I’ve either been hacked or spied on

August 15th, 2014 at 7:40 am by David Farrar

I started reading more fully the book yesterday, and the footnotes in the book. To my shock I realised that Hager had info in the book that could not have come from the hacking of Cameron Slater, but could only have come from my computer, my apartment or my office.

Specifically he refers to copies of two scripts used by my company, Research, this year. There is absolutely no way they could have come from Cameron Slater’s computer systems, as Cameron doesn’t have them. No one has them but me and my office.

I thought about how this could have happened. The two most likely scenarios are that my computer systems have also been hacked, or that someone physically removed the scripts from my office (or possibly apartment). All of these scenarios make me feel sick, and make me worry about the security of the 100+ staff working for me.

Some of the material is very recent – from June 2014 – just two months ago. I think the most likely thing is that someone joined the staff (we recruit often) with the purpose of acquiring material from my office. There’s no evidence of a break in, and I tend to keep my computer systems fairly secure.

I am sure the official explanation will be that the scripts just turned up in an envelope somewhere, and they have no idea how they got there. I think that is bullshit. Most of my staff are young students, who I can’t imagine would suddenly decide to send a copy of my scripts to Nicky Hager in the post.

I consider this outrageous, just as I hope people would if someone from the right infiltrated the offices of the Labour Party pollsters, to steal their material.

There is no public interest defence to the stealing of the material belonging to my clients. There was nothing sinister or inappropriate in it.  In fact one of the scripts detailed in the book is of some questions we did for Family First, who published the results on their website, including the full questions. But I know Hager has a copy of the script as he has quoted the question numbers, which are not included in the published results.

I do not accept that because I am a blogger, and my company has National as a client, it makes it all right for me to be hacked or spied on, and material stolen from me.

This is the second Hager book that has e-mails from or to me. In 2008 (off memory) a left wing activist gained entry to a social function I was at, and covertly tape recorded conversations. My office has been infiltrated. To be honest, I’m pretty disgusted at the moment as I consider the pattern over several years.

I don’t hold the left generally responsible. I have many many friends involved in politics on the left. I’ve appreciated their support in recent days. They are good people. I think most Labour and Green MPs are good people. But there is an extreme segment of the left who do think that it is okay to hack, steal, record and spy on others, because we are of the right.

My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, if it means that I am going to have to worry about spies infiltrating my company, my communications being hacked, people recording private conversations with me. I regard my family, friends and loved ones as far more important to me, than my involvement in politics. But I’m not going to do that in haste.

Instead with huge regret I’m going to have to stop being so trusting. I’m going to have to pay what will be possibly a fair bit of money to check my apartment, my office and my computer systems for anything that shouldn’t be there. While my assumption is that the scripts came from someone who had physical access to my office, I can’t be sure. If people regard hacking and stealing as fair game, I don’t have the confidence they’ll stop at that.

I could introduce systems in my office where staff get personalised copies of scripts, that must be handed in,and have security cameras to record people. But I’m not going to do that. I value my staff too much to insult them. All but one of them will be as offended as I am, by the fact someone has betrayed their trust by stealing material (if my assumption is correct).

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the cleaners stole it. Should I check out my cleaners also? I hate the fact I’m even having to think about this. I’m sure again that there will be some official version offered in which no one did anything wrong to acquire those scripts, but pardon me, if I have some disbelief.

Tags: ,

304 Responses to “I’ve either been hacked or spied on”

  1. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 93 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MT_Tinman (3,202 comments) says:

    DPF, you obviously have proof your property was stolen.

    I hope that first thing this morning you are making an official complaint over the theft and Hagar’s receiving of that stolen property – if you haven’t already done so.

    [DPF: I will be going to the Police]

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mandk (996 comments) says:

    Sorry to hear this DPF.
    You are right to feel violated and angry.
    But don’t let the bastards get you down.
    All the best.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 74 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    Nicky Hager runs with or ran with some pretty weird dudes David. Seriously flawed individuals. I mean you get judged by the company you keep right?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrew (84 comments) says:

    DPF – serious question – is there any possibilty that respsondents recorded phone calls, or that interviewers remembered the scripts and talked about them with others? It’s tricky to keep something confidential when we have 20-40 people calling 1,000 people. I’m not denying you were hacked or had stuff stolen – this is just something I worry about myself.

    [DPF: No, as Hager quotes the question numbers on a poll. Those called do not get told the question numbers.]

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mandk (996 comments) says:

    UT
    You are a complete and utter creep and moron.
    I suggest you stop polluting KB and bugger off to scumbagsonline.co.nz

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 68 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Slipster (171 comments) says:

    Ugly is as ugly does. The Left never had any problem with stealing (or robbing) someone else’s property. After all, “expropriate the expropriator” had long been their official policy.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Perhaps you could lay a criminal complaint against Hager?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. FeralScrote (218 comments) says:

    And now we get the real reason why the cretins on the far left of the political spectrum get their panties in a knot over the GCSB,they don`t like the competition.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 56 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. niggly (830 comments) says:

    On the hacking possibility (and with Cameron Slater’s Facebook and Gmail accounts hacked) wouldn’t it suggest a shadowy “Anonymous” type operation? If so, apart from the unethical nature of “Anonymous” types having selective morality of who they target (i.e. the “right” and not the “left”), that would also highlight “joe blogs'” privacy is being compromised on an everyday level in contrast to detractors of the GCSB (think Anonymous, KDC etc) who falsely claim that the Govt spy on everyday joe blogs’? If so, more astounding hypocrisy and double-standards from the so called people devoted to supposedly protect citizens from ‘big brother’ type govt intrusion – they, not the GCSB, are being unethical.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 44 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mister nui (1,029 comments) says:

    Honestly DPF, you have to hold the left “generally responsible”.

    Until the left actually face up to the fact that they are dishonourable scum that will resort to anything to get what they want; absolute power, these sinister and dirty acts will continue.

    The left need to be shown for what they are, only then might they clean up their act.

    I hold up as Exhibit A the defacing of National Party billboards. If anything remotely like this were done to a Greens or Labour billboard, you can only imagine the howls of outrage. The response by the right to these despicable actions shows a much more mature response than one could ever expect from the left and their media enablers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. fernglas (157 comments) says:

    When the public face of New Zealand politics is an amalgam of Slater, Hager and Dotcom, perhaps it is time to leave politics. After all, it is just a spiritual home for a bunch of egocentric narcissists who want to tell others how they should live their lives. The desire to be involved in politics should be an automatic disqualification from being allowed to do so.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    Commiserations David, and I agree, lay an official complaint.

    BTW, has anyone speculated that this (the whole Hager affair) is Dotcom’s “secret weapon” that he’s been hinting at that will undermine Key in this campaign ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    DPF. Stay strong.

    IMHO you should go to the Cops. You may not know who flogged your stuff but you sure as hell know where it ended up.

    I would loovveee a High Court Judge to ask the nice Mr Hagar how he came to own all of this other peoples personal information.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. FeralScrote (218 comments) says:

    Lol , I guess on privacy and copyright Ugly T,if you did`nt have double standards you would not have any standards at all.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Your country needs you DPF.

    Please keep doing everything you do!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Nicky Hager has been saying this morning that he may release some of the original material the book is based on. Maybe DPF should ask him to release the material relating to this, and ask him how he obtained it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, if it means that I am going to have to worry about spies infiltrating my company, my communications being hacked, people recording private conversations with me. I regard my family, friends and loved ones as far more important to me, than my involvement in politics.

    That is precisely what these morons would want you to do, so suggest you take a deep breath….. and then come back stronger than ever.

    There are morons in society. Some are thieves, too. Some do illegal things for monetary gain and some for other, more sinister reasons.

    Based on the ‘experiences’ of both DPF and Whale, it seems we have finally unearthed the real face of the political hard left – where the meme is “win at all costs”.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    And – if National or whoever does this sort of business want to discredit Hager they really don’t have to look very hard, but I won’t hold my breath. It’s not good enough to just say he’s a conspiracy theory whacko, this assertion needs to be backed up.

    Come on, he’s got form. Clue: television.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. budgieboy (113 comments) says:

    Only the left in this Country could hold Hager up as some sort of virtuous saint. I think the guy is an utter scumbag and I also think he’s not all that bright. I wonder if he realised that DPF would so clearly and emphatically be able to say that those documents must be stolen? When the tide goes out on the political side of this story methinks Nickyboy is going to face a world of legal hurt, both civil and criminal.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    Ed Snack.

    This reeks of DotKrim. The bombshell may have been brought forward to try and staunch the near fatal voter loss?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. radvad (767 comments) says:

    They can’t blame West Coast ferals for this one.

    Another example of Hagar receiving stolen property. Surely a complaint to police is also in order along with the increased security.

    This is just another example of how the politics of hate is ruining this country.

    I feel for you David and understand your initial reaction. However it does prove yet again how much your input into political debate is needed.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Ed Snack – YES that occurred to me also. I know little about Dotcom but have seen it written in a few places that before he was a boss and owner, he was VERY talented on the tools and is/was one of the more skillful hackers out there…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nigel Kearney (1,016 comments) says:

    Sorry to hear about that David. Maybe this will help:

    Crimes Act s246

    (1) Every one is guilty of receiving who receives any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence, knowing that property to have been stolen or so obtained, or being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. flipper (4,077 comments) says:

    Wooowwwww….

    Your post made me sick David.
    I can understand how you felt as the realisation dawned.
    For me, the killer in your disclosure this morning was the unpublished question numbers….silly boy Hager.

    I AND MY FAMILY EXTEND TO YOU OUR BEST WISHES, and trust that you will take independent advice, and then lodge a formal complaint with an appropriate authority.

    All bests
    F

    PS

    I wonder how long it will take for TVNZ, Red radio, TV 3 et al to follow up your disclosures. They (the disclosures today)will add fuel to the belief that Hager is nothing more than, as Michael Bassett described him yesterday, “a ferret -faced fruitcake”. I add to that, “and party to a criminal conspiracy.”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 49 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Didn’t Edward Snowden deliberately seek out a certain job, knowing he would be able to steal information he had no legal or moral right to?

    I agree with others DPF; a trip to the Wellington Central Police Station is in order, and perhaps you should take someone from the broadcast media with you.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 48 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (4,459 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Hey, look over there, a Squirrel!

    Just blatant attempts at diversion, noted…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. oldpark (336 comments) says:

    DPF
    Go into web site.sources.com it detects brazen PLAGIARISM .

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    That is appalling. What on earth is the value in including polling questions in the book? Probably just to fill space…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. OneTrack (3,111 comments) says:

    The lefts motto – anything for the cause, Comrade.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. nasska (11,575 comments) says:

    Stick with it if you can DPF.

    If you give up on politics it means that the bastards have won.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Sadly David this comes as no surprise. I believe you have done the right and prudent thing as it will ensure your clients will stay loyal to you. The mere fact that you contemplated exiting the political arena is precisely what extreme elements on the left are wanting. They are desperate – they can read the polls (this morning’s Stuff/Ipsos poll being a case in point). Nothing short of manufactured scandals (a la Nicky Hagar’s latest book) can dent National and John Key so certain elements (including Kim Dotcom) are doing all they can to find any possible dirt and/or to chill debate to the point where those on the right give up. You and I have talked about this.

    Given what has happened to Cameron Slater, Peter George (as per his admission on his and your blog yesterday) and now this revelation, it would behoove the National Party and it’s campaign team and probably Matthew Hooten to avail themselves of the same services you have now been forced to pay for.

    Do not give up! You make an enormously valuable contribution to political discourse in New Zealand and the actions of obsessed extremists determined to bring down a reasonable and sensible government need to be fought every step of the way!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    What are the chances of the German fraudster being behind all these illegal activities?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mjw (396 comments) says:

    That is totally awful dpf. Really sorry to hear that. But please work through it and stay engaged in politics. The picture of you getting your book signed by Nicky Hager was enough, on its own, to justify years of political engagement.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Mike Wilkinson (71 comments) says:

    DPF, I agree with Elaycee. The disclosures were made to intimidate you – they want you to get you out of politics. I’ve not read Hager’s book, but why on earth would he have felt the need to publish the question numbers from your scripts? It looks to me like they want you to feel this way.

    This behaviour is a sign of weakness, it isn’t one of strength. I won’t pretend to know what this must feel like to you, but I join others in encouraging you to stick with it. Don’t give in to them!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. redqueen (564 comments) says:

    Res ipsa loquitur. Keep strong, DPF, not everyone is such scum. Alas, the price of freedom is the occasional knock from people who think they are ‘entitled’ to injure someone else. Don’t stop being a good person for it or stop fighting for what you believe in :(

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Gulag1917 (928 comments) says:

    Some rat has most probably been wrongfully recruited. With a high public profile a natural target.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wreck1080 (3,922 comments) says:

    Hagar is a common criminal and belongs in prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    File a complaint with the Police. Then when Hagar is in Court he will be compelled to reveal the source or face a further charge of contempt. He’s probably going to try and claim he’s a journalist but given the Fisher case, that won’t fly.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    Stay strong DPF. Noli Illegetimi Carborundum, or Noli nothis permittere te terere – loose translation: Don’t Let the Bastards Grind You Down.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SPC (5,636 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..If you give up on politics it means that the bastards have won….”

    Stop bragging nasska. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Charles Finny (9 comments) says:

    David, At the launch of Hager’s I was with many of the media as I was doing that review of the book for Paul Henry. There was much talk about Watergate, as in the introductory speeches Hager and his daughter had highlighted the security flaw in the Labour website incident. The more I think about this the more I believe Watergate is the parallel, but not because of that incident, that we all knew about, but the fact that someone has hacked Slater’s server for political purposes. Who did this? And who has done this black bag op on you? And who knew this was going on? It seems that there has been association between KDC and Hager. What is going on there? How much did Laila H know? What as shared with Labour? What was shared with the Greens? We have sunk to a new low, and the public will be increasingly aware of this. Meantime we all need to beef up our physical and IT security. After this dismal poll today, thing are going to get even nastier. There are people who are desperate for a change of Government. One faces years in the clanger. Others face political oblivion….Take care

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    Encourage you with your measured response DPF. Consider spending some money on having an overall security check, that will presumably provide some peace of mind in the meantime. I don’t for a second believe it is an effort to drive you out of politics because you are no quitter, a fact that is realised with your self disciplines of recent times and something others will have seen. Good on you for not over reacting and taking a slowly, slowly, response, just what a fighter does when shocked, needing to clear his head and get his feet moving again. Drink from the cup inscribed ‘I will not be beaten.’

