-
10-06-2019, 10:12 AM
#2521
i think it was unethical unauthorised hacking, low level, but hacking, systematically done for incredibly self serving purposes an attempt to undermine the first well being budget ,esp for mental health and also totally mute the teachers issues. What an incredible stuff up and poor judgement on Nationals part. I can see instructive videos being made of his parliament vitriolic poisonous rant to teach humans how not to behave.
-
10-06-2019, 10:27 AM
#2522
He came across as a dictator, true colours shining through.
-
10-06-2019, 10:30 AM
#2523
Originally Posted by justakiwi
You are probably correct that it wasn’t hacking, but the fact remains that National obtained or gained access to, confidential information without authorisation. They then read that information, again, without authorisation.
If I find a pile of confidential documents lying on the road, I did not willingly obtain them. But if I read them, I have willingly accessed the information, which is an offence. So regardless of how National got access to the budget, they committed an offence by reading that information, and probably committed a second offence by distributing it.
They had no right to do that and no need either. They acted irresponsibly and dishonestly. They might be the Opposition party. But my expectation as a NZ citizen and voter, is that they behave morally and respectfully. If they choose to play games like this, they lose credibility and my respect.
You are right - there was no need for them to obtain and publish these documents, and anybody with a shred of respectability in their body would have just told the political opponent that they might want to check the safety of their systems. There was clearly no public need to see these documents a couple of days in advance ...
Bridges stunt was just an attempt of cheap and childish political point scoring.
On the other hand - the reaction of the government was not much better - wasn't it? Talking about "hacking" and alleging crimes while they have been aware that nothing unlawful has happened is just - well, appalling. Clearly gross incompetence, but it might be worse.
There are clearly too many politicians in our parliament who behave as if they still compete for the top position as kindergarten bully. Their behaviour is a disgrace, and these people unfortunately come from all political corners ...
I don't feel represented by this kindergarten.
Last edited by BlackPeter; 10-06-2019 at 10:32 AM.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
10-06-2019, 10:50 AM
#2524
Yes both sides are woeful ,,, sorry state of politics
"With a good perspective on history, we can have a better understanding of the past and present, and thus a clear vision of the future." — Carlos Slim Helu
-
10-06-2019, 11:32 AM
#2525
Agree BP. Petty and ugly politics on both sides. Bridges should not have gone public with the info they gained from searching Treasury's website. They should have quietly used it to prepare themselves to respond to the Budget. But the reaction from Treasury and the Finance Minister is equally appalling. Of course Winnie also said HE KNEW who HACKED the website but we're so used to him making up stuff, that nobody bothers to even correct him anymore. A sad state of affairs on all sides.
-
10-06-2019, 11:43 AM
#2526
I think the government could could be forgiven for reacting “emotionally” when they first found out about the leak. People jump to conclusions in situations like this, so their initial claims of hacking were probably just that. I’m not saying it was an appropriate response but kind of understandable. So yes, faults on both sides. BUT, I am not as convinced as you that “nothing unlawful” happened. As I said in my previous post, if confidential information comes into your hands, by whatever means, you are obligated to report it and return the information to the rightful owner of that information. Especially if it is government information. Any document you ever receive from a government department, via snail mail or email, has that clearly noted at the bottom of the communication. If you willingly choose to access information that is not yours, you commit an offence and I dare say you could be prosecuted.
I suspect this is the case here. If the government wanted to make an example of Bridges/National, they could bring a prosecution against them. If somebody intentionally accessed your confidential government information (IRD, WINZ, Health Records or whatever) wouldn’t you expect some consequences?
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
SNIP
On the other hand - the reaction of the government was not much better - wasn't it? Talking about "hacking" and alleging crimes while they have been aware that nothing unlawful has happened is just - well, appalling. Clearly gross incompetence, but it might be worse.
