SSBmZWVsIHNvcnJ5IGZvciB0aGUgb3RoZXJz

by Whaleoil on January 11, 2010

00110100 00111001 00100000 00110110 00110001 00100000 00110110 01100101 00100000 00110010 00110000 00100000 00110100 00110101 00100000 00110111 00110111 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110110 01100101 00100000 00110010 01100100 00100000 00110101 00110011 00100000 00110111 00110100 00100000 00110111 00110010 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110111 00110100

[ad]

icaused911

Why is he doing this? Simple – for the banner ads at the top of this web page. $$$.
kiwidealz

took me a while but got it sorted – good luck with whatever happens……enough is enough – loved the Lisa Lewis piece, said it all
Just Wondering…

So let me get this right, Whale Oil. As far as you are concerned, if I come across a law I don't like I can just ignore it?
So if someone burgles your house, or rapes your mother, and states they don't like the law, you'll just accept that as a legit?
Laws are there for a reason, and maybe, just maybe, you don't understand the full ins-and-outs of this case. Maybe, just maybe, that's why there are judges to make these decisions, rather than just letting people like you decide?
Just wondering…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

People do it all the time, ever run a red light, exceeded the speed limit, talked on a cellphone while driving, had sex before you were 16, smoked a cigarette before 18, bought piss at a pub before 18….see happens all the time.

When laws are an ass, people ignore them.

Just Wondering…

Great. So you are allowed to be a risk to my family and friends by breaking the law, are you? If you run a red light and kill my daughter, is that okay? Where as being charged and not convicted of a crime isn't okay??

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

it isn't ok and I fully expect to be convicted, but the law needs to be discussed, and not just by the illuminati of the establishment.

Just Wondering…

Yes!! The law needs to be discussed!! But you are not allowing that. Like many so called freedom of speech advocates you have your idea of what is right, and have no truck for anyone else's views (or privacy for that matter).
You are breaking a law you do not like with no thought for other repercussions. Which sounds very much like African politics to me.

DTC 4life

Nah, you got it completely wrong. FIFY

*As far as [he is] concerned, if [he] come[s] across a law [he] do[es]n't like [he] can just ignore it.*

This way of thinking is not universalizable.

Just Wondering…

No, it is not 'universalizable'. But where the line is drawn is not 'universalizable' either. And who says your decision of where the line is is more correct than mine? Or vice versa?
THAT is why there are laws, and like them or not, those are the laws. Lobby your MP to change them – don't just flout them, or you are as guilty as the people you are outing!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Ever heard of civil disobedience, it brought an end to the Vietnam War when people burned their draft cards in the US.

Just Wondering…

"Civil disobedience" or "treason" ? "Terrorist" or "freedom fighter" ? Which is why someone in a position of authority needs to make the decision, rather than someone with a vested interest.
I don't want you to determine NZ law on my behalf, thank you very much. And while I'm sure there are plenty of times when I don't want a judge to make that decision for me either, that's the price you pay for democracy. The current system isn't perfect, but it's better than the anarchy you offer.

Ben

'As far as you are concerned, if I come across a law I don't like I can just ignore it?'
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Prime Minister effectively told us that sometimes it's ok to ignore the law – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-government/news/arti…
So, to answer your question, in some situations yes you can break the law on the basis that you do not agree with it and it can be 'legit'.

Just Wondering…

Sorry Ben, but that isn't what that article says at all!! You've totally missed the point of it!! It states that under the current law a light smack is okay – it was the interpretation that was not clearly understood before, not the substance.
Whereas the law is VERY precise about this case, which Mr Oil has understood fully and chosen to ignore.

Ben

Have you even read the section? The amendment removed the defence of reasonable force, so now the statute itself expressly forbids any use of force against children (except in limited circumstances, for example to save them from harm). A light smack for correctional purposes is entirely against the law. It's not an issue of interpretation. In fact, could you please point me to the part of the section that is up for interpretation in regards to this?
As an addition, I would challenge the fact that the law is 'VERY precise' in this case – if it was there would be no need for any of this ongoing debate by any of the commenters on this sight.

Budgieboy

Ha ha …very clever… I k now what this is… I just wish I was clever enough to sus out what it says.

Katie

Here’s the long explanation:

It does look like binary (base 2) because it’s all zeros and ones. It’s also in groups of 8 and ascii needs 8 “bits” (binary digits).

Decoding the binary to ascii gives this:

49 61 6e 20 45 77 65 6e 2d 53 74 72 65 65 74

Which looks wrong but is does look like hexadecimal (base 16) because its number and letters between a and f and also, it’s in groups of 2 and ascii needs 2 hexadecimal digits.