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Crusader (316 comments) says:

    “My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, if it means that I am going to have to worry about spies infiltrating my company, my communications being hacked, people recording private conversations with me. I regard my family, friends and loved ones as far more important to me, than my involvement in politics. But I’m not going to do that in haste.”

    My sympathy. This would be my reaction too. Hacking is despicable.
    But I have admiration for anyone who continues in the face of such low tactics and bullying.
    Nil carborundum. Don’t let the bastards grind you down.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. jakejakejake (134 comments) says:

    I can just imagine Hager crawling around in your garbage after midnight to pilfer documents. He would have spent days piecing together the scripts after they were shredded in your office. Not sure it would be a crime though, I’d guess your rubbish is public domain like the Labour website.

    We regularly see leaks from various unions and other leftist support orgs on Whaleoil blog so it is safe to say both sides engage in these dirty tactics.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    The source is an employee. Footnote 17 for chapter 9 says “Confidential source.” Footnote 18 calls him “The employee said”.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    How long have you been the victim of this outrage Mr Farrar?

    http://bcops.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    Agree with berend. You have a mole working for you, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Yesterday I mentioned that I’d been hacked, curious if there could be any connection. This gets even more curious with DPF’s claims.

    But an employee plant takes it to a more worrying degree of espionage than hacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Jinky (185 comments) says:

    Keep on keeping on. We’d miss you.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Daniel (210 comments) says:

    It’s unfortunate that many on the left share the same values as the likes of Chris Trotter, where by they think whatever depths they sink to or laws they break it is okay because ultimately they are the ones that are correct and the rightwing is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Straight to the cops please. Sounds like Hager needs a search warrant execute on his premises before he destroys more evidence.

    Oh and UglyTruth get some help as in actual psychiatric help, you have a diagnosis.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. hj (7,031 comments) says:

    Some people are suggesting the polls are doctored. If that could be done, given the vested interests involved (you could model that) it would might be done? Does anyone audit these polls?

    Look at the variation on immigration response

    NZ Herald Digipoll June 2014
    Immigration
    Levels about right 50%
    Too high 35%
    3 News Reid Research poll May 2014

    Immigration
    62% support tighter restrictions on immigration
    35% oppose
    One News Colmar Brunton poll May 2014
    House Prices
    68% support register of foreign ownership of property, 22% against
    57% support more immigration controls to reduce house prices, 33% against

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Albert_Ross (298 comments) says:

    When and why exactly did John Key say “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”? Because that’s a reasonable thing to say in some circumstances and totally unacceptable in others, so the context matters quite a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mandk (996 comments) says:

    jackinabox: “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”

    DPFs point is that he has not hidden anything, but he still got done over.

    Stop victim blaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Richard (82 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 46 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Igotta Numbum (463 comments) says:

    DP, I’m surprised you’ve written this BEFORE deciding to take action… it’s shocking, you really need to act.

    It goes to the heart of good business where you pride yourself on providing the best possible service and security to your clients and to have that ripped out from you, either from within or by external measures, is a kick in the teeth. But you DO have to be seen to be taking the appropriate measures to remedy the problem (i’m sure you are).

    And to UglyTruth, it doesn’t matter one iota whether the actual scripts were taken, or someone memorised the whole thing themselves and repeated them to the receiver, in the eyes of the law it’s illegal either way. You’re just being a prize cunt.

    All the best DPF, don’t let the actions of a few spoil things for the many.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. DrDr (114 comments) says:

    “All of these scenarios make me feel sick, and make me worry about the security of the 100+ staff working for me.”

    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” John Key.

    What David has is confidential client information that has been commissioned and is the intellectual property of Curia and the information from it belongs to the client – so he is worried about protecting his business – just like any other business that provides services – anyone that hacks or steals someone else’s private data is ethically bankrupt and a criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SPC (5,636 comments) says:

    IN, where is the illegality?

    Once the information was published on the Family First site the material became public information. Having the extra information off the original script added nothing – except to give some source material padding and or to demonstrate capacity to access information – the host’s post above indicates the psychological impact of this on those affected.

    Hager did not hide the means of access in this instance, revealing it to be an employee.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. G152 (348 comments) says:

    You owned the rat in the ‘interview’.
    Keep up the good work and if you can lay complaints with the Police and keep us up to date on any response

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “jackinabox: “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”

    DPFs point is that he has not hidden anything, but he still got done over.

    Stop victim blaming.”

    Most (honest) people don’t hide things but some still get “done over” by dark forces. I bet Mr Farrar was all for the GCSB Bill.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 38 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Jackinabox, don’t be an idiot. There is quite a difference between the GCSB and a hacker-thief.

    One is a sate body, operating under legislation, with sworn powers, investigating crimes or potential crimes within strict parameters, under warrants from judicial bodies, according to the laws of this land, and accountable to the laws, judicial system & government.

    The other is an unauthorised person, illegally violating the privacy of a political enemy, competitor or random stranger for pecuniary or political gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. xy (187 comments) says:

    I think you should consider that this feeling of violation and betrayal is EXACTLY how many of Slater’s targets have felt. But you’ve cheered and encouraged that in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Oh and UglyTruth get some help as in actual psychiatric help, you have a diagnosis.

    Am I not bleating in tune with the rest of the sheeple?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 44 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Inthisdress (280 comments) says:

    Brave words Judith.
    Good on you for telling it like it is.

    Don’t forget:

    ‘ Vote Positive’…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Jackinabox, don’t be an idiot. There is quite a difference between the GCSB and a hacker-thief.”

    If you are the innocent victim of a hacker or the GCSB/SIS/Porky bastards you feel just as violated as Mr Farrar reckons he does now.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Evadne (76 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:07 am

    But it was okay when Slater and is mates invaded the privacy of private individuals who are labour supporters, but its not okay when they are National Supporters?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Makes quite a consistent thread, doesn’t it? Dredging through John Key’s rubbish bins, Williams and the ‘H’ fee digging, Don Brash’s emails, now Slater and Farrar.
    I suspect we have seen only part of the true depths to which this long term organised campaign of ‘intelligence gathering’ has descended.
    It indicates that there must be quite a large bunch of people who need to review their i-security and upgrade their shredders.
    The real questions are: who has set this up? and how widespread does it go?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    So Judith, you’re saying Hager is just like Slater, and his book is just like the Whaleoil blog?
    Do you read Whaleoil often?

    I certainly agree there’s dirty politics going on and NZ would be a better place if we could clean it up. But the evidence suggests it’s not confined to National. This book is very much intended to cast National as the only villain, and in itself is dirty politics. Let the light shine in all the corners.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. DJP6-25 (1,388 comments) says:

    Lay a complaint with the police DPF. Don’t even think about giving up. The left must always be denied any kind of success.
    Once you get past the likes of Joe and Jane six pack and some of the people who do door knocking, and other activist stuff; it becomes obvious that the ‘left’ are pond scum. Being socialists and cultural Marxists, they believe the end justifies the means. So they act accordingly. There are exceptions. But expecting anything else would be like expecting your cat to host a block party, with free cheese for all the local rats and mice; and not try to eat any of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC (5,636 comments) says:

    The history of political dirt, the tit complaining about the tat for operating like the tit did. Those of the right as victims when others seek to expose what had been going on.

    And we suspected the book would be about Snowden – called a traitor for exposing government to the people, a government that wanted to people to remain exposed to their snooping and ignorant of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Judith – I’m not speaking for Slater; He is accountable for his own actions & practices a much as Hager or anyone else.

    But on the point you raise, you will find that Slater did not publish the personal details of “private individuals who are labour supporters”. It was labour who published those on a google-indexed web page. Any copies Slater made had the personal details redacted. He criticised the Labour party & their inept IT systems – he did not launch an attack on their supporters.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “the tit complaining about the tat for operating like the tit”

    It seems the next few weeks are going to be a shit flinging competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. freemark (581 comments) says:

    I posted this late last night, but I’m going to do it again as it needs greater exposure IMO.
    So, on one hand we have selective quoting from stolen private email conversations between a blogger and his friend. On the other hand we have a blog that hosts Q&A’s with Cunliffe, is fed information from the highest Parliamentary levels of Labour, Greens, Mana/IP etc, and has many Left MP’s & senior staffers commenting under pseudonym. Here is a small sample when you search for scum.. hypocrisy much?

    marty mars 6.2.1.1
    7 August 2014 at 12:22 pm
    I agree – it shows how low and scum-like key is

    bad12 4.1.2.1
    15 July 2014 at 9:19 am
    i was considering commenting to you SSLands on ‘owning’ and ‘dogs’, however self moderation has me loath to avail you of my exact thoughts on these subjects vis a vis ‘you’,

    There is no need of you to remind us that you are in fact ACT scum, that fact drips from every word that you publish here…

    Enough is Enough …
    7 July 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Anyway, its been good chatting with you OAB.

    Whatever strategy we take into this scrap, I hope in three months we are debating the priorities of the new Green/Labour government, and can forget about Key and his scum tory mob forever.

    amirite: Comment:Open mike 07/08/2014
    Date published: 7:15 am, August 7th, 2014
    If Labour wants us to ‘vote positive’, their candidates shouldn’t associate with scum like Slater and Farrar.

    Jenny 6
    24 July 2014 at 5:59 am
    Will Labour back down to TVNZ?

    And let them have that vile Right wing scum bag moderate the election leaders debate?

    marty mars 4
    11 July 2014 at 1:02 pm
    What low scum these gnats are – they attack the most vulnerable, those who need help the most and then they laugh over their slobbering chins when those people suffer – a reckoning is coming.

    phillip ure: Comment:Open mike 03/07/2014
    Date published: 5:52 pm, July 3rd, 2014
    …/poorest/sickest.. ..fucken rand-ite scum that they are.. ..i hope…

    Blue: Comment:The dirtiest election campaign backfires
    Date published: 11:23 am, June 19th, 2014
    … that National are dirty little scum merchants and that the Herald…

    One Anonymous Bloke: Comment:Open mike 18/06/2014
    Date published: 2:13 pm, June 18th, 2014
    As a Green voter I prefer that the country not be governed by right wing scum with transparent double standards to go with their witless incompetence.

    One Anonymous Bloke: Comment:James Macbeth Dann, an introduction, and a bit about Rebuilding Christchurch
    Date published: 1:14 pm, June 18th, 2014
    Karma is far too random and uncertain a process to rely on it to deal to Tory scum. We need something more direct. For the children.

    Ugly will again no doubt assert (again, yawn) that the emails weren’t “stolen” – just borrowed or something. These are the people that screech loudest about private comments made by Slater. Some of these people are very likely to be Labour/Green MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Jackinthebox – I probably would feel upset if the GCSB watched me, but no where near as irate, outraged, shocked & vulnerable as I would be if the government & state policing authorities decided they didn’t want to protect the citizens of this country and withdrew from the fight against crime, leaving the field to criminals to wield whatever terror & anarchy they wanted unchecked.

    I respect our police, GCSN, SIS & all the rest. They might not always be perfect, but I’m damn grateful for them & their commitment to this country & our safety.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Sorry to hear about this DPF, I know what it is like to be burgled. It takes a while to recover, it did for me. It made me super careful, which may not be a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Evadne (or whoever you were in another life)

    The book gives details on how Slater and his team accessed that information. It was not just as simple as clicking and entering as you claim – he actually needed the assistance of IT support to do it – so lets be truthful here – AND Slater had the choice of NOT publishing those details, but he didn’t do the decent thing – you cannot defend Slaters actions, and then cry foul when it happens to you – sorry – doing that makes you a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Jimbob (641 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:27 am

    Oh please – even the police wait for evidence of a crime – before apprehending offenders!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. dime (9,977 comments) says:

    PG – I feel for the poor bastards that hacked you. Having to read through all your fence sitting is a punishment i wouldnt wish on anyone.

    its amazing watching the left breeze over whats actually happened. like hacking isnt an issue. im pretty sure it would fail the “what if it happened to our side” test. they would be going apeshit.

    it also highlights the lack of brains some people have. Comrade Jackson & Comrade Mau assuring us yesterday on their show that viewing the labour site was “hacking”. idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    I am sure the official explanation will be that the scripts just turned up in an envelope somewhere, and they have no idea how they got there

    This TV guv? Just found it on the street, innit? I had no proof it was stolen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    The footnotes that you mention clearly say the “confidential source” is an employee. I can see how that’s upsetting for you and a breach of trust on the employee’s behalf, but it’s leaking, not hacking or spying. And wouldn’t someone who went to the trouble of hacking your systems take more than two call-centre scripts that were essentially public anyway?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Skippytony (16 comments) says:

    Ouch, and ouch again. I know that sinking feeling when something that was supposed to stay inside the tent suddenly turns up outside.

    First, get some experts in and listen to their advice.

    Second, hit the trust thing head on. Get a plan, execute, talk to your customers so they know what risks they have been exposed to, get in first and be as open and honest as possible.

    Third, you have to analyse very carefully, the potential sources. Some things you can do low effort / low risk such as clean desk policies, put a shredder in and so on. The you have to assume everyone is a fault and gradually move them out or the risk pile as you systematically eliminate them as a potential source. Be relentless on this.

    Four, review your confidentiality clauses in your engagement contracts – are they comprehensive enough?

    Five, talk to all of your team. Explain all of the above. Make sure they understand the reasons for change, the gravity of the problem, the consequences for all of you if your customers start to bail. Ask the hard questions.

    Six, escalate as hard and as high as you can with the authorities. Pursue every legal option to the extent of your resources. Then, when they are exhausted ask for help.

