Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Key says that Ede's job was briefing bloggers and that he txts or calls Slater 3 or 4 times a year to clarify something about story he didn't understand. This is apparently perfectly normal and widespread. So Russell, how many calls/txts have you received from Key and Ede? From other ministers?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Russell Brown,
he pissed-off younger Gallery members who quizzed Key in this extraordinary 20-minute standup were righteous.
Key is very clever to avoid looking at the book. It means he can essentially lie and get away with it. For example, he repeated stated that it fine for Ede to access the Labour website using the instructions provided by Slater on Whaleoil. The impression his audience will get from his responses is that Ede did nothing wrong. But Ede accessed the site before the blog post went up. When (if) Key gets pulled up on this he will claim he hadn’t read the book and simply made a mistake about its contents. Many will forgive him the lie and those that don’t see the followup will go on believing Key’s initial version of events.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to nzlemming,
Fuck. That’s a traincrash of an interview. What the hell prompted Slater to be part of it? Seems that Gower’s worm has turned somewhat.
What is it about the Right that triggers amnesia? I see Slater has also caught it.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Andre Alessi,
I’ve thought about this a fair bit, and the only thing that makes sense (short of frankly offensive armchair psychiatry diagnosing him with a genuine disorder) is that he sees himself as part of a larger machine. It’s his job to do the distasteful things so that the rest of the guys on his “side” (a side that, admittedly, fluctuates a little) can do what they need to do to win.
Perhaps. I think he enjoys himself when he attacks people, I don't think he sees himself as doing something distasteful or that he is taking one for the team. Here's a profile of him from a few years back: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/2583835/Internet-warrior. I don't think it supports your take on him. "I do this for me", "It's about getting attention." Incidentally that story includes a quote from Key's then press secretary Kevin Taylor denying any contact between the PM's office and Slater; chalk that up as another baldfaced lie out of the PM's office.
-
Speaker: Confidential information: the…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Do we want to criminalise deep linking? Or scraping? Or bypassing a front-end to download an image? Or some other non-standard use of software to access information on a web server?
I don't think there is anything in the law as it is written that supports any of those interpretations: currently if you are giving someone authorisation to access and image or a page then they can access it via any method or route they can find. To criminalise the above you'd need to redefine "authorisation" and I don't think anyone is suggesting the current definition is problematic. But I think there is scope to define "computer system" more narrowly.
-
Speaker: Confidential information: the…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If Cameron, and you and I have authorisation to access the server that hosts labour.org.nz for the purpose of viewing the Labour Party’s website, then is there any basis on which section 252(2) doesn’t come into play if once we access the server, we do things that it was not intended we should do?
Your interpretation may be correct, but if it is then that law is nearly useless. It implies that the hacking of Slater’s emails would be legal if it were done through his website since everyone is authorised to access the server that hosts the website, hacking his Facebook account would be legal since anyone with a FB account is authorised to access the FB servers (though if they took over the account I assume it would be illegal under section 249).
ETA: should have read the rest of the thread. Call this a +1 for the other 3 or 4 posts that expressed the same point.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
No *asking* there – and he has explicitly ruled that out to other media outlets this afternoon. Same approach as with John Banks – no, not read the report. Know nothin. Hands clean. Head in sand. Arse in air..
That's what I meant about another round of "hear no evil, see no evil". Can he get away with that again?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
I suspect it means the PM approaches Collins and says something like “Hey, Jude, did you do what that guy says you did?” Then he hears her reply. Then he applies his judgement and understanding of his role as Prime Munster, and acts accordingly.
If he’s grown-up enough.
He will ask her, according to this story on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10381072/Hager-book-a-smear-campaign-Key
But it will be exactly the same as the last two times (Oravida and the leaking of Bronwyn Pullar's name): he'll ask, she'll deny, he'll say he's taking her at her word and that's the end of it. There should be an independent inquiry. I really wonder what Collins has that makes Key repeatedly back her versus the way he let Maurice Williamson fall on his sword.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Alfie,
The ODT reports Key as saying that it’s “unlikely” he’ll ask Judith Collins if she’d shifted a prisoner at Slater’s request, or even whether she leaked information to Slater.
...
The old ‘Either I didn’t know or I can’t recall’ trick.Another round of "hear no evil, see no evil" is surely going to be a round too many for some.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Nick D'Angelo,
“When she was Minister of Corrections Judith Collins appears to have had a prisoner transferred at Slater’s request, because a friend of Slater’s didn’t want her daughter visiting her imprisoned ex-partner and Slater arranged to have the man transferred to a more remote prison. The prisoner later attempted suicide”.
Yep, of everything I've heard so far (having not read the book), this is the one that alarms me most. So many levels of WTF here:
The Minister can get prisoners transferred?
She did so at the request of a third party outside the justice system?
There was (apparently) no review of this move when the guy tried to kill himself?With this on top of the poor judgment she exercised re Oravida, I expect Collins' resignation.