Latest news with #Conversation
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
The Spinoff
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Press secretary case raises questions for police and officials
The disturbing allegations have sparked a review of vetting processes and questions about the adequacy of our laws, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Allegations prompt questions about police, Beehive processes The fallout from serious allegations against Michael Forbes, the prime minister's now-former deputy chief press secretary, continued on Thursday, following a damning Stuff investigation released the night before. Forbes resigned on Wednesday after journalist Paula Penfold put to him allegations that he had taken non-consensual recordings and photos of women, including sex workers, in various settings. His phone reportedly contained covert recordings of sexual encounters, images of women at the gym and supermarket, and photos taken through windows – including one of an unclothed, unconscious or asleep woman. Forbes apologised for his actions and said he had sought professional help last year. The allegations have sparked widespread concern, with questions raised about the adequacy of the law, the Beehive's vetting processes, and why no criminal charges were laid. Legal grey areas highlighted by lack of charges Despite the disturbing nature of the allegations, police concluded the behaviour did not meet the threshold for prosecution. On the allegation involving an image of an unclothed, unconscious woman, AUT law lecturer Paulette Benton-Greig told Checkpoint it 'certainly seems to me that [it] could have been chargeable' under existing laws about intimate visual recordings taken without the subject's consent. But as legal academic Cassandra Mudgway explained in the Conversation, republished on The Spinoff, current law does not cover covert audio recordings, nor most intrusive photographs taken in public spaces. This gap in legal protections has prompted calls for reform, including from the sex workers who brought Forbes' behaviour to public attention. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said the discussion could be had, but he 'wouldn't underestimate that that's a big change' to what is settled law. Vetting processes under review The investigation into Forbes' behaviour began in July 2024, months after he had been vetted for his job with minister Louise Upston, and before he was later appointed to the PM's press team, report The Post's Thomas Manch and Kelly Dennett (paywalled). Despite having a security clearance that required disclosure of any subsequent police contact, Forbes did not tell his superiors about the investigation. 'That didn't happen,' Luxon said on Thursday, describing himself as 'incredibly concerned' about the revelations and acknowledging the 'distress' among Beehive staff. The Department of Internal Affairs has launched an urgent review into the vetting processes and whether inter-agency systems failed. Luxon, while emphasising the importance of police independence, called it a 'fair' question to ask how such a case could go unnoticed by senior officials and decision-makers. Why didn't police inform the Beehive? That question has taken on new urgency amid confusion over why the police never alerted the Beehive. Police seized Forbes' phones and interviewed him, but ultimately decided no offence had been committed, report Manch and Dennett in a separate story (paywalled). Commissioner Richard Chambers said under the 'no surprises' convention with ministers, it is up to the commissioner of the day to decide what to escalate. However Andrew Coster, who was commissioner at the time, said he was never informed of the case. Chambers first learned of the matter only this week when approached by Stuff, at which point he alerted the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It seems that someone senior in the police may have dropped the ball, but Chambers wouldn't name names, only observing that 'it is important that police executive members alert their Commissioner to matters that may need consideration.'
