parliament hadn't decided (at the time of this very expensive and secretive
equipment purchase) if the photo licence scheme had sufficient merit to even
bother with... and the "photo licence" was not a "foregone
only an idea to be discussed.
Someone, it seems, had a sinister "master-plan" for us all to be "digitally imaged" in a special, invasive, criminal way that was contrary to our Bill Of Rights Act 1990 and Privacy Act. It started us on a road toward full surveillance technologies that could be ushered in stage by stage.
The true nature of what these specialised "criminal digital photography" cameras are capable of doing is, undoubtedly, summed up in a description of what was sold to the State of Virginia, USA a month earlier than the New Zealand purchase:
Virginia Becomes First State To Issue Driver's Licenses Using Facial Recognition
Polaroid system will help to combat fraudulent i.d.'s and "identity theft"
Virginia -- March 24, 1998 -- West Virginia today inaugurated its new state
driver's license system, the first anywhere to use computerized facial recognition
technology to protect the integrity of its licensing process.
West Virginia's new driver's license system, developed by Polaroid Corporation (NYSE: PRD), automatically compares the digital portraits of applicants with their image stored digitally whenever they seek to renew an existing license or replace a lost or stolen license. If the applicant agrees to submit an electronic fingerprint, which is optional in West Virginia, the system compares that as well.
The biometric security system employs proprietary Polaroid algorithms for comparing the images in a matter of seconds. The facial recognition system compares mathematically the applicant's unique facial characteristics with the stored image and either accepts or rejects the applicant based on the match. Similarly, the fingerprint recognition system compares such fingerprint "minutia" as the location and direction of swirl end points and bifurcations.
As was stated, on the 4th of June 1997 (about one year earlier) the LTSA put a belated document under the nose of the Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane, which more correctly represented the "true or actual Land Transport Act" that they wanted. This was in the more advanced and draconian "Green Draft" form and was stamped, "THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT GOVERNMENT POLICY" at the bottom of each page.
The content of this document was more in keeping with the infamous, "Green Draft", which remained secret until after the Yellow draft 1998 Land Transport Bill description became law. Knowledge of the "Green Draft" and the still more secret LTSA "Privacy Impact Assessment" was withheld from the public, as well as The Committee of The Whole House of Parliament, who only ever saw, made submissions about, or debated the merits of the (red herring) "Yellow Draft".
In early 1998, Commissioner Bruce Slane published his "concerned views"
publicly, related to the "Photo Driver's Licence" issue and Parliamentarians
agreed with him, never allowing the photo licence to be defined in any terms
other than the very benign Yellow Draft description "on the table"
The qualifying designation, appearing at the bottom of the "top secret" Privacy Impact Assessment document proffered to Bruce Slane in June 97, that these proposals did "not represent Government Policy" requires us to ask, whose policy, therefore, did the document represent? Maybe Reg Barrett of the LTSA was, in actuality, a super-sleuth and a member of the "Mission Impossible" team
Mr. Phelps, your mission, should you decide to accept it, would be to
"dupe the stupid public of New Zealand into forfeiture of rights to anonymity".
Our New World Order overseers need a full database of N.Z. citizen images in
FaceIt facial recognition algorithms, such that we can constantly track their
every movement in the future".
As always, you have carte blanche as to method and personnel, but of course should you or any member of your IM Force be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Jim (or more correctly Jenny, Maurice, Bill & Reg).
The first week of December 1998 is a real grey area in time and no one quite
knows what went on behind the scenes. In that week the Yellow Draft of The
1998 Land Transport Bill was voted into law (became an Act) and received
"Royal Assent" by the Governor General.
At this very moment another, altogether different description (The Green Draft) of the driver's licence proposal was "substituted in" illegally to replace the true Act of Parliament description. This "Green Draft" was more along the lines of the "raw" LTSA Privacy Impact Assessment document seen by the Privacy Commissioner in June of 1997 (a year earlier), marked, "This is not Government Policy", which he rejected. It was never presented to him for Privacy Commissioner consultation again and was never seen by the public or the Committee of the Whole House of Parliament during the many months of debate related to the photo licence issue.