    Seven, stay strong.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Just a note here –

    If DPF feels violated over this ‘supposed attack’ – then how does he think some of his posters feel knowing that they have been used as participants in a game, that they were not told they were taking part in?

    Mr Blobby, Thor42, Sir Cullen’s Sidekick, Phar Lap, and so on. All people playing for the same dirty politics team, colluding with Slater to spread the filth in here, so we would buy it and take it back into the community and spread it further.

    How does that feel – well for those of you that are rational enough to get over political bias, and actually consider the implications of the game we’ve all been players in, without our implicit consent.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Judith, I’m not quite sure why I’m allowing myself to be drawn into an argument with you: having observed your comments over many months, I realise you are incapable of changing your mind or admitting you’re wrong.

    However, if anyone is reading your comments or the Hager book, and wants the other side of the labour website “hacking” story, then Slater’s account – acknowledged by the Labour party back in 2011 – is worth reading: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/12/whaleoil-redux-2011-the-labour-party-website-story/

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Russell Brown (404 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:32 am

    I suspect if someone had managed to hack DPF’s system, there would be more than just this piece of information doing the rounds!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly will again no doubt assert (again, yawn) that the emails weren’t “stolen” – just borrowed or something.

    Copied. You know, like when you don’t lose the original.

    These are the people that screech loudest about private comments made by Slater.

    News to me. My dislike of WheelOil isn’t much of secret, but I don’t recall screeching loudly about him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. kaykaybee (152 comments) says:

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    David – I’m so sorry you’ve also been a victim to these thugs, these conniving, unprincipled and unscrupulous criminals. Please don’t give up. Your well considered and rational opinion, your well-mannered and considered reason is a beacon for the moderate liberal in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So, not hacking then – a leak from a staff member that doesn’t appear to be of much of consequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Could be a rogue Leftist in the GCSB who feeds Hager the Horrible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. David Farrar (1,898 comments) says:

    Russell: I regard it as spying. I don’t think the person took a job with me to earn money. I think they took the job to get hold of my material. There is nothing in that material which would cause someone to say “Oh this needs to leaked”.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    The couple from hell, the Bainite and the jihadist, are taking a hammering again (for a change).

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Jackinthebox – I probably would feel upset if the GCSB watched me, but no where near as irate, outraged, shocked & vulnerable as I would be if the government & state policing authorities decided they didn’t want to protect the citizens of this country and withdrew from the fight against crime, leaving the field to criminals to wield whatever terror & anarchy they wanted unchecked.

    I respect our police, GCSN, SIS & all the rest. They might not always be perfect, but I’m damn grateful for them & their commitment to this country & our safety.”

    I HATE the cops Evadne, I hate them for what they did to and failed to do for my family for the past 3 decades.

    http://bcops.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    If someone took a job with DPF to obtain information, don’t you think they might have been able to obtain something a little more interesting than a couple of polling scripts?

    [DPF: Nope, as that is all most have access to]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Evadne (79 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:37 am

    And of course, aren’t biased Evadne? We all have biases, you included.

    I am fully aware of Whaleoil’s explanation. I am also fully aware that Whaleoil is an unscrupulous bastard that doesn’t think twice about attacking a grieving family who just lost their fourth son in a tragic accident, and that he is a man without ethics and without honesty.

    There is NO excuse for hacking – although Hager was not the hacker (he doesn’t have the skill base) he accepted ‘stolen’ material, which challenges his ethics – BUT it does not change the information – it does not make it disappear – it does not invalidate it as evidence of the very filthy dirty campaign that members of the National support team have been playing ( I note here I am actually not completely convinced that John Key was fundamentally involved – he is perhaps guilty of being too trusting).

    You, and others attempts to shoot the messenger are pathetic – they are merely nothing more than attempts to evade the major issues here – and to try and distract the public attention from the joke that politics has become in this country.

    NONE of them are worthy of the money we pay them, until they clean up their acts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I consider this outrageous, just as I hope people would if someone from the right infiltrated the offices of the Labour Party pollsters, to steal their material.

    Well, yes it is outrageous. But did you really find it outrageous when people from the right stole material from the Labour Party? From what I recall, you didn’t find it outrageous at all and thought it was all pretty funny at the time that Labour hadn’t kept tighter control over its confidential documents. Doesn’t seem quite so hilarious when the boot’s on the other foot, does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Changeiscoming (190 comments) says:

    I didn’t realise DPF that you employ 100+ staff – Well done. A great sized business.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Psycho

    It’s not stolen when it’s in plain sight for the entire world to see. Labour were incompetent. Calling this theft is like saying people reading a billboard are stealing the information on it. Stop pretending Labour were hacked…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Farrar (1,866 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:40 am

    So why do you think this person hasn’t released some of the more ‘juicy’ stuff – or at least confirmation of correspondence between you and Slater? They clearly weren’t a very competent spy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    If someone took a job with DPF to obtain information, don’t you think they might have been able to obtain something a little more interesting than a couple of polling scripts?

    Are you suggesting a hard core lefty would take a job ??? Seriously… put some effort in rather than just wait for other peoples money. You are deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    If Hager is just the messenger who is he working for?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Sporteone (43 comments) says:

    DPF, I know exactly how you feel. Personally, I felt violated when it happen to me.
    Hager is not an Investigative Journalist. He is a scavenger and a manipulator and maligner of facts. No-one can tell me that none of the other political parties use the same tactics. They are not illegal.

    In fact the only thing that is illegal here is that Hager has received information that has been obtained illegally (sec 248-252 of the Crimes Act) and then disseminated this information. He could even be guilty of Receiving Stolen Property (sec 246 Crimes Act) but that might be a bit hard to prove.

    Some have commented that the Nats hacked the Labour computers to get the member list etc. This is purely a mistruth or an out and out lie. The list was accidentally left available to the public, on their own website, by one of there own staffers. It is of note, that The Joker (David Cunliffe) or any of the Labour MP’s have not corrected this fact. They are more than happy to hang on the coat tail of this book, like dags on a sheep.

    I can see criminal charges being laid over this and it won’t be anyone in the National Party or the National Staffers who are charged. It will be Nicky Hager and the the person who supplied the information.

    There are many people who are capable of taking down a blog site or hacking a computer. One of these people is very prominent in the election campaign right now. watch this space, I will state now, that what he will disclose one week from the election will follow on from this.

    DPF, get your computer systems checked. I work in the Computer Forensics industry and you may be surprised at what you find. Even if it is one of your staffers, there will be a tell tale trail in relation to the documents that have been stole or accessed.

    Nicky Hager is lower than a gutter snake. He has not checked his information or asked for comment and cannot rely on the moral high ground or public interest debate to save his arse this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. questions (208 comments) says:

    Are these the scripts that your staff call up and read to hundreds or thousands of people?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RightNow (6,729 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:51 am
    If Hager is just the messenger who is he working for?

    For New Zealanders who have the right to know the truth about the government they vote for, and of whose wages they pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    DPF, it seems if all this person managed to leak to Hager was just these polling scripts, when they would clearly have been looking for something ‘more juicy’ then you’re obviously above reproach.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    You should join with Cam in taking Hagar to court to reveal his sources, DPF.

    You obviously have the right to know now…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..watch this space, I will state now, that what he will disclose one week from the election will follow on from this…..’

    That’s what I thought.

    But heading to the slammer the blob hasn’t got anything to lose —- so he’ll probably just make shit up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Sporteone (22 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:52 am

    To two wrongs, make it ‘alright’ then?

    So its okay what Slater, and DPF and the Minister of Justice, and Ede and a whole lot of other people have dishonestly done?

    Its quite amazing how people like you just brush over the issue of the extreme dirty politics involved, and try your hardest to concentrate on the least most important thing of all.

    But’s that not surprising, when we have a government happy to allow their Minister of Aviation to break aviation security – despite the fact they claim the terrorist threat is so bad that we need legislation that allows them to spy on us in our own homes.

    You are a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Judith, why would I for one second believe Hager is delivering truth? Like you’ve said, he’s just another Slater. Do you read Whaleoil, and if so do you believe what Slater says?

    In fact we can say Cameron Slater is just a messenger for New Zealanders who have the right to know the truth about the politicians, local and central, they vote for, and of whose wages they pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    I hope you will get a good lawyer, David, and not simply rely on the police. This is a theft of intellectual property at the very least and deserves both identification of the culprits and punishment of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Judith said

    But it was okay when Slater and is mates invaded the privacy of private individuals who are labour supporters, but its not okay when they are National Supporters?

    There’s a significant difference Judith, and I’m surprised that someone as sharp as you can’t see it. Slater got the information, but did nothing with it, other than mock Labour for its appalling website security. The Labour website was NOT hacked; the information was there, unprotected by passwords or any form of security, for anyone who went looking for it.

    On the other hand Nicky Hager has been given stolen information, both from hackers and from someone who would appear to have committed theft as a servant, or at the very least, breached an employment agreement, and has used that illegally-obtained information to write a book. Hager’s intent is two-fold; to influence an election, and to make money. By my reading of the situation, that makes Hager’s behaviour look absolutely corrupt.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    The great thing about some of the precedents that are being set by the Hager-fans is that warrants are now completely redundant. We just declare the GCSB ‘journalists’ let things ‘turn up on a USB stick’ and we’ve solved the entire problem of state spies. Wunderba!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ rouppe (928 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Yeah, good idea FULL and ABSOLUTE DISCLOSURE – lets start with the Minister of Justice providing full and absolute disclosure of all her emails since 2007 – especially those to DPF and Slater and related people. Then I think for a main course, lets have emails between Lusk, Ede and maybe even the Prime Minister, to Cameron Slater and others. Of course for desert, we’ll have full and open disclosure of Hager’s emails.

    AND you know what – I bet its not labour or NZFirst, or Green, or IMP party supporters than end up with indigestion from that meal!!!

    It will never happen because National have too much to lose

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Section 250 of the Crimes Act 1961 has this to say on the subject of hacking, denial of service attacks and deliberate computer virus releases… [It] covers deliberate hacking and/or flooding (overwhelming) of phones or networks (with messages or calls) so that the owner cannot use the system.

    What does the law say?
    1. Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who intentionally or recklessly destroys, damages, or alters any computer system if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result.

    2. everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who intentionally or recklessly, and without authorization, knowing that he or she is not authorized, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorized, –
    a. Damages, deletes, modifies, or otherwise interferes with or impairs any data or software in any computer system; or
    b. Causes any data or software in any computer system to be damaged, deleted, modified, or otherwise interfered with or impaired; or
    c. Causes any computer system to-
    i. Fail; or
    ii. Deny service to any authorized users.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. dog_eat_dog (781 comments) says:

    DPF, I would be worried. There’s five weeks to go and KDC still has his smoking gun meeting pencilled in for before the election. The way this book was apparently quickly cobbled together makes me wonder whether Hager has another one in him before 20/09.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Richard (19 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 8:54 am
    If you’re on the same team as Slater and the ninth floor, then the public deserve the right to know your actions. New Zealand owes Nicky Hager a great deal.

    So Richard if your on the same team as KDC, Greens and Labour NZ has the same right to know all yours and their actions-Yes???

    So release all the Cunliffe secret trust info, the blatant corruption of the union backers, the nefarious scheming of KDC, the greens anti growth agenda’s etc etc . So is it OK to hack into their info-Yes?

    David – the hypocrisy of the lefties is gobsmacking. The feeling of violation you must be feeling is rightly gutting!!

    It is no different to a thief breaking and entering you house or car. It is a criminal act.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    Of course it must be realised that some of the fallout from Collin’s use of the blogs was already under scrutiny, there’s a longer reach going on here than most appear to realise. In some respects there seems to have been a ‘we’ll get away with it’ or ‘it will blow over’ going on with Collins for a long time – that reflects on the party leadership. I believe the fallout will continue post election despite whatever Government is formed. It must be tempting to act now and cull some of the damage or it may be later generally considered as a time when the rot took over – others will be tarnished by that. There is good work being undone right now. There will be many who don’t want to hear what other parties have done because it gives no finality, it can be assumed those people want to know what is being done at the helm to reassure the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    What is quite despicable and directly dishonest is the comparison to Slater’s revelations on Labour’s open website and emails stolen to order for political gain.

    Let’s repeat you shitheads, if you put data onto a web server such that it is open to the public that is publishing that data to the public. If Google’s “bots” find that data anyone is entitled to look at it although you may later assert copyright etc and attempt to restrict access. There is NO illegality involved at any level. If you didn’t mean to publish, you may be ignorant/stupid/careless, but it isn’t your readers fault in any way. Is that clear ?

    However if you deliberately hack into a persons computer or accounts that is a deliberate criminal act; and publishing anything gained from that activity is a related crime. Hager has knowingly used information gained by criminal means and is complicit in the crime. He also almost certainly know who commissioned the crime (and I certainly have my suspicions) and is perfectly well aware of the criminality involved.

    It is also worth noting that Hager has form for adding fake information to his “finds” and I would not trust a single word he publishes to be honestly reported and that includes the “and”s and the “the”s. So anyone having the misfortune to read his little piece should be aware that at least some of it is faked, some of it doctored or “sexed up”, and the rest largely out of context. But I’ve little doubt that you will read into it what you want to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. mister nui (1,029 comments) says:

    Well, yes it is outrageous. But did you really find it outrageous when people from the right stole material from the Labour Party? From what I recall, you didn’t find it outrageous at all and thought it was all pretty funny at the time that Labour hadn’t kept tighter control over its confidential documents. Doesn’t seem quite so hilarious when the boot’s on the other foot, does it?

    Huge difference, psycho.

    Labour numpties left their database open to the world.

    An employee of Davids, who will have signed a contract, has taken IP, proprietary information etc. directly in contravention of the legally binding contract they have signed. That employee has broken the law.

    DPF, I’m taking a bit of license here in assuming you have robust employment contracts. You do, don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Keeping Stock (10,157 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Oh come on – have you read the book? Getting that information was not quite that simple – Slater needed to get his IT savvy friend to help him with that material. Slater used that material in a well planned attack and as part of a dirty political campaign. That campaign has many prongs, many of which have been played out on this blog. I suspect you know quite a bit about that.