So, we need to decode the hexadecimal to ascii.

Here is the python code. If you install python you can run this.

————————————————————————————————–

'''
Binary sting to hexadecimal string to ascii string

Compile using Python 3.1.1 (c) Damian Kennedy 2010.
'''

text1 = "00110100 00111001 00100000 00110110 00110001 00100000 00110110 01100101 00100000 00110010 00110000 00100000 00110100 00110101 00100000 00110111 00110111 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110110 01100101 00100000 00110010 01100100 00100000 00110101 00110011 00100000 00110111 00110100 00100000 00110111 00110010 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110110 00110101 00100000 00110111 00110100"

text2 = ""

for w1 in text1.split(" "):
text2 = text2 + chr(int(w1, 2))

print(text2) # this line print the hexadecimal

text3 = ""

for w2 in text2.split(" "):
text3 = text3 + chr(int(w2, 16))

print(text3)

————————————————————————————————–
mehere

My clever partner told me that you need to convert the Binary sting to hexadecimal string to ascii string

Fred

Agreed Budgieboy, I don't know either
SIS

at a guess, binary blog text is encrypted using the blog title as the key. no time to try decode…. maybe tonight. or perhaps we can just use the wiretap warrant with extended rights to extract the keystrokes caught by the keylogger and forget all the difficult code cracking
Nothim

The title is in base 64, which is easy enough to decode with a quick google search.

SIS

and the body is probably just random binary as the title didnt really need a body to back it up…

ltsadotcodotnz

It says,____Hone Harawira…..Hone Who?
Dave

amerikiwee – you may not have decoded the full string, but even so I'm not sure that you should have posted your comment.

amerikiwee

yes i realised that after posting but couldn't find a way to delete it
amerikiwee

That was the full string I believe btw….still…want to delete my post please Whaleoil?

crabby

awesome!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Deleted Amerikiwee…..don't do that again.
http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

I put the body of the text into a binary translator. This is what it spat out:
"5468652065782d4d50206f6e2073657875616c2061737361756c7420636861726765732069732049616e204577656e2d537472656574"

So Whale, "WTF"

will

It's hex encoded ASCII. Says the same thing as the title used to say.

amerikiwee

Sorry about that.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs/connector Luke Appleby

I see. Can't see the article it pertains to, though. Thin ice, man, thin ice.
http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

I managed to get the title translated. Not sure what it refers to. However the text body is a mystery.
Fesus Christ

http://www.dolcevie.com/js/converter.html

Might be helpful Grizz.

http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

Ok, I can put the title in a Base 64 translator and I get a ledgible translation. On its own it is meaningless, but it hints at something juicy in the text body.

I must be missing something with binary code. I am not a computer person. I do not know what Hex and ASCII is all about. However, I have got a binary translator. I can put in the binary code and it will spit out a Hex Code. I go to your link, but the Hex Code obtained when put into this spits out junk. The binary code above is not a Hex code, so what do I need to do with it before entering it in? Am I on the right track?

Walrus

Did you get an answer to your query Grizz? I'm at the same stage as you are when you wrote this comment – ie translated the title in Base 64, but can't get the body text. How did you do it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

Thanks, got it now.

I would like to say a lot more, but FFS Whale, you really need to watch it. At some point a repeater will work this one out.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

They already have.

anon

Got it.

Shit WO be careful, for fuck sake.

Guest

get rid of that twitter update with the old title too!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Gone

Pingback: uberVU - social comments
BigBoy

Easy!
Guest 2

THAT is who this "national figure" is???!?!?!?! Never heard of them before!
IvotedNational

Brilliant! never heard of him before until now
guesty

hardly a national figure. interesting he went from one party to another
Visitor

How can I work it out?
kiwigeo

New Zealand used to have a justice system where you were innocent until proven guilty. Looks like we now have trial by media like in the US. This person has been charged but hasn't yet had his day in court. What if he's found not guilty of the charge? You're going to look a bit stupid.
guesty

opps Whaleoil can you remove the last part of my post. don't want to get in any trouble
Fay

never heard of him before
IAM

I don’t know why this guys name is suppressed, he’s practically a nobody, I for one had never heard of him. lol. I had fun working out the puzzle though, thanks!
Hofman

@kiwigeo ….Agreed. This person is still accused correct? What gives you the right to break our laws and spread the name of a potentially innocent man around like this ? Regardless of you attempting to make this a political issue , this is not the way to change the law in this country by breaking it and ruining the reputation of someone before they have a chance to defend themselves . I personally hope you get arrested and charged for this clear breach of NZ law .

moondoggy

Break *our* laws? Who's laws exactly?