This "through the back door" secret Green Draft document
represented stage 1 of an LTSA/ Police incentive to unleash full surveillance
technologies on the people of New Zealand. In December of 1998 only Prime
Minister Jenny Shipley, Transport Minister Morris Williamson, Treasurer Bill
Birch and LTSA Director Reg Barrett (and technicians) seem to have known of
its existence. It didn't qualify as "Government Policy", but it was
certainly "their secret policy".
To our knowledge, the first time the Green Draft was ever seen by a member of the general public was when a "secret leaked copy" appeared in the letterbox of Lois McInnes, campaigner and watchful activist monitoring the potentially dangerous photo licence issue. In the end Lois was 100% correct in being so suspicious, wary and cautious In Lois' estimation, the public would have remained unaware of the existence of the Green Draft if a "Deep-Throat" in government hadn't leaked a copy to her. The same "clandestine" Government official told Lois in a cryptic phone-call that the "method of photography" for the new licences was capable of measuring the geometry of 17 bones of the face. This was the first time Lois had ever heard of the concept of "Facial Recognition technology".
Let's look at the part of the true 1998 Land Transport Act that describes the physical attributes of the actual driver's licence.
Land Transport Act 1998 110
4: Driver Licensing
28 Photographic driver licence
28. Photographic driver licence--- (1) A driver licence must be in the
prescribed form and must have on it---
photographic image of the holder; and
(b) The holder's name and signature; and
(c) The holder's date of birth; and
(d) Unique identifiers to distinguish the licence and the holder from
other driver licences and holders; and
(e) The classes to which the licence applies; and
(f) The endorsements issued to the holder; and
(g) The date of issue of the licence; and
(h) The date on which the licence expires; and
(i) Organ donor information (if applicable); and
(j) An indication of any condition the holder must comply with while
driving a motor vehicle; and
(k) Such other features as may be specified in the rules for the
purposes of verifying or protecting the integrity of the
(2) In addition, a
driver licence may show the holder's address if the
holder requests that those details be shown.
(3) A driver licence
may not have on it any photographic image,
information, or features other than those referred to in subsection (1)
or subsection (2).
(4) This section applies
to licences issued or renewed on or after the
date this section comes into force.
(5) The Authority
must store the photographic image used for each
licence until the licence expires.
SO WHAT IS THIS PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE MENTIONED IN THE ACT?
Parliamentarians, the Privacy Commissioner and the public all understood it to mean an analogue photograph on a dumb piece of plastic basically nothing much more than the old "Lifetime Licence" with a photograph attached and in more compact form.
This is substantiated by comments of Parliamentarians both for and against the idea of a "photo licence" in 1998 and before. Here are some quotes taken directly from "Hansard" (the official transcript of what is said during Parliamentary debate on "Bills before the House").
"The idea of photographs on licences sounds attractive, but the public does not realise that there are two major fish-hooks with the particular proposal that is before the house. The first of these is the central database of photographs of every law abiding citizen of this country. I do not know whether members opposite realise, but when somebody is charged with a criminal offence, and a digitised photo is taken of that person's likeness and stored, once that person is found not guilty of a crime, then the photograph is destroyed. There is no record kept by the police of people found not guilty of crimes. Here we are setting up a central database of photographs of every law-abiding citizen in the country. This is a dream for a central police state of the future."
Another speech by The Hon.Lianne Dalziel on 3/12/98 is the one
that Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane mentions in his Time Line, accompanied
by the words: IMPORTANT see Exhibit. To
read the speech go to: http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/hansard/han/text/1998/12/03_006.html
The Hon. Lianne Dalziel was under the impression that "physical photos" were going to be scanned and stored digitally, based upon a "storage concession" decision arrived at in the house on the 24th of November 1998.
The Hon. Phil Goff, who was a strong advocate for photo licences, further corroborates that Parliamentarians were talking about photographs in the well-understood traditional sense.
Goff: I support the inclusion of a photo on a driver's license. I am conscious of the civil liberties arguments... Every member of this Parliament has a passport and has a photo on that passport, and not one of them objected when applying for that passport. Every member of this house who chose to have an identification card as a member of Parliament, such as this one in my hand, has his or her photo on it. When I was a student I was required to have my photo taken at enrollment and that photo was included on my university file each and every year...When I was a student at Oxford University I had a photo on my library card. I could not take a book out of the library without that photo" (Hansard-IN COMMITTEE-24 NOV 1998. LAND TRANSPORT BILL).