NDTV
a day ago
- Health
- NDTV
WHO Is Finalising A New Treaty To Prep For The Next Pandemic, But US Isn't Signing
On March 20, 2025, members of the World Health Organization adopted the world's first pandemic agreement, following three years of 'intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.' The U.S., however, did not participate, in part because of its intention to withdraw from the WHO. Global health experts are hailing the agreement as a historic moment. What does the agreement mean for the world, and how can it make everyone safer and more prepared for the next pandemic? The Conversation asked Nicole Hassoun, a professor at Binghamton University and executive director of Global Health Impact, to explain the pandemic accord, its prospects for advancing global health, and the significance of the U.S.'s absence from it. What will the pandemic agreement do? The accord will bolster pandemic preparation within individual countries and around the world. Countries signing onto the agreement are committing to improve their disease surveillance and grow their heath care workforces, strengthen their regulatory systems and invest in research and development. It encourages countries to strengthen their health regulations and infrastructure, improve communication with the public about pandemics and increase funding for preparation and response efforts. It also includes new mechanisms for producing and distributing vaccines and other essential countermeasures. Finally, it encourages countries to coordinate their responses and share information about infectious diseases and intellectual property so that vaccines and other essential countermeasures can be made available more quickly. The agreement will take effect once enough countries ratify it, which may take several years. Why isn't the US involved? The Biden administration was broadly supportive of a pandemic agreement and was an active participant in negotiations. Prior to Donald Trump's reelection, however, Republican governors had signed a letter opposing the treaty, echoing a conservative think tank's concerns about U.S. sovereignty. The U.S. withdrew from negotiations when President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw from the WHO on the day he was inaugurated for his second term. Why could the lack of US involvement be beneficial for the world? The lack of U.S. involvement likely resulted in a much more equitable treaty, and it is not clear that countries could have reached an agreement had the U.S. continued to object to key provisions. It was only once the U.S. withdrew from the negotiations that an agreement was reached. The U.S. and several other wealthy countries were concerned with protecting their pharmaceutical industry's profits and resisted efforts aimed at convincing pharmaceutical companies to share the knowledge, data and intellectual property needed for producing new vaccines and other essential countermeasures. Other negotiators sought greater access to vaccines and other treatments during a pandemic for poorer countries, which often rely on patented technologies from global pharmaceutical companies. While most people in wealthy countries had access to COVID-19 vaccines as early as 2021, many people in developing countries had to wait years for vaccines. How could the agreement broaden access for treatments? One of the contentious issues in the pandemic agreement has to do with how many vaccines manufacturers in each country must share in exchange for access to genetic sequences to emerging infectious diseases. Countries are still negotiating a system for sharing the genetic information on pathogens in return for access to vaccines themselves. It is important that researchers can get these sequences to make vaccines. And, of course, people need access to the vaccines once they are developed. Still, there are many more promising aspects of the agreement for which no further negotiations are necessary. For instance, the agreement will increase global vaccine supply by increasing manufacturing around the world. The agreement also specifies that countries and the WHO should work together to create a mechanism for fairly sharing the intellectual property, data and knowledge needed to produce vaccines and other essential health products. If financing for new innovation requires equitable access to the new technologies that are developed, many people in poor countries may get access to vaccines much more quickly in the next pandemic. The agreement also encourages individual countries to offer sufficient incentives for pharmaceutical companies to extend access to developing countries. If countries implement these changes, that will benefit people in rich countries as well as poor ones. A more equitable distribution of vaccines can contain the spread of disease, saving millions of lives. What more should be done, and does the US have a role to play? In my view, the best way to protect public health moving forward is for countries to sign on to the agreement and devote more resources to global health initiatives. This is particularly important given declining investment and participation in the WHO and the contraction of other international health initiatives, such as USAID. Without international coordination, it will become harder to catch and address problems early enough to prevent epidemics from becoming pandemics. It will also be imperative for member countries to provide funding to support the agreement's goals and secure the innovation and access to new technologies. This requires building the basic health infrastructure to ensure shots can get into people's arms.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Incoming RCSD Superintendent 'ecstatic' about community support
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC)- The incoming school superintendent for the Rochester City School District, Dr. Eric Rosser says he's 'ecstatic' about partnering with the community on ensuring students succeed. He says the turnout at the Community Conversations hosted by the district has shown him how vested community organizations and individuals are about ensuring children in Rochester have what they need. Rosser answered a host of questions from students, teachers, parents, and community members at Dr. Freddie Thomas Middle School on Tuesday evening from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Participants expressed enthusiasm about the work Dr. Rosser did as superintendent in Poughkeepsie, but pointed out that many superintendents of urban school districts leave after 3 to 5 years. Rosser pointed to his 6 years in Poughkeepsie and encouraged folks to do their homework about his track record as an educator in Buffalo, Atlanta, and other cities. 'Revamp & reimagination': Incoming RCSD superintendent hears concerns from parents When asked what he would need to stay 5 to 10 years in Rochester, he pointed to community support. 'While the super does have super in his name, we are not superheroes. It's important we come together to support what we believe our vision for the children in our community to be.' Rosser said. He answered a host of other questions related to academic achievement, funding cuts, continuous changes and revisions in the district, professional development for teachers, and creating a safe environment for students. Rosser listened to concerns and community expectations. He took notes and pledged to serve as chief ambassador and advocate for the district. The third Community Conversation will be held Saturday, June 14 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm at Jefferson Campus. Rosser officially begins as RCSD Superintendent July 1. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