    I’m not defending the way Hager got his information – he is justifiably getting flack because of it – and it devalues his publication because of the ethics involved – BUT it still does not alter the main issue, and that what Slater and co have done.

    I am in a tricky position here KS – because as you know I applied for and received several OIA’s over the past year or so. Because I was preoccupied with other matters, certain details on that information were ignored, until now. That information was applied for legally – but it confirms and supports what Hager has claimed on many things –

    So yes, whilst I acknowledge Hager’s methodology as flawed, my own is exemplary – however, the results are the same.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt: I think you’ll find that the content from the Labour servers was never actually disclosed. Just lots of people laughing about how they’d accessed it and generally embarrassing the Labour party for leaving it unsecured. But I don’t recall personal details being leaked (although it was a while ago I could be wrong).

    Whereas here I don’t really see DPF having been careless, and the content has been disclosed. So it’s not really the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    Taking a step back for a moment. One of the issues is distribution to the media of information. In Slater’s case he unsuccessfully argued that he was part of the media in the Auckland District Court as a defence. In another case he claims not to be a member of the media. Such fundamentals need to clarified or some castles are being built on sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    Oh Judith, why not call for all of KDC’s emails and communications with Labour, NZF, Greens, etc (and of course the return messages) to be revealed. I’d especially like to see all of KDC’s communications with Hager, we might see something interesting then might we not ?

    Oh and nice little plant about the OIA’s, sounds legit and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Huge difference, psycho.

    Minor difference, mister nui. The Labour documents were presumably a little easier to gain unauthorised access to than DPF’s documents, if his account is correct, but that’s about it.

    An employee of Davids, who will have signed a contract, has taken IP, proprietary information etc. directly in contravention of the legally binding contract they have signed. That employee has broken the law.

    That’s what happened, is it? You should take your apparent knowledge of the details of this ‘crime’ to the Police, immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    The end seems to justify the means for the left. I’m surprised there are lefties here defending hacking and theft – just so long as the victims are on the right. The lesson appears to be that the left will stop at nothing, there is no low too low to which they are prepared to sink, no line that is a step too far. That is truly disgusting.

    Labour will lose a percentage point every time Cunliffe puts on his gravely serious voice and says “the PM has some serious questions to answer”, because the public thinks “no he doesn’t, but you and your lefty comrades on the other hand …”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Ed Snack (1,765 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Why don’t you do it – I have enough on my plate.

    The fact is Ed – two wrongs will never make a right – you are all scrambling around trying everything to avoid the fact that a very dirty political game has been played by national supporters. Now I am very sure that dirty politics is not an exclusive thing to national, and that many of our politicians are involved in similar – but that does not meant that National should get away with what has been exposed.

    National, promised open and transparent governance – they have broken that promise – as well they have a senior Minister who has acted in the most despicable manner, and has demonstrated a great deal of dishonesty – when that is added to previous wrong doings by this minister – it demonstrates that they are not a person worthy of being part of the next government. The public of New Zealand have a right to know the sort of person they will be voting for –

    DPF, Slater, Key, Joyce and so on haven’t laid off sticking the boot into Labour – so why the hell should anyone lay off sticking the boot into them when they have clearly done wrong?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Oh come on – have you read the book? Getting that information was not quite that simple – Slater needed to get his IT savvy friend to help him with that material. Slater used that material in a well planned attack and as part of a dirty political campaign.

    1 – If you are just going to believe everything in the book then just drop any pretence of being impartial. You’re clearly desperate for it to be true, but Slater actually put up a step by step video showing exactly what he did to access the data.
    2 – That material proved two things about Labour. One was indeed dirty on their part, that they used Parliamentary resources for unauthorised purposes. The other was not so much dirty but showed they were untrustworthy with private data. They had an obligation to secure private information and they failed to uphold that obligation.

    I’m glad we had the opportunity to revisit this episode. We’ve reinforced a few key facts don’t you think? You’re a shrieking lefty who’ll believe anything that supports your preconceptions, and Labour are dirty, incompetent and untrustworthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Newsflash!!!

    Graham McCready is taking a private prosecution against Nicky Hagar – YEAH Right!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. tom hunter (4,887 comments) says:

    The Labour documents were presumably a little easier to gain unauthorised access to than DPF’s documents ..

    As easy as photographing the information on a highway billboard had Labour been stupid enough to put it up on the billboard. They did the electronic age equivalent.

    By contrast to get even this much of DPF’s stuff required theft from the premises, either as an employee or an outsider breaking in.

    Not “a little easier” then. Not a minor difference either. Not in any way, shape or form.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ross411 (842 comments) says:

    Judith (8,057 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:04 am
    Really??? I guess we are judged by the company we keep – Cameron Slater engaged the assistance of ‘hackers’ and/or used unscrupulous tactics to gain information on private people and you are now squealing because you believe you’ve been caught up in the same web of dirt?

    There’ll be time enough for countin’
    When the dealin’s done

    The dealing has only just begun…

    Don’t you get tired of the hollow justifications for anything done against National, or related parties, is okay, because they deserve it and everyone is doing it or whatever your weak excuse of the day is? Isn’t it time to just stand up and be a mature adult and admit that they don’t need to be linked tenuously and that none of these are okay.

    Shel Silverstein (again):

    The saddest thing I ever did see
    Was a woodpecker peckin’ at a plastic tree.
    He looks at me, and “Friend,” says he,
    “Things ain’t as sweet as they used to be.”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    Nice to see support for DPF. He is important to us and New Zealand.

    Also nice to see the comment by Ugly has hit 64 downticks in a couple of hours. Not quite the outpouring of scorn earned by Penny but very close. Ugly you really outdid yourself. Filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. adc (595 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, your concept of the requirements of some act to constitute theft are incorrect.

    Obtaining something without the consent of the owner is all that is required. Doesn’t matter if it was a single thing that cannot be copied (like a car) or information that can be copied (like documents or a film).

    You seem to think that copying information without the permission of the intellectual property holder is just some legal construct made up by the music and film industry.

    That attitude is frankly befitting a 14 yr old. Why should a film studio pay 250M to make a film, if you are going to OWN it by paying $15 for a DVD? You need to do some research on licensing, and property rights and stop spouting your drivel here.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @DPF: I suspect you won’t find a lot of legal remedies, but it’s still worth making the complaint to the police.

    It sucks to have your trust violated. But it will blow over. They haven’t really got anything damaging, although clearly they think the script is somehow damaging.

    The bottom line is that the left were losing the election. So they’ve gone very dirty very early.

    Maybe NZers are dumb enough to fall for that, maybe it won’t be enough to see them through. It really depends whether they have something to keep it up with – so maybe the Snowden content if and when it turns up.

    My guess is that people will be well bored of this crap by election day, and the end result will be negative for the left. We’ll see.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rich Prick (1,590 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:21 am

    ahh, Rich Prick – your name seems familiar?

    So your argument is that you support dirty tactics being used by national supporters, but that they should not be allowed to be used by others?

    Okay, Rich Prick – thank you for that – you’ve made up my mind for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ross411 (842 comments) says:

    tom hunter (4,502 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:29 am
    The Labour documents were presumably a little easier to gain unauthorised access to than DPF’s documents ..

    As easy as photographing the information on a highway billboard had Labour been stupid enough to put it up on the billboard. In the electronic age they were.

    By contrast to get even this much of DPF’s stuff required theft from the premises, either as an employee or an outsider breaking in.

    Not a minor difference then. Not in any way, shape or form.

    Apples and oranges really, unless the person doing the comparison is duplicious or stupid. Any technologically literate person on either left or right, who is honest will admit it.

    Yet, we get people who obviously barely know more than the average pensioner raving on how it is hacking. I don’t go telling people that working on an oil rig makes you a fisherman because you’re at sea. I know nothing about either, and I know what I don’t know to a decent degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. tom hunter (4,887 comments) says:

    I do not accept that because I am a blogger, and my company has National as a client, it makes it all right for me to be hacked or spied on, and material stolen from me.

    Well neither do I. On the other hand there are people like this fanatical loser, and that’s not from The Standard. Frankly the only difference between that and your typical Public Address commentator is that the latter are smart enough not to use to word “scum” – but they have just as low an opinion of the right-wing. There’s not just an election to be won but a class war. The ends justify the means, which brings me to this …

    I don’t hold the left generally responsible. I have many many friends involved in politics on the left. I’ve appreciated their support in recent days. They are good people. I think most Labour and Green MPs are good people. But there is an extreme segment of the left who do think that it is okay to hack, steal, record and spy on others, because we are of the right.

    Just how small is this “segment”? And given how toxic it is what does the “majority of the left” matter. If the toxic fringe helps win an election and get left-wing policies implemented you think the left-wingers you know and like won’t rejoice, if quietly, while wringing their hands in public or in front of you? The oleaginous Russell Brown being a prime example.

    My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, if it means that I am going to have to worry about spies infiltrating my company, my communications being hacked, people recording private conversations with me. I regard my family, friends and loved ones as far more important to me, than my involvement in politics. But I’m not going to do that in haste.

    I’m not sure I can imagine what it’s like and I could not blame you for giving up. But as others have pointed out that is what the left-wing want. Don’t give it to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. RAS (63 comments) says:

    FeralScrote (75 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 7:55 am
    And now we get the real reason why the cretins on the far left of the political spectrum get their panties in a knot over the GCSB, they don`t like the competition.

    That counts as comment of the week IMHO

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. flipper (4,077 comments) says:

    Judith …..

    You make many sensible and insightful comments on many threads. I’ll go further and say that on one or two you lead a righteous crusade – with every justification. Excellent.

    But on this and allied matters, Judith, you appear to have accepted as fact the words, and the hallucinations, of a known conspiracy fruitcake.

    As of this morning we can add “and participant in a criminal conspiracy” to the charges against Hager.

    I predict that the careless disclosure by Hager of the question numbers will result in him (and others, unless he chooses to take the fall by himself) facing serious criminal charges. Ooops!

    So Judith, before you dig a bigger hole – one from which you cannot escape – stop digging. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This is a theft of intellectual property

    2 errors:
    Intellectual property is typically a contradiction in terms, and theft involves depriving the rightful owner of possession.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    Well said Ed Snack. Once that data was web crawled by Google and indexed it was effectively published. Everyone ranting its not in the public domain at that stage is just being silly. It was Published end of story. labour were just incredibly lucky someone didn’t happen upon it and take credit card details…. incompetence in the extreme, which goes with their other record keeping activities re donations i suppose.

    As for who is worse left, right, the middle, the ultras of both sides, the middle of the road with a religious twist, the ultra othrodoxy of every flavour….

    they all are the worst, they are all pollies looking for an edge.

    The thing here though, is the Left have made a HUGE song and dance about privacy, the rights of individuals to be free from spying…

    And yet Nicky Hager can receive the proceeds of an organised cyber attack [DOS used as a cover for an intrusion in to someones email and facebook messaging] plus the proceeds of an as yet unconfirmed, but claimed theft of materials AND that is absolutely OK and perfectly acceptable for Judith and friends. Doublespeak/think is apparently not the sole preserve of Ingsoc… it belongs to all Socialists ; )

    Least we every forget – the Left is always justified in appropriating any property because as we all know their Mantra is “Property is Theft”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, your concept of the requirements of some act to constitute theft are incorrect.

    Did you read the thread, or just jump to defend the copyright industry without thinking?

    Obtaining something without the consent of the owner is all that is required.

    Like taking their photograph without their permission, you mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    Judith … whatever. I just don’t care enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RightNow (6,732 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:26 am

    You are overlooking the fact that I have my own proof, gained legally that PROVES the behaviour that Hager claims was occuring. Therefore, my opinion is based on HONEST, legally acquired fact!

    But you would prefer that I instead discount that fact and decide that Hager is telling lies, because he bases his book on material obtained unethically.

    Sorry – ain’t going to happen – had I not had that factual material, I would probably still support Hager because I’ve seen evidence of the dirty campaign, and been arguing about it for months on here – but I wouldn’t be quite so pissed off – as I am now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rich Prick (1,591 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Conveniently so! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Also nice to see the comment by Ugly has hit 64 downticks in a couple of hours. Not quite the outpouring of scorn earned by Penny but very close. Ugly you really outdid yourself. Filth.

    Because the majority is always right, eh Colville?
    Looks like democratic principles are not your strong suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    Your reaction David only reinforces the fact you are a decent person. An underhand, corrupt person would not have this reaction because they would not be so shocked.

    May I add my voice to the others on this blog. Please do not give up. The blogs in NZ are the only way we can get a more centrist approach to politics.

    I totally agree with KIA. A group of malcontents are utterly determined to bring down a sensible, moderate government in spite of the positive changes they have brought to an economy that was on the way to becoming a pile of ashes. These people must be resisted. I don’t believe it is overstating to say that coming generations will see blogs such as this as being a watershed moment in NZ politics.

    Keep going my friend. Don’t let the b#$tards win.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    If anyone hasn’t already done so, listen to the audio of Plunket’s interview of Hager.

    Hager blatantly and unashamedly states a crime took place, and he is using the proceeds of an illegal act. He admits he knows the identity of the hacker, but has promised not to reveal the name so the police don’t find out.

    Astonishing.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Dave_1924 (92 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:38 am

    And you justify liars, manipulation, and corruption by government ministers ?? You think that makes you any better?
    Do you seriously think that by you and your fellow ‘righties’ going to great lengths to make this all about the ‘hacking’ that it some how excuses everything else that Slater et al have done?

    No wonder you are trying so hard – a big full pronged attack, including a ‘victim’ – the bigger the effort only indicates the degree of corruption you are trying to disguise.

    Well what about the innocent victims of Slater’s slaughter? What about those people – or don’t they matter to you – its all about getting John Key re-elected, and then I suspect dumped for a Joyce/Collins duo. I almost feel sorry for Key – none so blind as them that cannot see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. adc (595 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    If you were an author, and were just about to submit your manuscript to publishers, and found someone had copied it and published it first in their name, would you consider that theft?

    you were not deprived of your manuscript.

