Learning from Helen
Winston has been picking up tricks from Helen. He has announced that his staff (without consulting him he says!!!!) destroyed all the Brash e-mails they had when they learnt there was a Police investigation into them.
Just like how Helen’s staff burnt the painting once they heard there was a police investigation into the forgery.
Isn’t this such a good example our senior Ministers set for the public. If the Police are investigating, destroy the evidence before the Police knock on the door.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Two words.
Computer Forensics.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I think your RSS feed might be an hour out. My reader said you posted this at 6:52pm.
It could be a problem at might end but might be worth checking out… anyone else noticed this?
And just how do you ‘destroy’ an email? I can imagine some office worker deleting them to get rid of them, but ‘destroying’ requires a decent amount of work (and consideration!).
November 20th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
So Winstons staff destroyed all the Brash e-mails without consulting him. How believable. Given that the e-mails were probably stolen we can add theft to the list of crimes Helen and her Liarbour and New Zealand first friends are responsiblefor (sorry, we can’t- theft is already on that list- the theft of $800 000 of taxpayers money for pledge cards). In 2008 It will be time to do something I (and many other New Zealanders) are looking very forward too-time to vote Liarbour out.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Or alternatively use the law as a means of enforcing lefty values.
At Crown Prosecutor level even.
Jury nullification should take about 3 minutes on this one.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3860663a11,00.html
November 20th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ? Clearly a prima facie case exists, but I suspect that it’s “not in the public interest” to prosecute.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I think your RSS feed might be an hour out. My reader said you posted this at 6:52pm.
It could be a problem at might end but might be worth checking out… anyone else noticed this?
And just how do you ‘destroy’ an email? I can imagine some office worker deleting them to get rid of them, but ‘destroying’ requires a decent amount of work (and consideration!).
November 20th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ? Clearly a prima facie case exists, but I suspect that it’s “not in the public interest” to prosecute.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
IP/Peter – “Destroyed” could mean shredded
November 20th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Regardless of what state they are in now they know where they came from and that it was stolen property.
Add receiving to the prima facie list.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
The way this government and it’s arse lickers conduct themselves is beyond belief. The government has been quick to send troops and police to various trouble spots, the way this lot are going they may be have to be recalled to this third world country.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
So emails have been destroyed? Only way is removing the hard drive.
Give me the drive and I will show you where the deleted emails are, it’s not rocket science. Just deep in the bowels of the computer where nobody knows what actualy goes on.
Every computer has little traces of who, when and where.
Even the Police are imcompedent in this area.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
So emails have been destroyed? Only way is removing the hard drive.
Give me the drive and I will show you where the deleted emails are, it’s not rocket science. Just deep in the bowels of the computer where nobody knows what actualy goes on.
Every computer has little traces of who, when and where.
Even the Police are imcompedent in this area.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
DPF: In case you missed my questions for you in the last email thread, I will re-post:
“Nowhere in this thread so far have we discussed the competing values that the High Court will have to weigh up should the author of this supposed book challenge Brash’s interim injunction. As far as I can tell, they’ll be weighing up Brash’s right to privacy with the public interest value of the emails’ publication.
“DPF: Are you really arguing that, no matter what the content of the emails, the High Court should find this weighing up in Brash’s favour? I could think of several circumstances (e.g. if the emails held proof of Brash doing something highly politically immoral – maybe telling his advisors that he was going to lie to the public about his policy intentions in order to get elected – or illegal) in which I think the High Court ought to find in favour of the public interest value.
“DPF, are you really saying that in your view privacy trumps public interest every time? Wouldn’t this rather constrain the work of the Opposition (and the media), which both thrive on the leaking of information (leaking being, by definition, the unauthorised release of information)? If someone in the PM’s office, without her authorisation, accessed her emails and leaked them to you, are we really meant to believe that you would return them without question rather than hand them to National’s Leader’s Office?”
November 20th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Destroying them from the primary source is easy – overwrite the file with something else. If they’re on backup tapes and in cache etc, it could be trickier, but not really hard. Overwrite the tapes, flush the cache. Gone.
I suspect it’s bs, though. Why bother destroying them? Just hide them somewhere. A 2GB SD stick costs about $100 and could be hidden basically anywhere, and the data could be encrypted anyway. Or chucked on a server somewhere foreign, say into a hotmail account.
