Hard News: Dirty Politics
2403 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 97 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Danyl nominates the hacking of Labour’s computers
It's the big takeaway, and it's the one thing everyone better be hoping actually turns out to be true. Because, sorry to say, there's been an awful lot of credulity extended to hacking allegation here that wasn't extended to Don Brash and it's not as if Slater is any stranger to what can most politely be called big-noting.
OK, folks... save yourself some time and I'll do the standard reply for you. "Oh, of course you'd say that you shameless Tory hack."
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
Squirrels! GO!!
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It’s the big takeaway, and it’s the one thing everyone better be hoping actually turns out to be true.
I’m guessing it’s related to this brag by Slater, which wasn’t a secret at the time:
National has not been involved in this release, like I would trust them to keep this information quiet for as long as I have been in Labour’s backend.
But if he got more than he revealed in the post and the PM’s office was involved, it’s not a good look.
-
William Leander, in reply to
Danyl nominates the hacking of Labour’s computers
I think the key part that you appear to have missed is "by the Prime Minister’s office". I'm pretty sure that if the office of the Labour leader had been implicated in the hacking of Slater or Brash, it would have been a big deal as well.
-
@Andrew
the ethics of how (stolen) material is used is not governed entirely by the fact that the material was stolen
Yup, overall agree. And, unlike ClimateGate, this content, checked and double-checked, IS in the public interest, not least Key's staff writing emails about hacking into Labour staff files and subsequent campaigns based on that info. And Slater has never occupied any moral high ground.
-
Well, I've read 50 pages tonight -- up to the Bronwyn Pullar business where Judith Collins is implicated as a minister in sharing sensitive information about her department's business and one of its clients with Cam Slater -- and I actually feel sick so I have to stop.
I hope this is very bad for all of them.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But if he got more than he revealed in the post and the PM’s office was involved, it’s not a good look.
Link doesn't work -- but I guess the question someone should be asking Labour is if they've got any evidence anyone actually hacked them because, with all due disrespect, I wouldn't believe Slater if he told me water's wet and fire's hot without independent confirmation. I'm sorry, but I long ago came to the conclusion that Slater is a pathological fantasist who needs to have every word that comes out of his mouth dipped in tequila.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Even if Ede/Slater haven't broken any laws, if the PM's misled the public about his office's actions that's a big deal.
Kind of like the Underarm Bowl in 1981 - within the rules at the time, but certainly not within the spirit of the game.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I’ve always been surprised that the Nats have kept Mr Ede on the payroll given the well-known allegations that he is a chronic Class B user.
Can I start another allegation that you're a fuck wit who should go make defamatory claims about third persons on your own blog, and where you're the only person liable for the contents?
-
The book also says that Kiwiblog posts have been written by National Party staffers.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I think the key part that you appear to have missed is “by the Prime Minister’s office”. I’m pretty sure that if the office of the Labour leader had been implicated in the hacking of Slater or Brash, it would have been a big deal as well.
@William:
Oh, be a dear and shove off. Of course it's an incredibly serious allegation, and I don't give the proverbial rat's rectums who does it to who. But I require slightly more evidence than the burblings of someone like Slater, who I've long considered an incurable fantasist.
-
More from Danyl, who has his nose in the book:
Tobacco lobbyist Carrick Graham pays Slater $6500 a month to publish tobacco industry PR without attribution
That's how you make it in the news media environment, folks.
-
pohutukawa tree, in reply to
Lots of speculation as to how Slater's material was obtained but most theories are all too complicated (not impossible, of course). More likely something simple was the cause, like Slater using an obvious password, not wiping an old hard drive, or something of that nature.
-
Rebecca Williams, in reply to
i wish i could say what i really thought but i work for the public service. ahem.
-
@Craig p32, 35
The details of the plan were worked out between Slater and Ede in the final days before the launch. The computer logs show them both accessing the Labour site on 7 June, Ede … arriving at 10.11 pm and Slater (who forgot to disguise his home IP address) two minutes later at 10.13 pm. Then on 10 June, just two days before the attack was launched, they to-ed and fro-ed by email, working out which bits of the Labour information Slater should emphasize.
The next day, 14 June, Ede and Slater exchanged several emails expressing their relief that Labour had not discovered Ede’s role. Ede wrote: ‘An interesting sidebar in Pagani’s story is that they’re chasing us by matching IP neighbouroods and types of computer we use. You stand out like dogs balls because of your damn Mac!!!!!’ He continued, ’In my case I wish to offer a hearty sigh of relief and celebrate dynamic IP addresses.’
-
Andre Alessi, in reply to
But I require slightly more evidence than the burblings of someone like Slater, who I’ve long considered an incurable fantasist.
The claims come from "correspondence between Cameron Slater and one of Key’s senior staffers" to quote Danyl's post.
-
So it is terrible that Whaleboy hacked the Labour Party computer (who claimed at the time the door was left wide open ) but ok if Hager uses material to write a book for profit hacked illegally from the Whale
Really struggling to get my head around this
Of course if the PM department provided WB with the material that is very different
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The claims come from “correspondence between Cameron Slater and one of Key’s senior staffers” to quote Danyl’s post.
The claim that somehow someone in the Prime Minister’s Office managed to hack the Labour Party’s membership and donor records?
To be fair, it could be possible that the Labour Party’s data security is so slack some wannabe Neo in the PM's office hacked incredible confidential information. But it strikes me as equally plausible its not only National staffer who can leak like incontinent geriatrics given the right incentives, but Slater sexed up a good old fashioned leak to make him look more of a player than he actually is.
-
...I don't give the proverbial rat's rectums who does it to who...
Sure, whatever. But other people do care who does it - there will always be idiots hacking into others' computer systems, but if it is being done by those directly linked to top-level politicians (even if it is simply taking advantage of a poorly configured server), it is a much more serious issue.
-
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
Link doesn’t work – but I guess the question someone should be asking Labour is if they’ve got any evidence anyone actually hacked them because, with all due disrespect, I wouldn’t believe Slater if he told me water’s wet and fire’s hot without independent confirmation. I’m sorry, but I long ago came to the conclusion that Slater is a pathological fantasist who needs to have every word that comes out of his mouth dipped in tequila.
It wasn't really "hacked" - Slater, on page in question (fixed link) clearly demonstrate how open Labour's system was. They totally half-assed it. But the issue that appears to be raised is also about whether Slater even found the issue in the first place, and then what information he sourced himself from there, and how much was fed to him (with additional background?) from the PM's office.
Hacked or not, it seems inappropriate at the very least for the PM's office to be trawling through that stuff and point Slater at the bits they thought were the juiciest (which is the claim from the book as I understand it)
-
I am uncomfortable if the 'hacking' is solely the leak of the Labour Party donor list because it seems pretty clear going by the video Slater himself posted in 2011 that it was open access: Slater Video
Sure, this may point to the PM's Office feeding the info to Slater on how to access it and Ede working with Slater to work out which info to release (which would make Slater a liar seeing as he said the Nats weren't involved) - but that's a hugely less serious accusation IMO, than 'hacking'.
'Hacking' would be a serious offence and require resignations and potential police action. Accessing an open directory because a configuration was screwed up isn't hacking. It might be dirty politics but it's not 'hacking'.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Labour's security was deficient, clearly. But the correspondence shows active collaboration between Slater and a very senior aide to the Prime Minister in pillaging what they could get.
-
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
The book also says that Kiwiblog posts have been written by National Party staffers.
That'd be a shame. I disagree with Farrar on a lot, but he's always seemed to be basically straight up. I've no doubt he's received tips from political insiders (as do most political journalists as Russell pointed out) but tend to assume he's not involved in the outright spin in the same way that Slater seems to be.
-
Peter Calder, in reply to
Well I'll be fucked
Are you the same William Blake who wrote Songs of Innocence and Experience? I liked your earlier stuff better. More nuanced. ;-)
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hacked or not, it seems inappropriate at the very least for the PM’s office to be trawling through that stuff and point Slater at the bits they thought were the juiciest (which is the claim from the book as I understand it)
Yeah, I think that's the point.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.