Police access to bank details raises red flag

Privacy rules designed to root out terrorists have been used against a ‘champion of the underdog’.

IN little more than a week, it will have been 16 years since 9/11.

That date could serve as one of history’s great dividers, such is the way the world has changed since.

It wasn’t just the resulting invasion of Iraq; the seemingly ongoing destructive ripples of that conflict; the heightened global fear and expectation of terrorism; and procedures around air travel taking longer – amid the fallout of that tragic morning came a sudden ramping up of police powers to allow them more access to citizens’ private information.

I remember the feelings of unease as these measures were announced in the news. But such was the horror at 9/11, people accepted that we had to give up such freedoms and rights.

It was necessary to allow government agencies more power so they could root out terrorist planning and activities.

Kiwi journalist and activist Martyn Bradbury thinks that back then we thought that was a reasonable exchange: ‘‘We agreed there was a genuine threat. There were people who wanted to hurt us. And not just us, but our civilisation.’’

But this week, Bradbury revealed what sounds like a scene from one of those confusing action movies where a fugitive is hunted by government agencies and faces road blocks in their online lives.

He told media how the Privacy Commissioner had ruled that police had acted ‘‘unlawfully’’ when they used the Privacy Act to access his banking information without a court order.

Detectives working on the Rawshark investigation – searching for the hacker behind Nicky Hager’s 2014 book Dirty Politics – asked for the information, saying they were investigating ‘‘computer fraud’’.

It’s easy to believe that this would raise a red flag with the bank and affect their behaviour towards Bradbury. Indeed, he discovered the police intervention as he struggled to figure out why his bank was rejecting his application for credit.

Bradbury said it was like being hit by lightning.

‘‘Part of your intuition had been screaming that something is wrong. Your rational mind is ‘come on, you’ve been watching too much TV, you’re not at that level that something like this would happen’. And then when you see it... in black and white...’’

Bradbury denies knowing anything to do with the Rawshark investigation. He sees the police action as an example of powers, designed for going after terrorists, instead being used to go after political journalists or bloggers.

‘‘When did we become enemies of the state that justify that from the police?’’

I have friends in the police and got to know many fine detectives a few years ago when I was researching for police drama, Harry.

Our police service is generally the envy of the world.

I’m not just saying this because I don’t want them to request my private information from a bank – I really think that.

But it’s not a good look for the police to have been found to have been acting ‘‘unlawfully’’ and for the Privacy Commissioner to have ruled that they should have gone to court for a warrant.

I think that it’s even less of a good look that banks would hand over our information without requiring a court order.

Bradbury has been an outspoken figure on the media landscape for many years, and says unapologetically he’s dedicated his life to being a ‘‘stickin-the-eye to authority’’.

His desire to be a champion for the underdog is a reflection of his own upbringing and the desire to get the struggles of poverty, into the national agenda and conversation.

Regardless of whether you ever agree with him or not, there’s no denying this is an extraordinary and scary thing to happen to anyone. And Bradbury thinks it’s something we should all be worrying about.

‘‘If they can do it to someone like me, they can do it to anyone.’’

Your rational mind is ‘come on, you’ve been watching too much TV, you’re not at that level...’ When did we become enemies of the state that justify that from the police?’ MARTYN BRADBURY, ABOVE