I think this is probably just to convince the cops to give up on what is already a wild goose chase. Show them some shredded paper and formally deny everything. Hell, the entire story could be bs, just to scare Don into making admissions of things that there is no firm evidence of otherwise.
But I doubt it. I think some threats have passed in Don’s direction, that involve things he only ever said in email (the fool). His using the cops to scare the perps is as much PR as a serious attempt to actually catch anyone for an actual crime. A preemptive attempt to discourage any public release of whatever the threats were about.
I doubt it will work. Once people know what someone actually wrote in an email, they can find that truth out in many other non-criminal ways.
I think the threat is a nasty piece of work, but that does describe much of Peters’ modus operandi. Whether it was warranted does depend somewhat on what was in the messages, though.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
“DPF: Are you really arguing that, no matter what the content of the emails, the High Court should find this weighing up in Brash’s favour? I could think of several circumstances (e.g. if the emails held proof of Brash doing something highly politically immoral – maybe telling his advisors that he was going to lie to the public about his policy intentions in order to get elected – or illegal) in which I think the High Court ought to find in favour of the public interest value.”
If the emails have proof of illegal or highly unethical behaviour, then I am sure the court will weigh that up. Personally I doubt there is anything of that nature because you can be damn sure Winston would have tabled it by now.
I’d welcome John or Jane Doe to front up to the court, explain how they got the emails and justify the public interest in them eing ale to use them. The fact Winston’s little helpers have brunt or shredded the emails suggest they don’t want to be answering any questions like that.
“DPF, are you really saying that in your view privacy trumps public interest every time? Wouldn’t this rather constrain the work of the Opposition (and the media), which both thrive on the leaking of information (leaking being, by definition, the unauthorised release of information)? If someone in the PM’s office, without her authorisation, accessed her emails and leaked them to you, are we really meant to believe that you would return them without question rather than hand them to National’s Leader’s Office?”
Of course it does not trump every time. But there is a difference between leaking and criminally accessing.
If I got given the PM’s emails, what I did with them would depend on what they said, and how they were obtained. I certainly would not publicly taunt the PM with a release of them over months and years.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Oh you pathetic little National/ACT prats getting your knickers in a twist over whether Winston “destroyed” some emails which may or may not be damaging to Don. Who cares!
Of course if Winston had decided to prop up a National-ACT-NZF-United Future governing arrangement supported by the Maori Party, and released damaging “stolen” emails concerning Helen, then DPF and his chorus of sycophants would be falling over themselves in praising Winston as a hero.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
DPF: Thanks for your answers. They illustrate a reasonable and principled reaction to genuine questions. Thank you.
I agree with you that the author of the book should now go to the court and argue the public interest value. I am sure that is exactly what will happen (assuming the book rumour is true) because no publisher would invest time and money in a book and then allow it to be sunk without even arguing for its public interest value in the court. If/when that does happen, I shall be interested in your response on the public interest vs privacy question.
Your assertion of the difference between leaking and theft interests me, because I still think it possible that someone with the right to access Brash’s emails (i.e. someone who worked in his office – perhaps someone who set up his appointments) lifted them and leaked them because they were unhappy with what Brash was up to. I don’t see such an action as any different from your standard whistleblower leaking info to the media. But do you know something we don’t know that gives you confidence that Brash is not the victim of such an ‘insider leaker’?
November 20th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
So only “prats” get concerned over the theft of emails by a corrupt politician who lies more than most carpets.