The Hon. Morris Williamson: I want to tell people that the card is not intelligent. It is a dumb piece of plastic.....I heard on the Leighton Smith show the other day that the police will be able to film a gathering with a video camera and then run it against the database and say who was at the concert that night, based on someone's driver's licence. That is a whole pile of nonsense. This is a dumb plastic card. It has on it only what is written on it and the photograph. Hansard- Stage: IN COMMITTEE- 24 NOV 1998. LAND TRANSPORT BILL.
The publicly stated expectation of Parliamentarians was a "photograph"
in the traditional sense and representations coming from those advocating photo
licences always gave the impression that an ordinary photograph was being spoken
In the Interpretation Section of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999, the term "Driver identification card" means 'a card issued under section 19 of The Services Licencing Act 1989'.
Let's look at that section, which again reaffirms the fact that an ordinary photograph and not a digitised image was the lawful criteria.
As a point of interest, this particular Act was not binding on private cars and was only ever instituted for and binding upon "commercial vehicles, such as "Tow trucks". At this juncture (1989) the Lifetime Licence Act (1986) remained in full force for all private car users.
This Act (1989) seems to have been brought in because of perceived problems with some Tow-truck firms.
Transport Services Licensing Act 1989 074
Commenced: 1 Oct 1989
I: Transport Services Licensing
19 Drivers of small passenger vehicles and vehicle recovery service vehicles to hold photographic driver identification card
19. Drivers of small
passenger vehicles and vehicle recovery service
vehicles to hold photographic driver identification card---(1) No person
shall, on or after the 1st day of April 1990, drive a small passenger
service vehicle or a vehicle recovery service vehicle being used in any
transport service unless that person holds a current driver
(2) A driver identification
(a) Shall be applied for on a form provided by the Secretary, or in
such other manner as may be prescribed by regulations made under
the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing)
Act 1986, and any such application---
(i) Shall contain such information as is required by the
Secretary or as is prescribed in any such regulations; and
(ii) May be rejected unless the applicant consents to checks
being made as to any criminal or other record or history of the
applicant relevant to whether or not the applicant is a fit and
proper person to drive a vehicle being used in the relevant
transport service; and
(iii) Shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee:
(b) Shall bear a recent photograph of the driver:
(c) Shall display a unique identifier made up of any combination of
characters or numbers, or both, approved by the Secretary as---
(i) Being sufficiently memorable to be easily recalled by
users of the service provided by the driver; and
(ii) Appropriate to identify the driver from other drivers in
any transport service:
(d) Shall display such other information or material as may be
required by the Secretary or prescribed in the regulations:
(e) Shall be current for such period not exceeding 12 months as may be
specified on the card.
(3) Where, having
regard to the matters specified in section 24 of
this Act, the Secretary is not satisfied that an applicant for a driver
identification card is a fit and proper person to drive a small
passenger service vehicle or vehicle recovery service vehicle, the
(a) Refuse to issue a driver identification card to the applicant; and
(b) Revoke any licence held by the applicant that authorises the
applicant to drive a small passenger service vehicle or a
vehicle recovery service vehicle.
(4) Where the Secretary
refuses to issue a driver identification card
and revokes any licence under subsection (3) of this section, the
Secretary shall, in accordance with section 25 of this Act,---
(a) Notify the person concerned of the refusal; and
(b) Specify the grounds for the refusal; and
(c) Afford a reasonable opportunity for submissions to be made on the
(d) Notify the person of the right of appeal under section 42 of this
(5) Every person who
drives a vehicle in contravention of subsection
(1) of this section commits an offence and is liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
(6) Every person commits
an offence and is liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, being the driver of a
small passenger service vehicle or a vehicle recovery service vehicle
being used in a passenger service or a vehicle recovery service, fails
to produce his or her driver identification card on being requested to
do so by an enforcement officer.