I don't remember voting for a name suppression law for famous / wealthy / prominent people…
bilda

because many do not have the privalege of being rich or famous, and hence are deemed inelligible to name suppression to start with, that is the point of protest, I have a friend who was falsely accused no name suppression given its harsh .

Hofman

"Every person charged with sexual offenses with an under 16 year old gets automatic name supression. You, me, whaleoil, John Key. Everyone. It is automatic under 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act. "

Nice work guys maybe more think less talk.

bah

IAM… his name is probably suppressed because he hasn't been found guilty of any heinous crime yet???

I'm all for releasing the names of the guilty, but whale, this has become sick sycophantic delusion in your own twisted head now.

What if the guy is NOT GUILTY of anything?

Your supposed crusade is nothing but BS. If you really stood for the reasons you stated for breaking the suppression rules, then you would surely recognize the difference between this and the others.

kev

what drugs are you on. can i borro sum . you are dislusional . there should be no name suppression at all. the police very rarely charge innocent people. the girl told the story so there must be some evidence to have the deviate charged at least

ragsynz

decoding this was way more fun than the message itself is interesting, never trust a hippie
http://www.cadlow.co.nz Spanish Bride

He is not saying that anyone is guilty of anything. Most ordinary people who are accused do not get name supression. That is the point that he is making. The main stream media cast aspersions on the non accused in this latest one as there are only 3 people in that town who fit their description.
It is purely conjecture on everyones behalf that this code gives any name and if it did that the name might actually be correct. The main stream media are saying that it identifies the person but then they also say that WO is out on bail when he isn't.
It may say Homer Simpson for all I know and it would be just like WO to do that knowing that everyone will assume that it is something else.

DTC 4life

That is a fatuous defence. If your husband has the courage of his convictions he should admit that the code, when deciphered, names a former MP. None of us who have worked out who the original post identified is in any doubt about WO's intent. There is no place for casuistry here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Suggest you read the law. Do you see any reports about criminal proceedings….no didn't think so.
What about a link to a story?….Nup not one there either. Any linkage is in your own imagination and not from me.

DTC 4life

not sure what you are on about here, cam????? I wasn't talking about legal issues.

Shaun

@bah, @kiwiego
What about all the criminals that are named at court daily! What happens to them if they are found not guilty at court? Do you make a fuss or care about them? Most people that end up at court are criminals/regulars!

Good on ya Whaleoil!
kermadec crunchywasp

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
tt

Haven’t decoded this, and definitely won’t be. I agree that name supression for those that are guilty should be non-existent. However…. I knew a man once who’s relative accussed him of a similar crime….. he killed himself because he was devastated and could no longer face his family…. teenage girl later in life admitted she made it up… lots of lives ruined and an innocent man dead….. what if this guys innocent Whale and you just hit the nail in the coffin!!!!
DJJ

You're actually naming him by providing this link, which also breaches the supression order.

In this case it is my understanding that he was granted name supression to protect the identity of the alleged victim, who is known to him. Any member of the public in this situation would be granted name supression because our laws protect the identity of victims of sexual abuse.

Amy

Sorry didn't realise this was the case. Can you remove the above link please Whaleoil.

kev

cant get into trouble. dont be silly if u didnt put the name on there then u are ok

cmm

Name suppression for even the guilty can be justified to protect their victims. If someone is convicted of abusing their daughter, and we know the rapist's name, we know the daughter's name too. Why should she have to live with that forever? Everyone knowing what happened to her. The story repeated every time the media wants to construct a list of evil people to fill the TV news.
You guys need to stop and think before you post.
And if all the non-famous people knew they would be dragged through the media for even minor offences like a famous person is, they'd want suppression too. The media should have the right to publish the names of the famous who are convicted if they then treat them the same as the non-famous. The penalty should fit the crime, and having your name repeated by the media thousands of times is clearly a penalty, and one the media don't subject the non-famous to.
Why should the famous face harsher penalties?
anon

Who is the suspect ?

Wishart Chatfield-Road
Anon

Wait, is this the comedian?
rat

i decoded all of the message earlier in the di decoded all of the message earlier in the day (Thanks cached Google pages they saved me when you went down).
i don't believe this person deserves name suppression (like WTF never heard of them) but then i also dont believe we should really be telling everyone his name even in its current form that encryption should be easy to break with google. i also got the link and i fully support that i think these need some serious rethinking.
i think the law is useful but it needs a serious rethink all these "celebrities" getting name suppression for extended lengths of time needs to be stopped what is going on with the recent cases is just crazy if you ask meay (Thanks cached Google pages they saved me when you went down).
Guest

Maybe the intent and the principal's aren't right.
But none the least the puzzle is a very smart idea. lol
bleh

Given that the Herald referred to the ex-MP as a National figure, went on to indicate he'd been in more than one party and quoted his partner's words in such a [hippy] way that you could guess what the other party was, the Herald gave it away before Whaleoil did.