It my view it is morally wrong and criminally wrong no matter who does it and no matter who was the original owner of the emails. And it is a dangerous thing when government officials can steal emails no matter who it belonged to. For god’s sake this is the sort of thing one would expect from George Bush and his regime. If Bush stole emails from John Kerry it would be a major scandal. But when slimy Winston does it all this Labour suck ups come out of the woodwork trying to find excuses for it or, even more bizarrely, try to someone shift the problem to National. And the really wacked out nut cases try to drag ACT into the matter. If Brash had stolen property from Clark the police ought to investigate and if it is shown he had stolen property they should file charges. And Winston really needs to play kissy face with some more spiders and save the rest of us a lot of humiliation at having such a pompous, dishonest, vicious clown in cabinet.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Winston Peters knows full well that if you destroy evidence that is the subject of a police investigation then you are perverting the course of justice. Saying that his staff did this makes this smell more. Perhaps he should sack those staff members and refer them to the police. Fat chance. Peters for months blackmailed Don Brash over the contents of those emails. He discussed their contents with Helen Clark. She sniggered away about them dropping hints about their contents. Now all has gone quiet. Peters as a lawyer knows better, much better. Clark thinks she can do what she likes as no-one would dare touch her.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:14 am
. If Brash had stolen property from Clark the police ought to investigate and if it is shown he had stolen property they should file charges
Brash has not done such a thing. The reverse is now deomnstrable true.
And if Brash was even charged – or even if the police found a case, then brash would resign and if he didn’t the national party would force him out.
Helen, the cabinet, and he labour party exec should have resigned when the Chief Electoral Officer cited them as corrupt
that they did not is literally destroying NZ’s democracy.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:47 am
Poll-driven fruitcake wrote:
Of course if Winston had decided to prop up a National-ACT-NZF-United Future governing arrangement supported by the Maori Party, and released damaging “stolen” emails concerning Helen, then DPF and his chorus of sycophants would be falling over themselves in praising Winston as a hero.
Really? Given my often-expressed contempt for Peters, which hasn’t changed over the last twenty years or so, I find it exceedingly unlikely I’d ‘praise’ what sounds like the same old bullshit being pushed out a very scabby arsehole indeed.
Ben Wilson:
One delightful phrase that entered the political lexicon after Watergate was “plausible deniability.” Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Peters is flat out lying, and trying to get some distance on a typical Winnie sleaze campaign that’s threatening to blow up in his face? Let’s get real about this – the long-promised ‘telephone book’ appears from a proxy, does anyone think anyone is going to believe Peters and Clark have nothing to do with it? Yeah right… when the going get tough, Winnie gets going – out the door.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:34 am
On the plausible deniability claim apparently the staff acting without Peters knowledge destroyed these emails while he was ostentatiously away at the United Nations. How very cute. Right up until the Police got involved Peters was brandishing these emails threatening Dr Brash. Now the Police get involved and, whammo while Peters is “away” his staff act to destroy them. These emails were given to Peters as the result of a crime, Peters knew that threatened Dr Brash over their contents and then when the Police start a criminal inquiry vital evidence into this crime gets destroyed. Peters is a lawyer knows exactly the legal significance of what has happened.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:55 am
Seems many are assuming Winston’s staff had electronic copies of the emails.
If they were leaked in hard copy then a shredder or simply a rubbish bin would have done the trick
November 21st, 2006 at 9:21 am
The difference between the painting and the emails is that Clark’s people really did burn the painting. No one really believes Peters’ people really destroyed the emails.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Since Brash cant prove any theft ( still is clueless on how they went missing) the only only legal basis for his injunction is breach of “copyright”. Destroying stuff that has someone elses copyright is entirely justifiable.
In fact a lot of emails say if it is not intended for you ‘return or delete’
November 21st, 2006 at 9:55 am
er, did the recent court injunction (asked for by Don Brash) not demand that anyone with a copy of these emails destroy them?
Sorry to interrupt the howls of fake outrage but is this not exactly what he wanted?
November 21st, 2006 at 10:59 am
“Destroying them from the primary source is easy – overwrite the file with something else”.
That isn’t correct. It is possible to retrieve all manner of data, from formatted drives.
There is only one way to prevent hard drives revealing their past, and that is to smash them into a thousand pieces.
To completely erase the data, beyond recognition, they would have to smash every drive the data was ever stored on. Servers, PCs etc….
November 21st, 2006 at 11:06 am
No sonic you are wrong (as usual) the court order states that the documents must be passed to the high court in Wellington. Winston’s staff did an illegal act against a court order in destroying the documents. And furthermore is just not credible that he did not know they were going to destroy the documents – therefore he is a liar and he is culpable.
No problem – he is gone forever out of parliament in about 20 months. And good riddence as well.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:09 am
sonic – no, it did not.