    You were deprived of the right to determine what happens to your work though. And many other rights.

    If you were a film studio, or record company, and you were deprived of your rights to make a return on your investment because someone was selling copies of your work, that is theft.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    As easy as photographing the information on a highway billboard had Labour been stupid enough to put it up on the billboard. They did the electronic age equivalent.

    By contrast to get even this much of DPF’s stuff required theft from the premises, either as an employee or an outsider breaking in.

    You’re making a bunch of assumptions there. All we can really say is these are two cases of unauthorised access to insufficiently-secured documents, one of which DPF found hysterically funny because it happened to his political opponents, and the other of which he found intensely hurtful because it happened to him. In both cases, yes it’s outrageous that people would make unauthorised use of others’ documents, but it’s hard to feel sympathy for DPF under the circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Judith I’m not inclined to take you at your word, having previously caught you out in lies and duplicity, but I accept that you are unlikely to publish what you claim to be fact for me to appraise.
    Perhaps you could just briefly explain what your evidence is that you allege proves “Slater needed to get his IT savvy friend to help him with that material.”

    Because here’s the evidence that it was simple and not hacking:

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Sporteone (43 comments) says:

    @Judith (8,58 Comments)
    August 15th, 2014 at 9:58

    I am actually starting to wonder whether you are one of the attack dogs for the other side.

    It has nothing to do with two wrongs making a right. No-one has done anything dishonestly or illegally. God forbid anyone to suggest that, otherwise Helen Clark and her MP’s would have been locked up years ago. Oh that’s right, some forget about that. I would suggest, if I may, that what went on in that Clark government is/was far worse than what is being suggested here. Take your blinkers off. The only dishonest things that have occurred here is that Hager has been behind or receive unlawfully obtained information which he has used for a political purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. And you think the public’s right to know outweighs that. Why do you think Hager has publically said he has gotten rid of everything his house that could connect him with the hackers. That’s right, that is an offence under section 248 of the Crimes Act

    Oh and do you really think that the Government would declassify documents, just to embarrass an MP. Me thinks not. Mr Goeff mislead the NZ Government. Do you not think that is of utmost importance. Nothing illegal was done in obtaining the information, but then you don’t care about legality. Or is it alright for MP’s to mislead the house. It must be because Winston is still there. Silly me.

    People like you Judith just love to hang on little fact that you really know nothing about. So when you mention the Minister of Aviation using the side door you know nothing about the Christchurch Airport. I travel on a regular basis and there is a well trodden path through that particular door. Air Hostesses use it, dignitaries use it, Pilots use it and in fact the other day I was waiting in a very long line and the women in front of me, was taken from the line by an Air Hostess and taken through the door. They didn’t even go through the scanner. So it is not unusual and do you think Mr Brownlee would be carrying a bomb. How stupid are you. But the best bit there is, why has the security personal not been mentioned in all this. The Minister asked and was allowed through. SBW. (And that is not Sonny Bill Williams)

    I think the only person on here right now Judith, who is a hypocrite is you. Blindly accepting what people like Hager fill your head with and then standing on the moral high ground. All political parties do. I know as I have walked the halls of government many years ago and know exactly what goes on. Now as a private consultant, I still see it going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    Now you know what it is like to be burgled, stolen from and deceived. You must be gutted. I know you to be a decent guy able to disagree without being disagreeable. You are a trusting guy and your trust has been betrayed. The details in Hagers book could only have come from a spy in your office. they have broken their employment contract and if discovered would face instant dismissal. Short of employing someone with a polygraph machine it will be hard to find your mole. you have been violated and hurt. Your gut reaction to pull out of politics to prevent future hurt is very understandable. Swinging to a forensic security system would equally be damaging. I’d suggest that you respond like any one who has been burgled. Beef up your security and perhaps change your employment contracts to reflect the consequences of treachery.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ flipper (3,688 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:35 am

    You, for one should know Flipper, that I am not digging any hole. My critique is based firmly on official material that I received legally. Material that confirms what Hager has claimed. Even if Hager’s method is criminal, and he is punished for that – it does not discount what Slater has been doing, nor does it reflect on what I have – material that stands on its own, as evidence that a certain government minister colluded with Slater to influence a matter of justice. Sorry – but my opinion is not based on Hager’s book, it is only supported by it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt: but did anyone disclose any Labour information? Or just laugh to each other about how it could be accessed? Whereas clearly DPF’s private information was disclosed?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. tom hunter (4,887 comments) says:

    You’re making a bunch of assumptions there.

    Not at all, it was quite well-covered at the time here on Kiwiblog: 0100 for security, and Labours passwords now on Google.

    What was hysterically funny was the utter incompetence and cluelessness of Labour, as explained here by arch RWNJ, Danyl. His associated photo of a bunch of clowns in a car being the perfect summary of the whole episode. The following quote from Danyl also seems very appropriate now:

    It’s a party of perpetual incompetence that’s in deep denial about this obvious fact – to them they’re always the innocent victims of endless right-wing media conspiracies. A party that cannot run itself should not be allowed anywhere near the machinery of government.

    Incidently DPF’s finishes one of his threads on the topic with this comment:

    If someone really had hacked the Labour website, exploiting a recent vulnerability, then my attitude would be very different. Few websites are immune from a totally dedicated expert hacker. But this is the exact opposite of that – this is listing all your private files on the frontpage of a website.

    So once again – as has been explained to you now by several different people in several different ways – what happened then is completely different to what has happened to DPF and if you weren’t gagging for a left-wing victory at the polls you’d be reasonable enough to acknowledge that.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If you were an author, and were just about to submit your manuscript to publishers, and found someone had copied it and published it first, would you consider that theft?

    No.

    you were not deprived of you manuscript.

    You were deprived of the right to determine what happens to your work though. And many other rights.

    So what? As soon as the original publishers perfected the contract the rights that I lost by the other party pre-empting me would have been lost anyway.

    If you were a film studio, or record company, and you were deprived of you rights to make a return on your investment because someone was selling copies of your work, that is theft.

    No, those companies have no right to make a return on an investment. The get to suffer the rewards of bad planning like anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Sporteone (23 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 10:53 am

    I suggest you read my previous comments more clearly – I do not need to use Hager’s book to come to this conclusion. All Hager’s book has done is inflame my memory and allow me to recheck my own LEGALLY obtained information. Information which confirms some of Hager’s claim.

    Nice of you to go to great lengths attempting yet again to justify Slater’s actions by quoting acts done by Clark and others.

    Again I repeat – two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because they did it, does not excuse Slater from doing it, or from DPF doing it or anyone else.

    DPF ‘thinks’ he might have been hacked. I doubt it – if someone had got into his system there would be more than some polling data being talked about.

    This is, nothing more than a beat up – hoping to swing the public view away from the dirty politics and turn the offenders, into the victims. Next we’ll be asked to donate to a collection for flowers for Slater, because his feelings have been hurt!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    Ah “Judy, Judy, Judy”

    Nice bait and switch on a thread about a potential hack/theft from DPF’s company

    Where did I defend the Natz?

    I said:
    “As for who is worse left, right, the middle, the ultras of both sides, the middle of the road with a religious twist, the ultra othrodoxy of every flavour….

    they all are the worst, they are all pollies looking for an edge.”

    I have merely pointed out the Hypocrisy of the Left in this instance and also pointed out their well understood ability to think two contradictory things at once…..

    Your hysteria is actually quite funny but the diversion tactic is transparent. Hager’s book is based on a deliberate criminal act – an act of bare faced hacking… He claims it came in the mail on a USB stick… hmm convenient no traceability and plausible deniability to how it was obtained

    I say:

    1 – Judith publish your OIA material in support of Hager’s thesis. lets see it, stop hinting and do the academically ethical thing and publish your complete fact base on the matter….

    2 – Lets see all of the stolen emails and FB messaging of Cam Slaters… so we can see the ABC white anting and the other leaks for internecine warfare advantage on the Left

    keep raving Judith – your personal antipathy for John Key is undoing your ability to critically think…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Dave_1924 (93 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 11:03 am

    They have been published.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    … two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Translation: I don’t care what my team does as long as it scores points against your team.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Ugly: “Intellectual property is typically a contradiction in terms, and theft involves depriving the rightful owner of possession.”

    Wrong on all counts:

    Theft of trade secrets – section 230 Crimes Act 1961
    Section 230 reads:
    230 Taking, obtaining, or copying trade secrets
    (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, with intent to obtain any pecuniary advantage or to cause loss to any other person, –
    (a) dishonestly and without claim of right, takes, obtains, or copies any document or any model or other depiction of any thing or process containing or embodying any trade secret, knowing that it contains or embodies a trade secret; or
    (b) dishonestly and without claim of right, takes or obtains any copy of any document or any model or other depiction of any thing or process containing or embodying any trade secret, knowing that it contains or embodies a trade secret.
    (2) For the purpose of this section, trade secret means any information that-
    (a) is, or has the potential to be, used industrially or commercially; and
    (b) is not generally available in industrial or commercial use; and
    (c) has economic value or potential economic value to the possessor of the information; and
    (d) is the subject of all reasonable efforts to preserve its secrecy.

    Good luck with your defence to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. jonar (19 comments) says:

    DPF – unfortunately for you John Key has publicly stated that hacking of websites is perfectly fine.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11309076

    “Mr Slater and a National Party Headquarters staffer were able to gain access to Labour’s records because of a security flaw on the party’s website.

    Mr Key suggested that even if Mr Ede had accessed the records, “of course it would be fine to go and do that” because they were unprotected.”

    Hackers are now free to access any websites where they can find a security flaw.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    Link please Judith – would love to read it

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Dave_1924, don’t hold your breath. This is more duplicity from Judith, she’s following an oft repeated pattern.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    labrator (1,768 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Translation: I don’t care what my team does as long as it scores points against your team.

    Yep, you got it, and its being demonstrated on both sides – particularly by the blue team at present, who have lost some ground and need to make up for it – playing the victim should work! ;-)

    Good luck with the battle – may the better team enjoy their time as opposition – I’m off to have lunch with a ‘friend’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RightNow (6,736 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 11:14 am

    You wish!

    @ Dave

    Try Slater – I believe he knows where.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    A legal opinion on the different cases of accessing information online –

    Confidential information: the legal rights and wrongs by Nicole Moreham (Public Address)

    On Hager:

    Was Hager entitled to publish the emails he published?

    The answer is yes, as long as the public interest in the emails outweighs the competing rights of those who wrote them.

    On Labour data:

    According to Hager, Ede writes an email expressing relief that Labour didn’t realise he’d accessed their material. And Slater wrote a blog post talking about “Labour’s Leaks”. These comments could undermine any argument that they thought they were allowed the material all along.

    Labour might also have a claim for damages against the hackers. The strongest claim here is in breach of confidence. Recent English case law (Tchenguiz v Imerman) says that it is a breach of confidence simply to access confidential information which is stored on a computer, even if you don’t publish it.

    It is not clear yet whether New Zealand will follow that decision but if they do, the two key questions would be: was the donor and supporter information confidential, and if it was, should Ede and Slater have known that?

    The answer to the second question is probably yes – for the reasons set out above. The first question is trickier. Information can’t be confidential if it is widely available. So Ede and Slater could argue that, given it could be obtained via a public website, the donor and supporter information is not confidential. This argument could run into trouble though if the information was not easy to get.

    On Whale Oil hackers:

    It seems pretty likely that their behaviour was both criminal and a breach of Slater, Collins, Ede etc’s confidence and privacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @jonar: “Hackers are now free to access any websites where they can find a security flaw.” Wrong – see the Crimes Act quoted above 230(2)d. The test is whether it was reasonably protected, not perfectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Translation: I don’t care what my team does as long as it scores points against your team.

    Yep, you got it, and its being demonstrated on both sides

    And Judith’s a veteran player.

    particularly by the blue team at present, who have lost some ground and need to make up for it

    You wish! Didn’t read the polls this morning huh?

    – playing the victim should work!

    But you’re miffed that all the times your team has tried playing the victim it’s blown up in their face.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Not at all, it was quite well-covered at the time here on Kiwiblog…

    What was well covered was that no hacking skills were required to make unauthorised use of a Labour Party computer. DPF finds that sufficient reason to laugh about the unauthorised use, which is fine, but it pretty much rules out expecting us not to laugh about unauthorised use of his own info.

    Also, you were making assumptions about how DPF’s info came to be in Hager’s book. He doesn’t know, and neither do we. He says Hager couldn’t have got it from Cameron Slater’s files, but that’s yet another assumption.

    @Psycho Milt: but did anyone disclose any Labour information?

    Who knows what Slater and Ede did with the info they got from Labour? Either way, it’s not relevant in either the legal or moral sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. adc (595 comments) says:

    Just watched that video of the access of data from the Labour website.

    Actually I don’t think whale oil uses strong enough language.

    the information wasn’t just accessible. It was PUBLISHED, just as surely as if it were printed in the Herald. This was done by the website operators.

    He just went to the root URL of the domain, and got a directory listing. Is anyone doing that supposed to assume that was not the intent of the website operator? Deciding what is visible on a site is the job of the website operator, not those who come to the site.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @jonar: there is a substantial difference between “a security flaw” and “I published all the details on the web by accident.” Sure, the second is a sort of security flaw, in the sense of having no security at all.

    I don’t think that John Key has at all suggested that if you can find a string overflow exception that lets you create a privilege escalation and run arbitrary code, then it’s fine to go and do just that.

    I think he’s saying if you go to a web page from a link you click on google, and that web page has stuff on it that probably shouldn’t be there, then you haven’t broken the law.

    Any more than if you walk down the street and there’s a poster on the wall and you read it, you aren’t actually stealing someone’s stuff. Whereas if you walk down the street and try someone’s door, and it’s unlocked, it’s not OK to go in and read their stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Wrong – see the Crimes Act quoted above 230(2)d.

    Suggest you let John Key know, he seems to be unaware of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. OTGO (554 comments) says:

    Do not underestimate how big a deal this is for the participants involved in this. There are some very big stakes involved.