(7) Nothing in this
section shall derogate from or affect the power of
the Secretary under any other provision of this or any other Act to
revoke, suspend, or otherwise deal with any transport service licence or
SO WHERE'S THE REFERENCE WITHIN THE ACTS TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ORDINARY ANALOGUE PHOTO APPEARING ON THE DRIVER'S LICENCE?
There isn't any other reference just a traditional photograph. The Interpretation Section that accompanied The 1998 Land Transport Act clearly defines the "image" to mean what it meant in 1989, which was "a recent photograph of the driver" laminated to a plastic card with an added 1998 provision to electronically "store" the photo. The actual photo licence was to look and be about the same composition as the Parliamentary ID card that the Hon.Phil Goff held up for his parliamentary colleagues to see on November 24th 1998. The Hon. Maurice Williamson also circulated a "sample" of what the licence would look like...without all of the added appendages or technologically advanced whistles and bells that the final licence ended up with.
So, in reality, there weren't too many people in 1997-1998 who had a problem with the idea of a photo on a licence if that's all it was going to be. What everyone was concerned with was "a de facto national identity card system" being sneaked in under the guise of a photo driver's licence and that's what the Privacy Commissioner was concerned about also when he saw the following document (The LTSA's Privacy Impact Assessment) in June 1997.
About 7 months after the Privacy Commissioner viewed this document, the altogether different (red herring) "Yellow Draft" description was being released to the public and "public submissions" were being called for related to that document. While the Yellow Draft was only ever "bubble gum" for the masses to chew over, the LTSA had been seeking approval from the Privacy Commissioner to greatly "raise the stakes of the game" They were, out of ear-shot of the public, secretly talking "digital imagery and facial recognition technology". Here are a couple of pages from the very secret, "THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY" document, obtainable under the Freedom Of Information Act from the archives of the Privacy Commissioner:
Figure 2: Remember, this document or its predecessor was first seen in June 1997, a year and a half before a fairly benign "Bill" called The 1998 Land Transport Act (Yellow Draft) was passed into law. Only the Yellow Draft description was gazetted for public submissions and the public were later under the misconception that the Yellow Draft represented what the photo licence was to be. Public submissions made before the "Select Committee"were only ever related to the Yellow Draft description. The LTSA was soliciting "Privacy Commissioner" approval for the digitised storage of images... although in this above context it simply means taking an ordinary photo and scanning it into a computer. This was merely a "foot in the door" attempt toward full "digitised" technology that had a built in capacity for very draconian FaceIt facial recognition. In at least three sections of this secret document there are "statements of intent" to have "facial recognition technology" as an integral part of the photo licence programme.
Figure 3: The Privacy Commissioner had said as early as 1996 that he would be opposed to a "digitised" photo licence unless the need, for road safety purposes, has been clearly established and the resultant privacy issues adequately analysed"...so what do we need to be scared of in this document?
SO WHO WERE THE GLOBALIST RENT-A-PRICKS WHO BEGUILED US THEN SCREWED US?
This demure and sanctimonious looking gentleman, The Hon. Maurice Williamson, went into verbal overdrive to convince us that we needed photos on licences. He constantly allayed our fears of a defacto national ID card by his paternalistic promises and platitudes. He berated and demeaned the conspiracy nutcases who raised public concerns related to the true, probable, agenda hidden within the photo licence incentive. At the last minute of Parliamentary debate on the 1998 Land Transport Bill he managed to gain a, seemingly, small concession for "digital storage of the photos" rather than physical storage ("in a shoebox", as he put it). He beguiled sufficient Parliamentarians that "digital photography" was simply the "new technology" and that the licences would remain "dumb cards" with a photo on them. More than anyone else, seemingly, this "pillar of society" is responsible... if we presently have, or are set up to have, FaceIt Facial Recognition technology.
For insights into "just how hard" this technogeek tried to peddle his wares or "to what lengths" he prostituted himself to win our trust and confidence, please review his speeches in Parliament at: http://www.gplegislation.co.nz/hansard.html , especially for 24/11/98 or 3/12/98.
Thanks Maurice, we owe you one!
