If National wins ...

[Sgt Pepper]

Lots of disingenuous information and propaganda EZ. As has already been pointed several times Nicky Hager is not an "investigative journalist". He's personally quite wealthy from inherited assets and doesn't need to work, which is why he doesn't. Secondly, investigative? My foot! (or something stronger).
He's a stooge for rather larger fish who tip stolen material such as hacked emails into his lap and push his Go button and out comes a lot of tripe.

Journalist? Rosemary McLeod spent most of one of her columns pointing out why he is not a journalist and is not regarded as such by other working journalists.

I was at an election meeting where Gerry Brownlee was speaking and afterwards there questions. The only question relating to Hagar the Horrible was - Does the next government intend to amend the legislation to make it explicit that not only hacking emails is illegal and punishable but also receiving stolen emails and suchlike material is illegal and punishable? Yes, said Gerry Brownlee.

I think it was a mistake to raid Hagar before such legislation, best let him lie, fester and decay secure in the knowledge that the media and others now recognize that he was counterproductive and had a big part in National winning the election.
So, next time he comes out with one of his scurrilous works the Police no longer need to identify his source all they need to do is to show he has published or otherwise circulated stolen personal emails. It would be nice seeing him languish in gaol for a few years :-)

Yes MVT

and the hacking of the Labour party database three years ago, does your outrage extend to that???, me thinks not

[blackcap]

Yes MVT

and the hacking of the Labour party database three years ago, does your outrage extend to that???, me thinks not

I was under the impression that the Labour party database was not hacked, rather they left it open for anyone to come and have a look. Sounds like the Labour Party were irresponsible with private information at best.

[elZorro]

I was under the impression that the Labour party database was not hacked, rather they left it open for anyone to come and have a look. Sounds like the Labour Party were irresponsible with private information at best.

It still needed work to dig it out, Slater and his mate(s) were actively looking for data on Labour's servers. When they found it, and figured out it included credit card numbers, was the time to immediately call Labour HQ so the security problem could be sorted in-house. But no, they chose to blog about it, and have a good look at the data for a few days first, in case it might be handy. If it was so easy to find, why was this the first security breach of that data? They went looking for it, deliberately.

[Vaygor1]

It still needed work to dig it out, Slater and his mate(s) were actively looking for data on Labour's servers. When they found it, and figured out it included credit card numbers, was the time to immediately call Labour HQ so the security problem could be sorted in-house. But no, they chose to blog about it, and have a good look at the data for a few days first, in case it might be handy. If it was so easy to find, why was this the first security breach of that data? They went looking for it, deliberately.

Your description of Slater's motivation(s) is an assumption. Anyone could have accessed it purely by accident. Robot web-trawlers in Nigeria and throughout the world are continually searching for unsecured data containing credit card numbers.

The upshot is nothing was hacked, no crime was committed. There is no crime for the police to investigate even if they wanted to. Labour was informed of the security flaw by Slater and they ignored it.

To have that type of information stored with no security whatsoever is incompetent. To leave it unsecured after being told about it is the true definition on negligence.

[nextbigthing]

I'm selling tickets to the next fight for life. Main card is 'Raging ...... Robertson' v Silent T Cunliffe. Parker v Little are in the amateur match before that.

Undercard is el Zorro v Major von Tempsky.

[elZorro]

I'm selling tickets to the next fight for life. Main card is 'Raging ...... Robertson' v Silent T Cunliffe. Parker v Little are in the amateur match before that.

Undercard is el Zorro v Major von Tempsky.

Except MVT wouldn't show up, or he would be like the Emperor with no clothes..

[elZorro]

Your description of Slater's motivation(s) is an assumption. Anyone could have accessed it purely by accident. Robot web-trawlers in Nigeria and throughout the world are continually searching for unsecured data containing credit card numbers.

The upshot is nothing was hacked, no crime was committed. There is no crime for the police to investigate even if they wanted to. Labour was informed of the security flaw by Slater and they ignored it.