    For the “old” media it is about the diminishing of their worth and revenue. Apart from older folk I don’t know anyone who reads newspapers and watches the 6 pm news any longer.

    For the left wing pollies who have had their policies stolen by National and have no hope of ever again getting into power. Because it is all about the power. It is not about what is good for NZ.

    For KDC who is desperate to stay away from whatever awaits for him in the US.

    These people are working together to bring down this government and do not care if there is some collateral damage on the way to this end.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. adc (595 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt. The reason the information was available on the website was because it was NOT unauthorised. If it had been unauthorised, it would not have been visible this way.

    If you don’t want something to be seen, don’t make it available on your web server. Labour breached the privacy of all those people by PUBLISHING that information. They took the act of placing it on their server and making it available. Nobody else did this but them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    Dear David,

    It is not enough for me to merely uptick all the sympathetic comments above. I have to make this a personal comment.

    I am disgusted by the despicable, hypocritical and dishonest behaviour of Hager and his ilk. I really really hope this backfires on them as it deserves to do.

    I appreciate the sense of violation you feel, but if you were lost to political debate it would be a tragedy for all New Zealand. Your role as the free voice of the rational centre-right is invaluable.

    I hope that the supportive comments on this thread are a small crumb of comfort. I and many many others stand with you.

    Kia Kaha.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Either way, it’s not relevant in either the legal or moral sense.

    Well, to me it is very relevant, in both a legal and moral sense. In a legal sense there’s a difference between noting that information has been inappropriately disclosed, and even telling the people doing it that they’ve made a mistake. And using that information for some purpose of your own, such as perhaps making money by writing a book.

    In a moral sense there’s also a big difference between mocking someone for their poor security, and disclosing their private stuff publicly. I find the former kind of amusing, and the latter reprehensible.

    You used to have a moral compass Psycho. Have you lost it?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    @ Judith….

    Bait and Switch, Hysteria, hints but proof, Its all about the other side……

    Divert, obscure, pontificate, blah, blah

    Publish your OIA’s or paper somewhere we all can access while protecting your identity – heck send it to DPF to post so we can see it. how about you give it to Nicky Hager and he can publish it for you after he redoes the OIA’s in his name to protect your identity….

    But you won’t – ask Slater he knows…..sighhhhh

    Its typical blow hard, I know more than you and it proves my case but I won’t share behaviour

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    There is no public interest defence to the stealing of the material belonging to my clients.

    While I’m sure that’s correct it is only something that can be known after the fact. If at another time such an investigation of someone revealed a machiavellian agent participating in the use of subverted state assets to manipulate the public then espionage that proved it would be in the public interest.

    That it is not shown to have been this time and no public interest was served doesn’t invalidate the idea that in dire times and circumstances it might be by such actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. tom hunter (4,887 comments) says:

    The reason the information was available on the website was because it was NOT unauthorised. If it had been unauthorised, it would not have been visible this way.

    Correct. If you wanted to know about Labour’s wonderful plans for insulating homes – and also why right-wingers want babies to freeze to death – you would have simply entered “healthyhomeshealthykiwis.org.nz” into your browser’s URL. But instead of getting a normal web page you saw the Labour Party web server in all its glory and could read any file you wanted.

    This is considered so undesirable and such an egregious breach of security that the web server software Labour uses (Apache) disables directory listing by default. You have to go into a configuration file and switch it on manually. So I guess that’s what they did.

    So actually there’s no reason at all why seeing a list of Labour Party donors with all their details would give cause for concern, the whole am I doing the right thing by looking at this?. It was authorised.

    And why would it not be? After all, Labour should be proud of who donates money to them – and what donor would not be proud to stand up in public and reveal themselves: “Yes, I gave money to these incompetent twats”.

    DPF finds that sufficient reason to laugh about the unauthorised use, …

    Shorter Psycho: I will not allow even the laughter and mockery of my fellow left-wingers to stand in the way of me arguing that an apple is really an orange.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Sporteone (43 comments) says:

    well Said Dave_1924

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. KevinH (1,229 comments) says:

    Personally I would feel gutted if I discovered a staff member has released personal correspondence, particularly if it was confidential and pertained to current business activity, the axe would fall quickly and legal redress would be sought if the material was damaging to a business deal. That is why it is necessary to be careful with correspondence and off the cuff remarks, you just never know who might sell you out, and sometimes it can come as a complete surprise that a trusted colleague may have a private agenda. So the message is to be careful especially now that emails can be hacked it may come back to bite you on the ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    jonar

    Take the time to look at the video that RightNow has put up @10.52. Cam Slater clearly illustrates what he did re the Labour party data. It is not hacking at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Theft of trade secrets – section 230 Crimes Act 1961

    Not applicable: no subject matter jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Fentex, no “public interest” defence appears in the Crimes Act I quoted above.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. flipper (4,077 comments) says:

    Judith…

    There are many issues on which I take an opposing view to Cam Slater.
    I have written to him on at least one. But I do not allow any differences with him on one or more issues, to cloud my judgment on what he writes on other matters.

    Like many others, I knew of his relationship (no innuendo intended) with J Collins.
    I knew that he mysteriously secured OIA responses from Collin’s office within a few hours (almost like by return mail) of the request being lodged.
    But that is wink, wink, nudge, nudge stuff that has been the basis of almost every newsjunky/politician relationship since democracy broke out in the west.

    It seems to me that this boils down to specious claims by Hager, the NZ Herald and other MSM, that Slater’s public disclosure of Labour’s inept website security was in some way “hacking”. Further, it is said that if Ede looked at the same wide open site on the net that had no protection in place, then this is somehow dirty politics- actions that are to be tied to J Key.

    Like the infamous, Clark/Simpson/Mike “Fat Tony” Williams “H Fee” bomb attack ion J Key that backfired on labour, they will regret Hager efforts in 2014, as will all who support him.

    From another post, by a sage observer, an excellent summation – one that should be heeded:

    kiwi in America (2,453 comments) says:

    August 15th, 2014 at 11:25 am

    Ian Wishart is right – when trying to win a case in court Hagar paints himself as ever so careful with allegations of a sexual nature then promptly completely breaches his own ethical guide if its sullies the right. This is summed up easily in the prevailing modus operandi of the left: realpolitik-or the ends justifies the means. If grubby, dishonest and unethical conduct, that they shriek loudly about when the right strays remotely close to the edge, can bring down their opponent and elect one of their own, its game on.


    Hagar picked the wrong guy to have a mud fight with. Slater revels in this stuff plus he’s got more dirt on people on the left than anyone in New Zealand. Whale hasn’t even begun to get seriously dirty and when he does, its going to end in tears for the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    That it is not shown to have been this time and no public interest was served doesn’t invalidate the idea that in dire times and circumstances it might be by such actions.

    So the end justifies the means? I’m pretty sure we’ve been through a thousand or so years of iterating laws so that sort of idiocy is not allowed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I think Hager may have been sucked in big time by left wing activists on a mission.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    The reason the information was available on the website was because it was NOT unauthorised. If it had been unauthorised, it would not have been visible this way.

    Yeah, that was what I thought – I even commented to that effect on The Standard, that Labour had published the information and it was therefore in the public domain. According to lawyers, and the relevant Act, I was wrong about that – if the information can be reasonably assumed to be confidential, deliberately accessing it is unauthorised use. From what I’ve seen reported of Hager’s book, Slater and Ede’s messages make it clear they knew they were accessing confidential information, which means the fact it was improperly secured doesn’t let them off the hook.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. SGA (1,061 comments) says:

    @dpf

    I am sure the official explanation will be that the scripts just turned up in an envelope somewhere, and they have no idea how they got there. I think that is bullshit. Most of my staff are young students, who I can’t imagine would suddenly decide to send a copy of my scripts to Nicky Hager in the post.

    Would that even be necessary – most people’s phones could now double as “spy cameras”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    According to lawyers, and the relevant Act, I was wrong about that – if the information can be reasonably assumed to be confidential, deliberately accessing it is unauthorised use.

    You also have to wonder why Slater and Ede were poking around there in the first place. I don’t think the information popped while doing some normal sort of browsing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Hagar picked the wrong guy to have a mud fight with. Slater revels in this stuff plus he’s got more dirt on people on the left than anyone in New Zealand. Whale hasn’t even begun to get seriously dirty and when he does, its going to end in tears for the left.

    1. Hagar is a cartoon character. You don’t seem to know who you’re even blathering about.
    2. Uncovering a government’s dirty tricks isn’t a “mud fight,” it’s a “public service.”
    3. We’re certainly in agreement that the National Party is a lot dirtier than the left, and that it will get vicious now that someone’s revealed its black ops activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Don’t know if anyone else has suggested it as haven’t all the comments but I suggest a small Committee of Concerned Citizens get hold of the moron Hagar and ask him to reveal who gave him the material in his book using shall we say questioning techniques designed to illicit the correct answers. He and his cronies deserve no better.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    That’s an awful ‘suggestion’ lastmanstanding. A very poor thing to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Of course the Courts have ruled that authors don’t enjoy the protection that journalists do so if Cam and or DPF don’t take a prosecution against the moron Hagar then maybe a concerned citizen or group of concerned citizens may do so.

    Would be great to see the moron Hagar trying to tell a Court he wont reveal his sources and being put into the slammer until he does.

    Deserves all he gets little creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. flipper (4,077 comments) says:

    Pete George (23,051 comments) says:

    August 15th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
    ***

    Refresher required PG.

    Slater says that he was advised of the LP website situation by a friend.

    I very often suggest that my friends or colleagues look at certain things.

    So worst case: Mr/Ms (AGENT X) suggests that Slater should look at a certain site, and do so in a particular, but legal way; Slater does and subsequently talks to Ede, and suggests he take a peek; Slater redacts all names and bank details, and publishes publicly available data.

    No????

    Trying to make an issue of this, as the left is trying desperately to do, is akin to a drowning man clutching at straws. And after today Fairfax poll, they need something to stop sort of oblivion. “Shock, horror, probe” among political junkies will have zero effect. Tough!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. tom hunter (4,887 comments) says:

    …. the National Party is a lot dirtier than the left, and that it will get vicious now that someone’s revealed its black ops activities.

    Is that you “Sanctuary”?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Ugly truth needs to relook at the relavant Crimes Act. Just to help him I will post it here so he can read the actual Act and not comment on what he thinks is theft or not ( i.e whether it suits his idealogy )

    Section 249 of the Crimes Act 1961

    249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

    (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
    7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer
    system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without
    claim of right,—
    (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    (b) causes loss to any other person.
    (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
    5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer
    system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without
    claim of right,—
    (a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    (b) to cause loss to any other person.
    (3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section…

    This is going to be known now as “Hagargate”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Richard (859 comments) says:

    So much of this will eventually lead back to the spider in his web at the Chesco Mansion. Hager is merely one of this tools.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. adc (595 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    I think there would be a grey area around reasonable assumption. I think it’s also reasonable to assume if you go to the front page of a website, you’re entitled to read what’s on it, click on links and read what’s on those links.

    I agree people should be able to have some expectation of privacy, but I don’t know how you can put the onus on the viewer of the information to close their eyes rather than putting the onus on the provider of the information not to disclose private information in the first place.

    What Labour’s website operators did was the equivalent of publishing all that information in the herald. That is a huge breach of privacy on their part, and you’d think the privacy commissioner or whoever would be interested in that.

    In the end, my issue is with the portrayal of how the information was accessed – it was not hacked, it was provided by the web server using its normal functions. What the information was later used for is another matter entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Twocan (25 comments) says:

    Judith et al. how do you justify the multiple illegals acts that were committed to create this book? If its public interest does this mean the standard and daily blog are now fair game for hackers? Guarantee bomber has content far worse than anything that has been released in terms of language and rhetoric? Would that be acceptable?

    No of course not private email is PRIVATE, we talk and behave differently in private settings as to how we would standing at a podium. Politics is dirty and if you think its one way only then you are amazingly niece or failed 3rd form!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I think it’s also reasonable to assume if you go to the front page of a website, you’re entitled to read what’s on it, click on links and read what’s on those links.

    Did they view the contents of the root directory of the server by browsing the front page of a website?

    I presumed they must have done more than the average person browsing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. adc (595 comments) says:

    Pete George – check out the video, he just went to healthyhomeshealthykiwis.org.nz and it gave a navigable directory listing of files..

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    UT you think you’re really clever or something. You idiot – if you sign a contract with a publisher in relation to your content the whole point is that rights pertaining to the subject matter of the contract still vest in you. If someone ‘pre-empts you’ by taking content you intended to make publish and publishes it, you lose those rights. On your logic, if I took camera photos of the final Harry Potter draft and then took it to Penguin without physically stealing the manuscript, and I decide that JK Rowling and Harry Potter are ‘political’ in nature, then it’s actually just a leak, and I’ve just ‘preempted’ JK Rowling and done the public a favour, and nothing illegal. You shit-heads on the left really have come through on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Mr Key suggested that even if Mr Ede had accessed the records, “of course it would be fine to go and do that” because they were unprotected.”

    I remember many moons ago when people still received their fortnightly pay in cash, I visited the local City Council offices and was directed to wait for someone in an office containing a large tray of pay packets. Must of been hundreds of them and completely “unprotected”.
    Just as well for the Council’s payroll clerk that I didn’t subscribe to John Key’s moral compass in my decision not to help myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Pete: The directory was on the home page of the Labour owned site “healthyhomeshealthykiwis.org.nz”

    All the files were indexed by google. Watch the video posted by RightNow above.

    (apologies for the duplicate answer I see adc replied while I was writing)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly truth needs to relook at the relavant Crimes Act.

    No, I really don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. adc (595 comments) says:

    look at about 4 min 16, that’s where he goes to the link (types it wrong first, google suggests correction, and he clicks on that).

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Jackinthe box: what Key was saying is that the material was PUBLISHED on an open-access website.

    It’s not at all like paper pay packets in a tray, or a wallet, or a physical file in a filing cabinets.