Although the fact that we're supposed to have heard of this guy tripped me up.
Guest

Comes out " 49 61 6e 20 45 77 65 6e 2d 53 74 72 65 65 74 " Here we have both the media, and Slater creating hype..

http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

Apparently that stands for Kermadec Crunchywasp in some form of computer cryptic code. After going to the olympics and before entering the stand-up comedy circuit, he was an MP. Nothing has every been stated about which country he was an MP for, let alone which electorates he ran for.
Ace

that number string looks like hex – have you tried converting hex to text?

tk99

decode binary to text. text is hex, more text to hex and again decode to text…..

kahu

yeah took about a minute to figure that one out and even less to figure out who it was

Mr W

http://home2.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/
Neo

Be careful here people, you and me could be up shit street without a paddle, and I an't joking!
Shiz2

I really like comedy but I don't know who to see. Could someone post a code like the above one for any male comedians you wouldn't recommend?
Thanks
stoney

WO what's that phrase you used previously when describing the police actions in charging you, something about a horse and empty stable and would it adequately address you changing the title and body of this post.
How long do you think people are going to put up with your BS. "None of which identifies by name, address or occupation “in any account or report relating to any proceedings”" – sure it doesn't now, but for a reminder the original post including both the base64 title and binary encoded – hex encoded – plain text stated "The ex-MP on sexual assault charges is [first name] [last name]" (edited for obvious reasons).
If you are doing nothing wrong as you keep stating why are you changing your posts and deleting comments including links to a US site that decodes the binary.
Here's some advice, when you're in court next, plead insanity, because I don't think anyone is going to have a hard time believing that.

madcow

Ironically, you have just helped identify who the person is by stating what the plain text says, try googling " The ex-MP on sexual assault charges is "

God, don't you just love the internet!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Hey Stoney,

Why don't you go organise a protest against me with your girlfriend

James

DJJ wrote: “Any member of the public in this situation would be granted name supression because our laws protect the identity of victims of sexual abuse.”

The trouble is that name suppression doesn’t apply to everybody, it only applies to a few. Some get it and some don’t. As for protecting the identity of *alleged* victims of sexual abuse, you might be aware that in 2008 Michael Laws referred to MPs Lianne Dalziell and Nick Smith as being closely involved in the Peter Ellis prosecution. During a broadcast on his radio show, Laws identified three of the child complainants in that case. The police, to my knowledge, have not charged Laws with breaching suppression orders.

So not only do we have inconsistency in relation to who gets name suppression, we also have the police being selective as to who they charge with breaching said suppression. Would you agree that the justice system is likely to be brought into disrepute because of these inconsistencies?
Pdubyah

The Fun is in the chase. I think that one of the many problems is that the "media" seem to decide on who is a "celebrity" or "prominent", based on some suprious criteria that I don't understand.

Still that I think he's a nobody doesn't count, it seems that reeling of a list of people you know that would be outraged does.
Jimbo

how does posting "I feel sorry for the others"… plus a name (I won't copy here) constitute revealing that person as the person of interest in a name suppression?

Answer. It doesn't. That job was done by others, e.g. the herald, by confirming that this person's name was the name that was suppressed. So… who did the outing here?
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com Elijah Lineberry

It was all rather an anti-climax when I finally discovered the name…

When was this fellow an MP?

For which party?

Cannot say I had heard of him prior to about 3 minutes ago! hahaha!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Kandco Kandco

He was a green party person. I didn't know he was a comedian though.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Kandco Kandco

Well I think its hilarious he's being called a celebrity! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. Has anyone heard of him before?
Don

What is it with the National Party and perverts?
egdeacution

lol I've never heard of him!
The Gantt Guy

Whale, I don’t know why people are talking about the name suppression case in conjunction with this post. I’m laid up with pneumonia at the moment and in my rare moments of lucidity, decided to write a decoder rather than continue to drive SWMBO and SWMBO-junior bonkers. I’ve cracked the code, and it doesn’t mention anything about a court case or charges or name suppression.

As an aside, I already knew the name of the ex-MP by following the massive trail left by the HoS. I would imagine Caroline Meng-Yee is nervously awaiting a visit from the constabulary for her breaching of the suppression order?

Also, the ex-MP is such a nobody his wikipedia page doesn’t even include a reference to the charges (unlike the “Olympian” and the “Entertainer” – AFAIK the “Comedian” is even more of a nobody – he has no wikipedia entry).

http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Grizz The_Grizz

Look in the page history. I will not link it here in case I get a knock on the door by the boys in blue.

Steve

Innocent until proven guilty etc…Had fun with the code though. Never heard of him. Prominent my ass.
tromboni

got it! never heard of him though
Guest

I used a good translator at http://home2.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/

This person is a nobody. Why hide his name. I googled this person and have never heard of this person
Guest

I didn't know Michael Moore even had a blog…

Anyways, I googled your site, gave you a hit for your counter. Grats.

Brilliant tho, anyone who is accused of any crime, no matter how awful…should be paraded through the media according to your sensible self-serving philosophy! Because we know how even-handed they are.
You're an attention-seeking headline-grabbing idiot, who has no respect for privacy of victims, OR 'alleged' people.
hobbsnz

That was fun! never heard of him. If it wasn't for the national media calling him a prominent NZer I wouldn't have bothered finding out who it was.
wiki rocks

In a certian someones wiki history (not the current published version) it says "In January 2010, XXXX-XXXXXX appeared in court charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl
BOB

Hope your time inside teaches you some lessons on pride, humility and law. Enjoy the food, night screams and black cock. Tit

http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

Love the cock, love it.

ners

Never heard of the guy, and I agree that name suppression is overused in this country.
For if or when you get fined: just open a bank account, post the details here, and am sure the many supporters here will help pick up the tab.
Keep up the good work, someone has to!
http://intensedebate.com/people/frumiousfrog frumiousfrog

I'm sure that these arrangements of digits are here for artistic purposes only, and very nice they are too. Apparently if a particular encoding scheme is applied then they can be converted into the name of an individual. Then again, with an appropriate encoding scheme they could be converted into anything. If an inference is made that the (arguably) named individual is associated with some wrongdoing then it is whoever makes the inference, not the provider of the data, that should be held responsible for any allegations that ensue.

That aside, the author might be aware that a trial-by-media might ensue (I don't presume to know anything about his motives), but if so then he is clearly happy to eat his own dog food, which is laudable.

If you should find yourself in need of an expert witness you know where to come, Whale
Shady

Glad I worked your code out.
Now I know that the only other person who fits the newspaper's description is innocent. So it is still ok to buy his jewellery .
meme

I totally agree with WO on this one and I thank him for his stand. Either everybody gets name suppression or no one should. It’s really that simple and our laws need to be changed.
Personally, I’d like to see name suppression apply for everyone until they have been found guilty in court. We are all innocent until proven guilty in this country, right? So why not give everyone the same rights and not just protect the rich or ‘so called’ famous?
Use some imagination and put yourself in someone elses shoes. Imagine you’ve been charged with a serious crime and released or found innocent in court. Every prospective employer or co-worker can goolge these days. Do you think you’d get the next job?
Alternatively put yourself in the employers shoes: You have a new candidate who you discover on google was charged but released for something really nasty like sex crimes. Would you employ them even though they have been found innocent or the police plain cocked up and charged the wrong guy?
The Police make mistakes every single day, after all they are mostly human. My point is that false accusations or charges stick and can ruin lives. We need total name suppression for everyone, why should just the so called ‘famous’ or rich people get name suppression? Surely everyone deserves it or no one does.
http://www.facebook.com/grantmichaelmckenna Grant Michael McKenna

Prime News had a brief picture of your Facebook page- without being logged in- and showed two of your FB friends- and I am one of them! Already been congratulated twice! Fame at last!
zasalemel

i feel sorry for the others is what the title say
Guest

The ex-MP concerned still has an auction running on Trade Me. Does that count as an online source publishing his name (and contact details)?
Harpoon

Why all the code silly business? Why not just write the names, if it's your conviction to do so?

Harpoon

No pun intended.

http://www.cadlow.co.nz Spanish Bride

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Is-blogger-Cameron-Wha…

Public opinion is clearly shown here. Take a peek
Zarchoff

Is he still a National figure?
Billy

Im confused…………. I thought the person was meant to be in his 30's?? He aint that young!! Correct me if im wrong.
Decoder

Green turned National turned Fiddler

SSBmZWVsIHNvcnJ5IGZvciB0aGUgb3RoZXJz

Today’s Posts

Your DIscussions

Random Quote

SSBmZWVsIHNvcnJ5IGZvciB0aGUgb3RoZXJz

Related posts

Get hooked

Today’s Posts

Your DIscussions

Random Quote