It required anyone served with the papers to give their copies of the emails to the Wellington High Court.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:12 am
You lot who have been defending Brash for the last week are about to look so stupid…
Wellington, Nov 21 NZPA – Investigative researcher Nicky Hager
has revealed himself as the author of a book which contains excerpts
of leaked e-mails to and from National leader Don Brash.
Hager today told reporters he was to release the book today, but
had been stopped by an injunction Dr Brash obtained last week
against his e-mails being published.
Hager said the book titled The Hollow Men: A Study in the
Politics of Deception, did not focus exclusively on Dr Brash, but
was an examination of the party under his leadership.
It featured material from a variety of sources, including
documents from Dr Brash and other party sources and interviews with
disgruntled party members.
Hager has been an activist on Green and left-wing issues.
Ahhh good bye Dr Brash
November 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
Cat out of bag. Oops.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:44 am
This is great, can’t wait to buy a copy
November 21st, 2006 at 11:45 am
Ahh the whole charade comes crashing down around Dr Brash
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3868206a10,00.html
November 21st, 2006 at 11:47 am
If a professional (say a lawyer) obtained emails from another lawyer which are confidential to the first lawyer and his/her clients, the second lawyer would immediately telephone the first lawyer and advise them asking what he/she should do with them.
The fact that the reptile Peters skulks around threatening the release of confidential and stolen emails shows succinctly the sheer lack of ethics or indeed any redeeming features that he has. A disgrace.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Umm a few hours too late for that contribution Mark, though thanks for playing
November 21st, 2006 at 11:53 am
Hagar has been know to exagerate, mislead and create false impressions with previous books. I can’t imagine this one is any different.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:53 am
A fine example of a substantive response Pfft.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:57 am
What did that paragon of honesty and fidelity Dr Brash say that is so worrying to him I wonder?
November 21st, 2006 at 11:58 am
“A fine example of a substantive response Pfft.”
Is that what you call it? Id say it was slightly irrelevant and dated response, considering it came a few hours too late to be blaming Peter’s when the real protagonist has revelled themselves, Mark, but you can keep deluding yourself.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
You’re a bit obtuse Pfft. I was sarcastically referring to your little brain fart (which I note was your first comment on this thread). Do you actually have anything to add which is relevant?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Nicky Hager? hahahahahaha, Hell even Ian Wishart is more accurate.
Besides based on the way the public supported Brash after the infidelity accusations this will probably backfire for Labour and Brashs ratings will go up. Our dear public does seem to have penchance for supporting proven liars. Just look at Clarks popularity- still.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Peter, you contend:
“”Destroying them from the primary source is easy – overwrite the file with something else”.
That isn’t correct. It is possible to retrieve all manner of data, from formatted drives.”
You can probably get *some* information back if you dismantle the drive and use some pretty advanced hardware, but certainly not all of it. I’m well aware that a write operation can leave a shadow that one or two subsequent writes may not completely obliterate. Which is why the kind of overwriting I’m talking about involves multiple passes. 7 should be enough.
To see why data can be destroyed you only have to think about why it is that our disk drives don’t have infinite storage potential. Of course data can be destroyed.
A ‘quick format’ will certainly leave data on the drive, as will a simple delete, both of which merely mark the space the data takes up as now free. But a low-level format or a file overwrite actually changes every byte in that space. You would then need new hardware applied to the disk to find your shadows. If the overwrite has been repeated you will only find random junk.
But I imagine you are talking about simple deletes or quick formats, which may fool some people as having destroyed the data. And then there’s the copies of the data you don’t know about, in caches, backups and suchlike. All of those can be also ferreted out. But I imagine it’s a lot simpler and cheaper in most cases for someone to just copy the data off to a new drive and physically destroy the old, if they really are worried about a prosecution.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Ben,
You are on the right track. It is not about what Windows can do, it’s about what Windows cannot do. Email and other things are retrievable from a drive unless the drive is removed. Windows for dummies is realy for dummies and those who think they have the knowledge.
Stolen or not, from where and who from is irrelevant.
I’ll leave you with that otherwise a lot of people will stuff up their computers trying to hide or destroy data. Hahaha!
November 21st, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Taito Field had 9 months fair warning to get his house in order before he was raided for computer forensics. How long do you think Winston will get as fair warning? One or two machine upgrade cycles?