    If a newspaper published something, it’s not illegal for you to read it.

    Or is that what you want?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You idiot – if you sign a contract with a publisher in relation to your content the whole point is that rights pertaining to the subject matter of the contract still vest in you. If someone ‘pre-empts you’ by taking content you intended to make publish and publishes it, you lose those rights.

    So what? How are those rights of any value to me?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. David Garrett (7,311 comments) says:

    DPF: I dont know if someone has alread suggested it…but your en passant reference to your cleaners might be more correct than you realise..during the war some of the best intelligence was obtained by cleaners…people the mighty never even noticed..Do you have a policy of shredding all draft documents? Are drafts every printed out and left where they might be “found”?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    jackinabox – and Slater didn’t use any of the credit card details either.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “If a newspaper published something, it’s not illegal for you to read it.”

    Newspapers are meant to be read.

    Just the other day I was mistakenly emailed some very private documents by a government department, but apart from confirming that they weren’t for me I didn’t read them and notified the sender of her mistake. Perhaps John Key should learn from my example.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I think there would be a grey area around reasonable assumption.

    There would be, but reports of Hager’s book say Slater’s and Ede’s messages make it clear they knew they were accessing confidential information. If the reports are correct, there’s no grey area.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “…but reports of Hager’s book say…”

    Wow, hearsay about something Hager might have written. Can’t get more authoritative than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. adc (595 comments) says:

    even the video above it’s clear he knows exactly what he is looking at.

    Where do you draw the line though. You or I would choose not to read things we decide are not for us, and to notify the sender. That’s what I was getting at with my last comment about what the information is used for.

    It’s not something I would do, and there are moral issues, but it’s not “hacking” which is how it was portrayed, that’s my point. It’s not unauthorised access to the computer system either. It’s been expressly permitted, and no security was circumvented. HTTP is pretty clear on this. Web client makes a request, the server chooses to grant it or not. In this case, the server granted access.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    That’s interesting law on intent, Psycho Milt, thanks.

    If it’s illegal to read & access information published on an open webpage if you know it’s supposed to be confidential & private –
    then is it also illegal to read, access & republish information given to you on a USB stick if you know it’s supposed to be confidential & private, you are not the intended recipient?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Its the difference between Kate Middleton being photographed topless with a telephoto lens from 2km off shore, and Kate Middleton posing for Page 3 and then claiming she didnt think it would be published.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    HTTP is pretty clear on this. Web client makes a request, the server chooses to grant it or not. In this case, the server granted access.

    Yep, and as I said, that was my thought too – if the web server dishes up the file without you having to trick it somehow, that’s ‘authorised’ access. However, the law says different – effectively, it says if you have authorised access to a computer and while in there you look at stuff you can tell you aren’t meant to be looking at, it’s unauthorised access. The legality of it will come down to whether Slater and Ede could tell the stuff they were looking at was meant to be confidential or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    then is it also illegal to read, access & republish information given to you on a USB stick if you know it’s supposed to be confidential & private, you are not the intended recipient?

    Yes – however, Hager’s relying on a ‘public interest’ defence to that, and he has pretty good legal advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    PM: I guess Slater can also use the “public interest” defense as well, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    If there was a public interest in anything he published, sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rightnow

    You wish! Didn’t read the polls this morning huh?

    Yes I did – and I note, they were taken up to Wednesday – the day before Hager’s book was released. Before the public had any idea of what was in it – a bit like our PM, who has still not read it, but somehow has been able to make judgement about the information in it, even before it was published.

    @ Flipper
    I am sure Slater has a lot of information against many people, and we all know how he got it, which is why you lot cannot defend Slater and denigrate Hager – when both have breached the same ethical standards to gather their information:

    “5. Jonathan Marshall, Facebook private messaging to Cameron Slater, 30 April 2012. Slater wrote to his journalist friend, Jonathan Marshall, “I have a massive story this week, gonna run for days.” “What is it?” Marshall asked. “Three journos will be casualties,” Slater said … rat fink directors, dodgy transactions, I’ve got 28 Gb of emails, plus a filing cabinet of documents”, ….” p. 139

    Slater frequently referred to his ‘hacker pals’ as his source.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    The thing is, each case stands on it’s own legal issues. This isn’t politics where having done something dodgy or illegal each party gets to point at the other and say ‘they did it too’ then we are all told to move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. balletgirl68 (19 comments) says:

    I feel so sorry for you David. How can people be so despicable. Then again, things have been getting nasty for quite a while both politically and generally in NZ. Online (particularly Stuff) I have had the nastiest things said….. personal attack about how I looked and my political views rubbished. Yes, I could “harden up” as they say but Im in the older catagory and feel I have some worth and wisdom still. Over the years Nicky Harger has proven he is a wierdo/unbalanced troublemaker. I suppose he and Dotcom are similar in that way. I guess his only income is off the back of 3 yearly diatribes of 3rd hand gossip.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. ShawnLH (5,265 comments) says:

    Well, the degree of gullibility from UglyNazi and Judith is impressive. Hagar writes some drivel, and they swallow it hook line and sinker with barely any evidence of critical thinking.

    UglyNazi because if you stick the word ‘conspiracy’ on to anything he will mindlessly swallow it.

    Judith because she is, despite her dishonest spin, motivated by a deep and irrational hatred of of John Key.

    Good on you DPF for going to the police. It is long past time that the real corruption in NZ, ignored by the Ughly’s, Judith’s and Penny’s of NZ, needs to be exposed and stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Russell Brown: I can see how that’s upsetting for you and a breach of trust on the employee’s behalf, but it’s leaking, not hacking or spying.

    I think you don’t really get it: someone took at a job at DPF’s company in order to get access to illegal material. They took (the footnote is too detailed) material from Curia. How much compunction you think such a person would have to install key loggers, spyware, or other bugs? DPF feels violated.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. ShawnLH (5,265 comments) says:

    “My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, ”

    Don’t do it David. That is what these scum want. This is an attempt to shut down bloggers on the Right because they have been effective.

    Go on the offensive. Both you and Cam and other Right bloggers need to attack Hagar with everything you have.

    Use the law and the police. Whatever it takes.

    But don’t give up. The country needs you. The Right needs you. FIGHT!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt: From what I recall, you didn’t find it outrageous at all and thought it was all pretty funny at the time that Labour hadn’t kept tighter control over its confidential documents. Doesn’t seem quite so hilarious when the boot’s on the other foot, does it?

    I think material found on a public server, even indexed by Google, is of quite a different nature then hacking emails, or taking documents from someone’s office after taking a job their under false pretences. I hope you can see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Cameron Slater was most definitely serving the public interest by revealing that Labour’s servers were unsecured.
    He would have been remiss if he had not alerted people to the fact credit card details, which Labour had failed to secure, were available so easily.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘taking documents from someone’s office after taking a job their under false pretences’
    I think you are running too far with this one. Some super-spy infiltrated DPF’s top-secret operation but all they took was a couple of survey transcripts? I’m thinking more cock-up than conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    RN
    So he was immediately on the phone to the webmaster, was he? What a guy!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    MM, he should have been immediately on the phone to the Privacy Commissioner in my opinion. Or Cactus Kate should have since her CC details were actually there. She had good grounds for a complaint.

    There’s no denying the incompetence of Labour in this instance. Tough shit that it was Slater that found out. But he didn’t take anything or do anything malicious. He just embarrassed them and they deserved it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    David don’t give up doing what you do. There is a reason you have received so much acclaim, traffic, profile and support for this blog, and why you attract so much opprobrium and viciousness from others. The left in New Zealand hate the work that you do calmly, logically and intelligently piercing their myths, finely calculated mistruths, even more finely calculated underhanded undermining of people they don’t like, and their helpless and destructive ideology. Beyond that, your material is excellent – informative, eclectic, sophisticated and interesting even reading from overseas, and you can’t find any kind of distillation of social/political/economic/historical/scientific/vocational commentary on New Zealand anywhere else. In fact in my opinion for a one-man show in regards to kiwiblog you would stack up very well internationally, and we all appreciate your moderate line and work in also holding the government to account in areas like copper pricing. Compared with say, the Standard in particular, or even a major right wing periodical like the Weekly Standard, your pieces are coloured with less politics and more analysis.

    As you said, the Left which has traditionally in New Zealand and overseas been protected, facilitated, and harboured by an activist media which acts as a talent pool for the political party they support hate that the right have a sophisticated (in your case) voice in what is a new medium. The left truly are nasty, and don’t understand that some of the push-back in recent years is because people have got sick of being stifled, labelled, ridiculed, or repressed by the left. If the media had the capacity in their psyche to actually truly give the government a fair go, particularly in the area of welfare reform, National would poll even higher. But you call them out for their lack of capacity and poor processes and we need you to keep doing what you’re doing.

    Kiwiblog is also a fantastic means to procrastinate..

    Don’t quit bro.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. questions (208 comments) says:

    Out of curiosity David, if this is how you feel when a couple of bits of paper are swiped, how do you think the victims of Cameron Slater’s behavior feel?

    Genuine question, and i’d appreciate a serious answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I think material found on a public server, even indexed by Google, is of quite a different nature then hacking emails, or taking documents from someone’s office after taking a job their under false pretences.

    Again, too many assumptions. At this point, how Hager came to know the contents of one of DPF’s scripts is unknown, so yes we can definitely say unauthorised access to material on a public server is different from “unknown,” but that isn’t very useful information. And if it turns out that Hager did nothing more than talk to a Curia employee and make notes, then the difference is that what happened to DPF is far less serious than what happened to Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, are you suggesting with your comment “So he was immediately on the phone to the webmaster, was he?” that you don’t agree Hager should have written a book with the information he received but instead should have immediately been on the phone to Slater to alert him?

    Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. adc (595 comments) says:

    is the suspicion of information theft based purely on referring to questions by number? If so, it’s feasible someone that was surveyed just recorded it, and transcribed and numbered the questions. Or just took shorthand. Presumably the questions were asked in order?

    Or is there more in there indicating something was pinched?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    RN
    There’s a difference between those two circumstances, isn’t there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. ShawnLH (5,265 comments) says:

    Hard at work on the taxpayers dollar again Mike?

    Cushy job you have there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Thanks for your concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Well, the degree of gullibility from UglyNazi and Judith is impressive. Hagar writes some drivel, and they swallow it hook line and sinker with barely any evidence of critical thinking.

    Public advisory: believing anything ShawnLH says may be hazardous to your mental health.

    Secret Power, New Zealand’s role in the international spy network, Craig Potton Publishing 1996. ‘A masterpiece of investigative journalism’ ~ Jeffrey Richelson, US intelligence expert

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Psycho: And if it turns out that Hager did nothing more than talk to a Curia employee

    adc: it’s feasible someone that was surveyed just recorded it, and transcribed and numbered the questions.

    The numbers are in the 60s. Nah, they are not numbers you read out. They are part of the script, so sometimes you ask this or sometimes that question, all based on previous answers. The detailed footnote seems to clearly indicate Hager had possession of a script, that does not leave Curia. These scripts are what call centre companies are about, so count as intellectual property.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “There’s a difference between those two circumstances, isn’t there?”

    I certainly think so. In one case someone has illegally accessed Slater’s email account and the resulting illegally obtained information has been used for commercial gain. In the other an unsecured web server has been exposed but information such as credit card details has not been used for gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m going along with what you said before: ‘He would have been remiss if he had not alerted people to the fact credit card details, which Labour had failed to secure, were available so easily’. I don’t see that Hager had the same opportunity to warn about any vulnerability – he was simply passed a bundle of information.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Psycho: At this point, how Hager came to know the contents of one of DPF’s scripts is unknown

    Whaleoil has confirmed theft and will go to the police.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    MM: “I don’t see that Hager had the same opportunity to warn about any vulnerability – he was simply passed a bundle of information”

    And yet he today said he can get more information from that source, so he knows who it is. That is information that can be of assistance in tracking down the criminal(s) responsible for the hacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (4,270 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 2:09 pm
    “My gut reaction last night was to give up politics, ”

    I actually partially agree with you Shawn. I would hate to see DPF toss in the towel. It is obvious that I am really annoyed with him, but much of that comes from disappointment – for a long time I have defended David, believing him to be one of the most balanced commentators. So yes, I’m angry he’s been sucked into all this, and allowed his posters to be used for the game.

    I still believe in DPF. I believe that if he took the time to think about all this, he would realise that he is a unique person, that can offer something that is sadly missing today. DPF has been drawn into something that I believe is contrary to his basic demeanor. He is better than what he has become through his association with others.

    It is DPF’s time to stand up and make Kiwiblog something that is far superior to the Standard, Daily Blog, Whaleoil and other political blogs. He could make Kiwiblog a ‘just’ blog. Advocate for the true face of National – promoting them on this blog – and not be drawn into the foul deeds of others, on both the left and right.

    Kiwiblog can, under DPF’s guidance be a shinning light in bloggersphere, and still promote right wing politics. Buying into it further, continuing the pain isn’t going to achieve anything.

    Start promoting what is positive about what you believe David – be better than the rest and you will lead your party to success – you could be the new face – or at least the reinvented face that offers many New Zealanders what they are seeking – good open honest political debate.

    Don’t be afraid to stand up and be a person that is willing to admit that you’ve made mistakes, just like many others have, but that you have learned from them, and even though yours are no where near as bad as some, including the opposition, you are going to turn it round and show that the team you believe in, is the best. You’ve kept company with wrong, and you’ve been wronged, but I believe you are strong enough to say enough, is enough – and be an example for others to follow.

    I guess its a challenge – are you up to it? I think you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Sounds like you want to take all the fun out of Kiwiblog, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    Questions 2:45
    “how do you think the victims of Cameron Slater’s behavior feel?”