Thanks Jenny, Bill and Reg, you must be proud of the oppressive "revenue gathering shakedown racket" and "Police State surveillance" programme you've unleashed on the increasingly extorted, harrased and squeezed New Zealand public ...Your globalist overseers will be eternally grateful, we're sure...hope you made a bundle... Again, we owe you one!
It seems absolutely certain that Maurice Williamson was the "front man" in a team, consisting of Jenny Shipley (Prime Minister), Bill Birch (Treasurer) and Reg Barrett (LTSA) to trick the New Zealand Parliament and public into the introduction, by stealth, of FaceIt Facial Recognition technology. Maurice Williamson must have known about the LTSA's Privacy Impact Assessment and it's secret "facial recognition" content. To sell his dubious product he constantly referred to "road safety".
Here's one of many statements the Privacy Commissioner said on that subject:
"The representatives of the Automobile Association rightly asked what the inclusion of a photograph on a driver's licence would do for road safety. They pointed out that unscrupulous people will always try to misuse the licence and to evade its requirements. They stated that the inclusion of a photograph would not stop the determined 5% of all drivers who are unlicensed, and they were unaware of any research that showed there are significant effects on road safety from having a photograph on a licence."
As it turns out, the Privacy Commissioner was conveniently sidestepped by the LTSA, as they didn't want the "Privacy Rights" of the public causing obstacles to the sinister plot they were hatching. This caused the Privacy Commissioner to later write in his Time Line, "Privacy Commissioner unable to perform his duty to the public of New Zealand".
In the document marked "THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY" (or its predecessor) proffered to the Privacy Commissioner in June 1997, there is an attempt to lure the Privacy Commissioner into agreeing to allowing photographs to be "digitally stored". The example was given of what "Internal Affairs" were "currently" doing, which was to take the ordinary photographs submitted or sent by those applying for a passport, scan them then store them for "10 years" as digitised images.
This "ordinary photograph" aspect is an important point that
needs to be kept forever at the forefront of everyone's mind. All of the proponents
of "Photo Licences", from Reg Barrett to Maurice Williamson and all
Parliamentarians commenting on the definition, always used terminology or examples
that left the impression of "ordinary photos" being used in
the photo licence. Even the "Interpretation" section of The 1998 Land
Transport Act defines the term "image" within the Act to mean:
"Image", in relation to approved vehicle surveillance equipment, includes a photograph, an electronic form of information storage, and the display and transmission of any pictorial or digital information: (see pg. 11 of 1998 Land Transport Act, No. 110).
So, within the Act the term "image" includes a photo. Based upon a "storage only" concession, reluctantly allowed at the last minute by Parliament (and with severe imposed limitations) on 24/11/98, the LTSA were begrudgingly allowed to "digitally store" the photographs, as an alternative to the more cumbersome and inconvenient, "physical storage". What they were given permission to do was very much along the lines of what Internal Affairs were allowed to do with submitted "Passport Photos" store them electronically as scanned images in their Archives for the life of the ID document.
In 1998 New Zealand driver's held Lifetime licences that we agreed to put a photo on (about that simple). The LTSA and cohorts went out and struck a deal with Polaroid to take the photos (...a bit premature but, so far so good). Before we knew it there were going to be 200 special photo stations and ultra sophisticated cameras (hey, this is getting a bit much). The next thing we find out is that Unisys Corporation has its finger in the pie (Hitler would've loved that outfit). Next Sequent Corporation are layering us with mountains of computer hardware (hold on...we only need some photos!). Then 3.2 million smartcard blanks complying to ISO 7810 international standard are pumped out by Security Plastics Ltd (Eh, what?...this was only gonna be a dumb card, remember?).
I guess we'll never really know just how many corporate swine ended up with their nose in the trough at our expense, but we do know they had a banquet.
By 1999 we realise we've been severely swindled, so some of us (about 250000) refuse to get the new licence till the LTSA produces the one described in the 1998 Land Transport Act. We, consequently, have our cars confiscated (contrary to our Bill of Rights Act 1990, which by now is utterly worthless). Our Privacy Act, which was once considered to be one of the best in the world, is now a shambles and in tatters. We see surveillance cameras going up in their thousands everywhere around New Zealand. We watch our Police Force decline into little more than a much detested, revenue gatherering arm of the government ...who can't address true crime because they're under a heavy obligation to write out infringement notices on a quota basis...All this just because we agreed to have a simple photo on a licence...Jeezzzz!