To have that type of information stored with no security whatsoever is incompetent. To leave it unsecured after being told about it is the true definition on negligence.

At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach? I can't check the details easily because my book is on loan. But as one person commented:

The fact that Ede and Slater exchanged messages expressing concern at being caught, is fairly strong evidence that they knew that they had accessed the data without authorisation. I hope they are prosecuted for it.

[westerly]

Lots of disingenuous information and propaganda EZ. As has already been pointed several times Nicky Hager is not an "investigative journalist". He's personally quite wealthy from inherited assets and doesn't need to work, which is why he doesn't. Secondly, investigative? My foot! (or something stronger).
He's a stooge for rather larger fish who tip stolen material such as hacked emails into his lap and push his Go button and out comes a lot of tripe.

Journalist? Rosemary McLeod spent most of one of her columns pointing out why he is not a journalist and is not regarded as such by other working journalists.

I was at an election meeting where Gerry Brownlee was speaking and afterwards there questions. The only question relating to Hagar the Horrible was - Does the next government intend to amend the legislation to make it explicit that not only hacking emails is illegal and punishable but also receiving stolen emails and suchlike material is illegal and punishable? Yes, said Gerry Brownlee.

I think it was a mistake to raid Hagar before such legislation, best let him lie, fester and decay secure in the knowledge that the media and others now recognize that he was counterproductive and had a big part in National winning the election.
So, next time he comes out with one of his scurrilous works the Police no longer need to identify his source all they need to do is to show he has published or otherwise circulated stolen personal emails. It would be nice seeing him languish in gaol for a few years :-)

Rosemary McLeod is more columnist than a journalist. (who appears to have a low opinion of men in general.) I have long held the belief that a year is long enough for them to expound their views, Then they should be replaced. There are exceptions however.
I would expect the National Govt. to introduce legislation to reduce their exposure to information which may damage their reputation. How ever restricting freedom of information which may be in the public interest is not very democratic and there is always the option of the courts. Incidentally has Hager been prosecuted and found at fault ?
You make no mention of the Auckland business man who claims his emails were stolen in a burglary and a complaint to the police has resulted in no action after 2years although Slater published some on his blog.
I suspect most of those protesting the emails were stolen would like to see Hager languish in jail
I would rather have the lid lifted on the shameful methods used to denigrate opposition by those in power and the lengths they are prepared to go to to retain that power

westerly

[blackcap]

At what point did Slater tell Labour about their security breach? I can't check the details easily because my book is on loan. But as one person commented:

That bit conveniently will not be in your book. But I have it on account that Slater did inform Labour about their breach and they did nothing. Therefore my earlier comment about Labour's being at best "irresponsible" in this matter.

[elZorro]

That bit conveniently will not be in your book. But I have it on account that Slater did inform Labour about their breach and they did nothing. Therefore my earlier comment about Labour's being at best "irresponsible" in this matter.

I'll have a look for the detail when I get the chance. In the meantime, a comment from lprent in August,

The problem as I understand it was that the National party tech and Slater (the two who could be identified from the logs) said that they hadn’t taken or tampered with anything. They had merely “looked” at what was there.
Since that involved copying information and would have shown up on the logs, that is probably still illegal as there is a copy taken. However that is “actus reus“, the guilty act. Often to prove criminality you have to prove criminal intent “mens rea“, the guilty mind. The latter wasn’t clear in 2011 and would have been difficult to prove. So the NZLP dropped it as being potentially too embarrassing in an election year.
However the conversations revealed in “Dirty Tricks” clearly show that there was a guilty mind. Slater, Bhatanger, and Ede were clearly intent on being malicious – in particular in stating that they would hold and use the files that they obtained to attack the Labour party and its contributors.
That the evidence that proved this was also obtained illegally is unlikely to have any particular bearing on the use to lay criminal charges or to convict.