    Here you go. Have a listen to the you tube one.
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/joe-hall-words-judge/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I now have conclusive proof that David Cunliffe is in fact commenting on Kiwiblog posing as a concern troll with the nom de guerre “Judith”

    David Cunliffe confident Nicky Hager’s book will turn voters off National as Labour plummets to new depths in our latest poll.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/10385525/Voters-will-leave-National-in-droves

    Yes, that’s right, this information was leaked to me via the Stuff website, and I immediately joined the dits (sic) to bring you this bombshell revelation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. xy (187 comments) says:

    I agree with Judith here. Despite being a dirty left, I had a lot of respect for Kiwiblog / DPF accumulated from the Usenet days. But the rise of Slater over last few years has really crippled that – it’s clear we’re being lied to. I mean, in your heart of hearts DPF, are you comfortable with Slater pumping sex workers for client information to use in blackmail? Is that what you want politics to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Richard (859 comments) says:

    ”It is DPF’s time to stand up and make Kiwiblog something that is far superior to the Standard, Daily Blog, Whaleoil and other political blogs.”

    Judith- Kiwiblog always has been far superior. Which is why it is so popular, even with the Left judging from the massive increase in trolls lately. I rather think its time the Standard,Daily Blog ,Whaleoil and other political blogs matched DPF’s high standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    How richly ironic that Whaleoil’s new moderation standards are diligently enforced while KB is still the wild west for comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Unity (586 comments) says:

    David, I join the many calls that ask that you consult the Police on this issue. It certainly seems as if your work has been stolen. so surely it is a criminal matter. I’m a fairly newcomer to your blog site and enjoy it very much as well as learning more with the different points of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Judith you prattle and it’s just inert, please don’t patronise the man who gives you a forum in which to prattle in that condescending, incongruent, vaguely ignorant, oddly grandiose manner of yours… DPF hasn’t done anything wrong, he’s got nothing to apologise for, he hasn’t made any mistakes, he hasn’t ‘become’ anything. Certainly no one should be apologising to you….. you silly loveable old biddy.

    Milkenmild on the Labour documents, from an IT perspective what they did was the equivalent of someone putting their Will, tax return, pre-nuptial and employment contracts in Civic Square in Wellington, but then putting a piece of paper over it, with a little upturned latch on the corner for ease of lifting and saying ‘that’s confidential’. The information was widely available, at large, and in IT terms, as easy to get as that analogy. It’s a misnomer to call accessing it ‘hacking’ even remotely comparable with how the info was accessed in the first place, and I don’t know why you don’t give Slater some credit for letting Labour know they had an issue. What you fail to highlight is that the main ‘barb’ in that issue was the fact of the access, not the information accessed.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    xy
    Slater found information on Brown using prostitutes alright but couldn’t find proof of misuse of public funds so never used it. That makes your view about blackmail unfounded.
    Oh and Slater sees himself as a journalist and digging for dirt and information is what journalists do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There’s been a fair bit of comment on the rights and wrongs of using the emails versus Slater’s access to the Labour Party details. I found this column useful:
    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/confidential-information-the-legal-rights/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    Right now
    Agree, many here would be quickly banned on Whale Oil.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    The funniest thing about Cam exposing Labour web woes, in thinking back on it, is that the site with the stupidly long name, healthyhomeshealthykiwis.org.nz, that Labour set up for some campaign or whatever, had clearly not been accessed by anyone from Labour or their web designers to see how it looked once published.

    1) Nobody gave a shit about your airy fairy website you muppets. The only hit you got was from Cam Slater!
    2) Nobody did any form of user acceptance testing, and certainly no security vetting, to detect the most basic of errors. Muppets.

    And lets also not forget that in 2011 when this actually happened that Labour apologised for being muppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Farrar’s brand was independent, rational analysis and Slater’s aggressive attack dog, but the consistent mission week after week was defending their party and mauling its opponents” ~ Dirty Politics, p21

    DPF has made no secret of the fact that he is a National Supporter. IMO if he continues to make KiwiBlog a place where dissenting views have a fair opportunity to be heard and debated then this can only be a good thing for NZ politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. David Garrett (7,311 comments) says:

    Judith: Who do you think you are, Mother Teresa? (Known to some as “Hell’s Angel”)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. publicwatchdog (2,613 comments) says:

    I’m banned on Whaleoil.

    I’m also banned on Martyn Bradbury’s ‘Daily Blog’.

    So – I must be doing something right?

    How even-handed is that?

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    David, I join the many calls that ask that you consult the Police on this issue. It certainly seems as if your work has been stolen.

    It’s a matter of definitions. If you use ordinary language then there is no evidence of theft. If you use the Crimes Act then you should be able to show that the relevant information is actually property – which IMO is borderline in this case.

    Also, going to the police implies that DPF was not responsible for the security of his own information. Obviously it’s his call, but I’d recommend not rushing a decision here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. adc (595 comments) says:

    Maybe DPF doesn’t ban many who are banned elsewhere because he actually believes in freedom of speech….

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. MH (762 comments) says:

    like Neddie Seagoon always check your knees to prevent hacking or overuse of outmoded phrases, I read somewhere that rugby broke away from what was described as football at the time, because footballers wanted to stop hacking or the over vigorous use of the feet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. SGA (1,061 comments) says:

    RightNow at 4:14 pm

    KB is still the wild west for comments.

    True that. I’ve always enjoyed that KB attracts a rich and diverse array of nutters!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    UglyTruth practices in the area of giving Swahili legal advice, that makes no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “I’m banned on Whaleoil.”

    That is a badge of honour these days as Whale Oil is an appalling creep who has some serious apologizing to do. No sane person would want to be associated with such a callous fat sod.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Nostradamus (3,339 comments) says:

    D4J:

    Did you lie yesterday when you said you’ve never been banned from Whaleoil?

    Are you proud of what you said on a RIP thread dedicated to Whaleoil’s Mum?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. itstricky (1,849 comments) says:

    With 280+ comments, I’m sure this has been said before but:

    I started reading more fully the Nicky Hager book yesterday, and the footnotes in the book. To my shock I realised that Hager had info in the book that could not have come from the hacking of Cameron Slater, but could only have come from my computer, my apartment or my office.

    You’re not suggesting Hager’s book contains truth, are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Nostradumus the dumb arse- you know very well that was not me go on find the thread that Farrar put up about the d4j impostor you fixated creep.

    I think you will find the pus laden bigot blouse hacked my personal name and posted those comments. It was not me you unhinged fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. itstricky (1,849 comments) says:

    That is a badge of honour these days as Whale Oil is an appalling creep who has some serious apologizing to do. No sane person would want to be associated with such a callous fat sod.

    Hurrah! I knew I’d arrived at the right thread. GIANT uptick for you.

    Nostradumus the dumb arse- you know very well that was not me go on find the thread that Farrar put up about the d4j impostor you fixated creep.

    Okay, your follow up was a little OTT. I’ve calmed down now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ UglyTruth (4,473 comments) says:
    August 15th, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I fail to see how he can complain to the police. I have no doubt he was hacked, and it may or may not depending on how it was done and by who, be illegal – either way it is the hackers who are responsible and the criminals, and it is a very fine line as to whether Hager has done anything illegal.

    However, if Slater complains, it means those emails will become evidence, they will then be examined and their contents confirmed as existing, and therefore Hager’s book as correct. There are a whole heap of people who do not want that to happen, for obvious reasons.

    Leaving it as it is, it is up to people to decide whether they believe the information in Dirty Politics – some will, some won’t. Make a complaint, have those emails exposed, and everyone will believe and know the contents – and not just the ones revealed in Hager’s book, but all the private family and personal relationship ones that Hager has said he would not reveal.

    There are 101 reasons why that won’t happen – that is exactly why the PM is taking the stance that he is ignoring it – he does NOT want an investigation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Nostradamus (3,339 comments) says:

    D4J:

    Yes, I now see that there was a passing reference to a D4J imposter on that thread, but I was relying on what Whaleoil said:

    “You are a complete f***wit Peter. Only a c*** like you would comment on a post like this” [expletives partly redacted].

    It’s unclear whether Whaleoil carried out an IP check before making that comment.

    Anyway, I don’t want to divert this thread into a separate discussion, but I thought that Whaleoil thread might provide some context for your 5:40pm comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Avatar
    “Big Bruv Peter Burns • 2 years ago
    You really are scum D4J. That is low even for a piece of shit like yourself.”

    I contacted Whale Oil and told him I did not make those comments. He said he agreed as it was not from my IP address. I think you will find it was from your scumbag low life mongrel bigot blouse. You got good mates Nostradamus.

    bigot blouse has used my name on various occasions and my children want justice as he has caused them much grief. Why his hatred is so intense is beyond logic. I will get to the bottom of this.

    I expect an apology from you Nostradamus!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Nostradamus (3,339 comments) says:

    Actually, I don’t know who Big Bruv is, so I don’t know why you think I’m somehow responsible for his online comments. But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Just say sorry Nostradumus and stop telling lies. Don’t talk to me about “facts” when you post lies about me you jellyfish. And you know bigot blouse he said he sent you some emails I sent him? Cowardly dirty politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Nostradamus (3,339 comments) says:

    D4J:

    I don’t know Big Bruv.

    He doesn’t have my email address and I don’t have his.

    Sorry, again, don’t let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Oh my bad Nostra, just bigot blouse said he has shown threatening and sexually implicit emails he alleges were sent by me to various bloggers on here and as you play the cowardly backstabbing kiwiblog lawyer I just thought you would be the first person he would post them too.

    If you got a backbone you can apologize for posting 5.48 comment. ? If you don’t then I realize you are nothing more than a stinking yellowback jellyfish.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Rowan (2,409 comments) says:

    D4J

    I have heard the lying POS bigot blouse make a pile of unsubstantiated allegations about various things on kb however I am yet to see a single occasion that he is able to substantiate any of them, he is nothing but a lying piece of crap much like the imbecilic twit muggins who posts here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Indeed Rowan. I think bigot blouse blogged under the name of Insolent Prick way back.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. itstricky (1,849 comments) says:

    Bad week all round then DPF?

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11309464

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Nookin (3,352 comments) says:

    itstricky

    Tough week all round. Labour down to 22.5%. That must have rocked your socks.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. goldnkiwi (1,308 comments) says:

    David Garrett (6,599 comments) says:

    August 15th, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    You are right, it is a war.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. itstricky (1,849 comments) says:

    Meh. National would actually be a better Government for my circumstances. But I won’t sell out my principles, regardless, of who I vote for. Or brag about it on here, come to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Reid (16,491 comments) says:

    End of the day, this is a disaffected employee passing on an insignificant but confidential piece of commercial information to [who?] who gave it to [who?] who then passed it to after who knows how many other who’s, Hagar.

    Who proceeded to make a number of arguably libelous allegations against DPF.

    Facts stripped bare.

    Your move, DPF.

    And BTW, hope you win, hope the entire chain is exposed and hope not just the final link but all interim links are held to full account for the consequences of their actions.

    But suspect because of who you are, some of them will be to some extent, others won’t be at all and one or two will be held to account for 10% of the crapulence they’ve done here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Nookin (3,352 comments) says:

    “There are 101 reasons why that won’t happen – that is exactly why the PM is taking the stance that he is ignoring it – he does NOT want an investigation.”

    Given that the Greens have already gone to the police, your absolute confidence that nothing will happen suggests that the Greens are, yet again, wasting police time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. SPC (5,636 comments) says:

    Three main points

    1. generally it’s worse when the powerful do this to the powerless – such as when beneficiaries info was leaked to the media by a Cabinet Minister.

    2. the information was not confidential as it was released after being published on the Family First web site.

    3. The unstated issue here is the information that may have been accessed that is not published in the book – such as polling data for National – and this uncertainty impacts on the business (especially if the leaking was to continue).

    It’s fairly obvious this was an after thought after the emails were passed on to Hager earlier in the year. It indicates someone was looking for some extra connections, but found little relevant to the wider topic at the Curia workplace (and also suggestive that the company emails and personal emails were not hacked).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. topbrick (3 comments) says:

    Oh wah wah wah. It’s quite obvious you’ve been colluding the National all along, doing your best to discredit anyone who doesn’t hold their world view, i.e let’s sell our country to the lowest bidder so that our revered leader can go back to Wall St and make a pile when he’s completed his assignment. Those of us who are not sleep walking have been able to see this for some time. So a well-respected journalist springs you. Grow a pair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. xy (187 comments) says:

    Also DPF you should look at the results of this comment thread as an example of why the voting system produces bad results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    UglyTruth practices in the area of giving Swahili legal advice, that makes no sense.

    What would you like clarified?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I fail to see how he can complain to the police. I have no doubt he was hacked, and it may or may not depending on how it was done and by who, be illegal – either way it is the hackers who are responsible and the criminals, and it is a very fine line as to whether Hager has done anything illegal.

    The way I see it, it wouldn’t be in DPF’s interest to lay a complaint with the police. I agree that someone has obtained his business information without his knowledge or consent, but it could have been done with the public interest at heart. Naturally the VRWC would want to spin this as being the work of Labour supporters, since a) it fits into their gameplan, and b) there is a clear motive.

    However, if Slater complains, it means those emails will become evidence, they will then be examined and their contents confirmed as existing, and therefore Hager’s book as correct. There are a whole heap of people who do not want that to happen, for obvious reasons.

    The emails are already evidence of conspiracy, although there could be problems with the chain of custody. Slater complaining to the police makes the evidence more credible, and the rest of your reasoning is good.

    Leaving it as it is, it is up to people to decide whether they believe the information in Dirty Politics – some will, some won’t. Make a complaint, have those emails exposed, and everyone will believe and know the contents – and not just the ones revealed in Hager’s book, but all the private family and personal relationship ones that Hager has said he would not reveal.

    I agree that exposure of private family and personal relationships should be avoided. I guess we’ll just have to trust the judgement of those with direct access to the emails to properly filter out anything that is not relevant to the public interest.

    There are 101 reasons why that won’t happen – that is exactly why the PM is taking the stance that he is ignoring it – he does NOT want an investigation.

    Sure. This is outside of his area of expertise and there are much larger issues here than the body politic engaging in malicious acts against their political opponents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I don’t know why you don’t give Slater some credit for letting Labour know they had an issue.

    “I want to devastate the c**ts” [18] ~ Dirty Politics, p32

    18: Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Simon Lusk, 10 June 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote