Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Special Sources, in reply to Brent Jackson,
I think it is unforgivable to use a confidential source to give away the confidential source of another journalist.
The name of someone leaking information is newsworthy. Ira Bailley's role in this is also newsworthy.
If someone in, for example, Radio NZ found proof that someone in the Minister's Office leaked Ira's name to the Herald, that too would be publishable.
Keith's responsibility to protect his source. Claire's responsibility to protect hers, but if others find out, and it's newsworthy, they're free to publish it.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I wonder how much it cost us to change the name to one nobody seems to use?
Dunno. My recollection is that Helen Clark got rid of the WINZ moniker quite early as it was a Jenny Shipley thing that was strongly associated with her and Christine Rankin, with "They WINZ, You Lose" slogans and all.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Steve Barnes,
About 10 years back I had occasion to go to a WINZ office, or whatever they were called back then
They're not called WINZ offices now, and it was over 10 years ago when that stopped. But still the best rebranding ever. The organisation was only called WINZ for a couple of years, but it still persists. Whatever agency came up with it was genius.
-
Up Front: Moa: Sub-Standard, in reply to Emma Hart,
As a side-note, and not directed at Graeme at all, just trying to keep things clear, BDSM is a thingied acronym. Compressed. Something. It stands for Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism. When Graeme says “D”, I am assuming he means “Discipline” not “Dominance”.
Learn something new every day.
Was it always that way, or did it evolve? Sort of the opposite of how we moved from Gay and Lesbian to LGBT, LGBTI and google autocomplete suggests, sometimes even LGBTQIA (and I'm sure, others).
The coffee image is one I find really difficult to parse. I mean, it’s stagy and fake and I think it’s supposed to be funny, in the context of its time.
I just don't get the socks.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Thomas Beagle,
Thomas - why not include subsection (2):
To avoid doubt, subsection (1) [i.e. offence Thomas mentions] does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.
Although, as Keith isn't a WINZ client...
-
Up Front: Moa: Sub-Standard, in reply to Tom Beard,
"The thing" is when "vanilla advertising co-opts imagery from BDSM", but I think that the latter image is from actual porn, not advertising.
I meant, for example, the coffee one. Which is at least D, though not B or S or M.
-
I don’t know why this is becoming such a thing.
Doesn't your second link there show it isn't so much becoming a thing as has been one for quite some time?
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: all the fault…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Well you could say that about all select committees, I’m not sure it applies more to this one.
True, although there are other ways of holding other departments to account, so it matters less.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: all the fault…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
One comment he made was that the constitutionally-established oversight roles that the legislature and judiciary have wrt the executive’s agencies are taken seriously, and used seriously. The problem we’re having here, I realised, is that the head of the executive is also the person who has control of the spy agencies’ operations and is the person who chairs the legislature’s oversight committee. That should probably be changed.
Looking at the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, I note that the Committee is explicitly forbidden to enquire “into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information”, which effectively castrates any possibility that the Committee could act as a check on the operations of the spy agencies.That was the sort of thing I was thinking about in my call for a Law Commission inquiry in my last post. I considered going into the differences between our style of the government and the US, but the post was long enough already. Its true of much of our Committee structure. It's good for some things, and avoids some things we might want it to avoid, but it doesn't do hard-hitting inquiries in public or private.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: all the fault…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
but Hager the indefatigable…
Rhymes with lager :-)