We know what this has cost in social terms, as we're still licking our wounds, but how many hundreds of millions did it cost us monetarily by our flirtation with the big corporations? We don't know, as the LTSA flat refuses to release the original purchase contract details to us, despite strong repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Like the old German proverb says, 'Give the devil one finger and he takes your whole hand'.
SO WHERE ON YOUR DRIVER'S LICENCE IS YOUR PHOTOGRAPH?
Technically, you don't have one and never did what you've got is, "a digitised image of a photographic image, and a holographic image" see if you can find that description anywhere in the true 1998 Land Transport Act. LTSA officials tell us that these two aspects of the individual's image are to stop forgery. The entire system is advanced digital imagery impregnated into a multifunctional and upgradeable smartcard. There was never any mention of a barcode on the photo licence in the true Act either and the Hon. Maurice Williamson repeatedly promised us there would be no barcode. We were not obliged to have our signatures on the licence described in the 1998 Land Transport Act.
When you go to an AA Depot to be photographed for your licence, the camera that you stand in front of is a JVC 1/2" CCD Computer Imaging Colour Video Camera model TK-1270U. This is fully linked to a computer, which is linked to a national network. Somewhere in that link is an official body (Ubermenchen) who have access to a national database of all individuals who have been "digitally imaged" by this specialised, high tech video camera. Similarly, you're obliged to supply a "digital signature" (see if you can find that in the true 1998 Land Transport Act). The digital signature is recorded on a Penware Model PW1100 Electronic Signature Capture Terminal that, "passes data from RS232 device directly to the host system in a transparent manner". The eye test device is ultra sophisticated as well.
In consideration of the equipment described, which is fully linked into a system running on very technically advanced software supplied by Unisys Corporation, the question might be asked...what is actually missing that stops the use of FaceIt Facial Recognition Technology?...well nothing really, except some software supplied by Visionics Corporation...who were working in very closely with Polaroid Corporation in April 1998 when Polaroid (8-months prematurely) was awarded the contract to oversee the creation of our entire photo licence system.
So...we're all set up now and ready to go with facial recognition technology...or did we "go" down that track a couple of years ago?...my guess is yes, yes, yes, affirmative and indubitably!
QUOTES FROM THE HON. PETER DUNNE:
In short, I think the LTSA, with the possible connivance of the then Minister Maurice Williamson, deliberately pulled the wool over Parliament's eyes to get what they wanted. I well recall LTSA officials coming to see us before the vote to explain how embarrassed they would be if it didn't go ahead because they had already bought the equipment. That was bad enough, but they did not let on even then what the nature of the equipment they had bought was. This was a classic case of buying Rolls Royce equipment when all they needed was a VW, and then deciding that because they had a Rolls Royce they may as well use it. In my view, they had set out all along to buy the Rolls Royce.
The LTSA had proceeded with the purchase of the equipment prior to the vote in Parliament, on the assumption that Parliament would actually support the legislation. They became desperately frightened in the lead-up to the vote that the provision might actually have been defeated which would have left them caught out badly. As I understand it, one of their reasons for moving when they did was because they had been offered such a good deal on the digitised technology.
Parliament never voted for a digitised photographic driver's licence. All Parliament voted for was a photographic driver's licence.
It might be appropriate to add, that under New Zealand law only Parliament can write statutory law. Subordinate government departments, such as the LTSA & Police have an obligation to implement legislation only within the "scope" of an Act. What the LTSA has done with the photo licence is utterly outside of the "scope" of the Act and is in breach of our Privacy Act and The Bill of Rights Act 1990.
I'd personally like to thank Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane, who tried to do his duty to the public of New Zealand. Now it's up to the public to restore integrity to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and take back whatever freedoms we've had stolen from us by deceitful means in 1999.
NEW ZEALANDERS MUST DEMAND A PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY, AS ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT WE ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO NON-APPROVED, ILLEGAL FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGIES.
Martin Doutré...August 17th 2002.
Parliamentary Speeches related to the photo driver's licence issue: