Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"so many of them are such thoroughgoing prats"
great word, well used. it just rolls off the tongue!
It's a beauty, ain't it?
arrant(a): without qualification; used informally as (often pejorative) intensifiers; "an arrant fool"; "a complete coward"; "a consummate fool"; "a double-dyed villain"; "gross negligence"; "a perfect idiot"; "pure folly"; "what a sodding mess"; "stark staring mad"; "a thoroughgoing villain"; "utter nonsense"; "the unadulterated truth"
-
I'm interested in criticism of 'Secrets and Lies': is anyone saying that Coast Action Network wasn't a creation of Shandwick and Timberlands?
Shandwick is a dreadful outfit. I first encountered them during stories I did for Computerworld on the Mondex e-cash shemozzle that the major New Zealand banks bought into. This is the most relevant story:
AUCKLAND-- Mondex International is running a public relations campaign to emphasise positive aspects of its security after acknowledging in a confidential document that customers may not be protected if its electronic cash scheme is "compromised".
Holders of Mondex smartcards will not be protected by Mondex and will not necessarily be able to redeem the value held on their cards if the scheme is successfully attacked, according to an agenda item on security PR prepared for a Mondex board of directors' meeting in July.
The document, leaked to Computerworld, describes a plan to counter "this obvious weakness" and cites the need to step up security PR in light of "recent events", namely the series of articles in Computerworld (New Zealand).
Potential adverse impacts on Mondex of fears about its security are listed. These include attacks from consumer groups and pressure on governments "to act to protect the consumer against products like Mondex, either by insisting that Mondex accepts liability or that it is not allowed to be developed". Mondex also fears adverse impacts on the other brands held by MasterCard, Mondex's 51% owner.
Six New Zealand banks - ANZ, National, Westpac Trust, BNZ, Countrywide, and ASB - are also shareholders in Mondex and recently confirmed their intention to launch the smartcard-based system in October next year.
"Given our assertion that Mondex is 'tamper resistant' and not 'tamper proof', any stepping up of PR security must include clear statements of the basis upon which consumers will be protected in the event of a security breach",” the document says.
"Without these statements, we are in danger of exposing the fact that the system is not tamper-proof, and should it be compromised, we will not protect cardholders."
"Until this issue is resolved, we cannot afford to take a pro-active stance on security because it will cause more problems than it will solve, in particular with consumer lobby groups."
The author notes that issuers of Mondex's two leading competitors, Visa Cash and Proton, do "appear to provide the means for cardholders to redeem value held on the cards".
Visa is planning a Visa Cash pilot here and in Australia next year. Visa spokesman Bruce Mansfield confirmed to Computerworld that Visa would protect cardholders in its Visa Cash scheme in the event of fraud or of loss or damage to cards.
"Because we have a fully accountable stored-value system which keeps transaction dates and balances, we are able to deal with customer service enquiries and refunds where appropriate", said Mansfield.
Eventually, the banks got embarrassed and walked away from their equity investment in Mondex. The other Computerworld stories are here:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/
This was the series for which I rather tragically failed to win (or even be nominated for) a Qantas media award, but which I think was the most significant news reporting I've ever done.
I would also note that Shandwick was recently caught again concocting a fake grassroots advocacy group - Cancer United, which billed itself as a lobby group launched by doctors and patients, but was in fact a creation of Roche and Shandwick that aimed to pressure European governments in funding Roche cancer drugs.
So if Shandwick didn't do anything whiffy in the Timberlands saga, it would be somewhat out of character.
-
Russell - do you think that the fact hager got 2 out of 3 things wrong with regards to hard news is any indication that there might be other errors in the book? Or do you think those were the only ones.
That was why I made a point of noting it. Anyway, I've just worked it out - the date and title of the citation are right - it's just the vehicle that was wrong. It wasn't Hard News, it was Left Field, my column in Unlimited, one titled Right and Wrong. It quoted the same Maxim-supplied editorial as my original Hard News post did.
So, yes, a minor mistake in attribution, but a mistake nonetheless.
-
Nick said:
On Hager - and in offering the letter below I'm not saying his book isn't illuminating in a number of regards ...
Which it is. I'm already noticing points where he bridges gaps with possibly unwarranted speculation, and I'm wondering how many lurid ways he'll find to describe economic liberalism - but it's still a fascinating and important story.
I think the "stolen emails" meme is largely a red herring. National has still offered no proof that the emails were "stolen" (or even a realistic definition of what "stolen" is as opposed to "leaked"), and the sheer breadth of material cited (including communications in which Brash took no part) is hard to square with a single act of theft, as opposed to supply by sources.
What do you make of the role of NBR and your old boss in the story, Nick? I'm not having a go, I'm interested in your perspective.
-
And perhaps RB knows this too and his currently having a laugh at my expense for having taken the time to explain it? If so, I'm only too happy to have fallen for it.
No, I was genuinely puzzled. Perhaps you're right, but it sounded bloody odd.
-
As opposed to the waterfront stadium where nobody had a clue how far shy it was of being paid for and the MO boiled down to 'trust us, and we'll sort out the budget later'? Sorry, Russell, but let's leave the badly repressed petulence to Trevor Mallard.
Aw, c'mon Craig. It wasn't petulant, it was salient. There was endless reporting of the holes in the waterfront proposal and very little about the problem with Eden Park.
While the waterfront was very likely to run over budget, there was a clear government funding commitment to a public asset. Extending the same commitment to Eden Park raises the fairly significant issue that it's not a public asset: it's owned by a private trust.
I'd go for David's temporary seating fix, but I get the impression that a good part of the additional cost in the latest Eden Park plan was stuff chucked in to mollify the local residents. It's pretty messy.
-
Hard News gets a mention as a primary source - p209, see endnotes. I can't actually find the primary in your archives, or indeed any article titled 'Right and wrong'. Was this in the dreaded medium of printed material that I've been indulging in enjoying the retroness of for the last few hours?
The citation is correct as to content, wrong on title and date of the blog post. It was a lengthy post on Aug 26, 2005, called 'The Odds'.
http://publicaddress.net/default,2461.sm
I was passing on notice from a reader of an editorial in the Pohutukawa Coast Times that I figured was straight out of the Maxim Institute's dodgy "voter education campaign" aimed at driving votes to National. (It was.)
I actually skipped forward to the main part about Maxim in the book to see whether I'd been right about collusion with National on its "one stop shop for voters offering objective information and not pushing any political agenda."
Yup. Thought so ...
-
Why doesn't someone ask Hickmott (the Brethren sender of the email) if he actually sent it. Is that too obvious?
You never know. When it broke, National wasn't even going to admit to meeting them, but then the EB blew it by saying so at their press conference.
Anyway, got the book this evening, reading it now. It's fascinating so far.
-
Perhaps my metaphor has strained it's moorings a little too far ...
Dude, I was on the point of calling search and rescue ;-)
-
John Key's just run the same line as Bassett on Checkpoint: the emails were stolen and there was no such email from the Brethren. Doesn't make much sense, but it seems to be working for them.
Shame Mary Wilson didn't have the wit to ask him if, well, the Brash emails were "stolen" and no one from the party would have given Hager any such thing, where did all the other documents he cites come from?
Call me crazy, but it seems a reasonable question.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 … 2279 Older→ First