-
10-06-2019, 11:49 AM
#2527
Originally Posted by justakiwi
I think the government could could be forgiven for reacting “emotionally” when they first found out about the leak. People jump to conclusions in situations like this, so their initial claims of hacking were probably just that. I’m not saying it was an appropriate response but kind of understandable. So yes, faults on both sides. BUT, I am not as convinced as you that “nothing unlawful” happened. As I said in my previous post, if confidential information comes into your hands, by whatever means, you are obligated to report it and return the information to the rightful owner of that information. Especially if it is government information. Any document you ever receive from a government department, via snail mail or email, has that clearly noted at the bottom of the communication. If you willingly choose to access information that is not yours, you commit an offence and I dare say you could be prosecuted.
I suspect this is the case here. If the government wanted to make an example of Bridges/National, they could bring a prosecution against them. If somebody intentionally accessed your confidential government information (IRD, WINZ, Health Records or whatever) wouldn’t you expect some consequences?
How was I to know that the information is not mine? I mean if I go to a govt website and search for info, I presume (and rightly so) that that info is there for public consumption. I go to many govt websites and enter items in the search category. I NEVER think that what I am receiving is illegal or that I need to report it. Why would I?
-
10-06-2019, 12:01 PM
#2528
I think most most of us visiting a government website, would quickly realise if a specific piece of information had been posted there by mistake. Pretty sure if I saw a document labelled “2019 Budget” (or whatever it might have been named) before the publicised release date, I would be questioning it. I would most probably contact them to let them know, out of courtesy. That would be the ethical thing to do. I would certainly expect the opposition party to do exactly that (I would expect Labour to do the same were the roles reversed.)
Would you not do the same? it’s not even about politics. It’s about being mature and honest and not taking advantage of someone’s mistake, a system failure, or whatever. It’s about human decency. But maybe I’m just old and hanging on to ideals and morals that no longer actually exist.
Originally Posted by blackcap
How was I to know that the information is not mine? I mean if I go to a govt website and search for info, I presume (and rightly so) that that info is there for public consumption. I go to many govt websites and enter items in the search category. I NEVER think that what I am receiving is illegal or that I need to report it. Why would I?
-
10-06-2019, 12:10 PM
#2529
Originally Posted by justakiwi
I think most most of us visiting a government website, would quickly realise if a specific piece of information had been posted there by mistake. Pretty sure if I saw a document labelled “2019 Budget” (or whatever it might have been named) before the publicised release date, I would be questioning it. I would most probably contact them to let them know, out of courtesy. That would be the ethical thing to do. I would certainly expect the opposition party to do exactly that (I would expect Labour to do the same were the roles reversed.)
Would you not do the same? it’s not even about politics. It’s about being mature and honest and not taking advantage of someone’s mistake, a system failure, or whatever. It’s about human decency. But maybe I’m just old and hanging on to ideals and morals that no longer actually exist.
Depends in which capacity I was operating. If I saw a document titled 2019 budget on the Treasury website, I would presume that this document was available for public consumption. (Treasury is after all a huge public department with huge budget, many IT workers and would have all the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that all info they want out there is out there and info they do not want out is not out).
Then again if I were Simon, well maybe I should be expected to know better and a common courtesy call with a leak to the media about how slack Labour and Treasury are would be a better method of embarrassing opposition.
-
10-06-2019, 12:24 PM
#2530
You are contributing to the game playing with your suggestion for “a better method of embarrassing” the government. National has made plenty of mistakes themselves in the past, with “accidental” breaches of confidentiality and privacy from various government departments. None of this is ideal or what we want from our government of the day, but no government has been 100% perfect in this area. So it’s pretty damned hypocritical of National to pull a dirty trick like this, just to embarrass the government. Do they think we are all idiots who have no memory of mistakes they have made in the past? Do they seriously believe we will be impressed by their immature game playing?
A good opposition would have noticed the mistake and done the responsible thing. Do you seriously believe Labour would have handled it this way had they been in opposition? Jacinda would not have supported this action had the roles been reversed. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
Originally Posted by blackcap
Depends in which capacity I was operating. If I saw a document titled 2019 budget on the Treasury website, I would presume that this document was available for public consumption. (Treasury is after all a huge public department with huge budget, many IT workers and would have all the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that all info they want out there is out there and info they do not want out is not out).
Then again if I were Simon, well maybe I should be expected to know better and a common courtesy call with a leak to the media about how slack Labour and Treasury are would be a better method of embarrassing opposition.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks