Keith Ng

I loathe tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) posts but over this issue I will do one as paying (or not) for content online is the most important issue for the future of bloggers and new media and one I have put a great deal of thought into both for The Truth and this blog.

When Bernard Hickey announced with much fanfare and bravado he was setting up www.journalism.org.nz others were telling Hickey what he wanted to hear but I was instantly skeptical at the stunt and said so in full.  Socialists do not part with their own money and this was a left wing vehicle.  Hickey skited he would cover stories other MSM would not.

The first issue was Hickey’s arrogant attitude to the project and relationship with www.interest.co.nz.  I continue to write this blog and am editor of The Truth.  I cannot do both jobs without help and appreciate the staff at The Truth for their work so far.  It is not as easy as it looks but I am spending less time on it as I learn the job.  Surely Hickey could see the level of time required, most of it on his own?

The second issue was Hickey clearly relied on the unreliable in Selwyn Pellett.  A wealthy man but not one who parts with coin as freely as others on the right to fund projects like this.  A man with his own agenda who spends a disproportionate amount of his time arguing senselessly on Twitter as a “critical friend” of the Labour Party.

Selwyn Pellett claims to not be a member of the Labour Party but tweeted attendance at the recent Annual conference.  John Tamihere was not a member at the time and not allowed.  Pellett is a “critical friend” who does not even believe enough in the Party to join it.  It shows a level of commitment that equalled his to Hickey.

So Bernard Hickey cans the project the same week he sells his Epsom home for $1+ million and moves to Wellington, for no apparent reason than his daughter is at University there.  Hickey’s reasons were:

1. Underestimating the time and salary sacrifice involved

Every small business needs cash to start-up.  Most have a period where the owner receives no income.  Hickey left interest.co.nz according to his original release on 1 November.

Why didn’t he release the website idea with a breaking story to show what he would produce?  Fact is he hasn’t had one memorable toe-curler since the Crafar farm face-off.  He has limited his role in the media to commentator/Labour parrot and Herald on Sunday columnist.

I have come to the conclusion that the need to support my family through freelance journalism and commentary will not leave sufficient time for me to continue to take the lead role in journalism.org during its formative stage.

In other words, despite grossing $1+ million on the house according to NBR, he was not prepared to do what most small business owners have to do and mortgage the house to back himself and put equity into the new venture.  Not having enough time to devote to the project and wanting to spend more time with his family are euphemisms for “I should have thought more about it before chucking my toys at interest.co.nz and bragging I could do this”.

2. Everyone lied about paying for the start-up

We will have to fight for funding in an economic environment where philanthropy is less evident than in more prosperous times and where we need to be wary of the difference between verbal commitments to donate and actually putting a hand in one’s pocket.

The economic environment really has nothing to do with it.  According to Hickey the economy has been in crisis for years. The bottom line is that people will not front with cash until they see what is on offer on the website.  The NBR for example created their online product BEFORE people signed up.  Even on Hickey’s online poll on the website there was fair indication not many people were interested enough to click a box.  Everyone will slap you on the back congratulating you and saying they will sign up because it is easy to say that.  Most are lying, especially socialists. I have told Hickey what to do, break a big story to launch it in style, not a whimper and fizz.

3. Pellett must have pulled out

He had previously acknowledged it was risky to rely on one large donor – if they lost interest or wanted to make the site a vehicle for their own views.

You do not have to be a genius to see what happened.  Hickey found out Pellett is a control freak and wanted to push his own agenda.  He has some awfully weird ideas that even Hickey could not suffer.  Remember Hickey predicted a 30% drop in house prices at one point, then changed his mind?  His commentary is all over the place and unrealistic.  Hickey’s effort on Sunday is a perfect example.  There was no real reason to write that column.  It lacked purpose and was merely parroting prior World According To Bernard Hickey.  To be blunt, Hickey has gone stale.   He has pigeon holed himself into a ridiculous prediction man.  The latest large failure was predicting the Eurozone would collapse in October 2012.    Compare Hickey to Fran O’Sullivan who does not go around  making outrageous (incorrect) predictions to get attention.  She produces an endless stream of new material and perspective twice a week and has done for decades.

Hickey has now worked out precisely why New Zealanders just buy property and wait for it to appreciate in value as an investment before selling it.   He has written about potentially becoming a property investor.

While there is no shame in business reporters not being in business themselves, the massive miscalculation of  start-up capital and funding is facepalm material.  The only people interested in Hickey’s sort of alarmist Chicken Little stories are people who will not pay for the news.  They are also as I have said, socialists and as I told my new largest new fan; grumpy, old media Brian Edwards unequivocally on The Nation – socialists do not part easily with money and make terrible paymasters.  It is why his now political polar opposite and my largest new critic ; grumpy, old media Bill Ralston, got realistic about life and changed his colours.  Capitalists and corporates pay the bills.  Socialists just want everything for free.

Or do they?

Keith Ng scored how much for writing about a planned hack? But even at several thousand dollars a story in funding and donations from the public it will never be enough to fund Hickey’s lifestyle full-time given the amount of time you have to put into a story.  As I have found in my new position as an Editor  it takes enough time at The Truth to get everything out each week, let alone produce investigative reporting where you may spend hundreds of hours for nothing.  Phil Kitchin for example is testament to three stories a year max, and he has scraped the barrel from his semi-retirement this year in quality after doing precisely what investigative reporters do not and allow themselves to be captured and kidnapped by a PR hack.  David Fisher has gone soft and is filling his Herald space interviewing Kim Dot Con’s hired help.

Hickey also insulted large chunks of the business mainstream media by all but saying they were in the pocket of corporates so not doing their job as well as he could independently. They will all be chuckling at his failure, some were led to believe Hickey actually owned interest.co.nz.

To fund actual news reporting, particularly the sort Hickey wanted to produce, you cannot start without a large amount of cash to support yourself and time.   That is why you need a very wealthy and consistent funder to support you to develop your website and content.  Or raise the funds yourself.

I just hope Hickey is now less sanctimonious in his writing of others in New Zealand business, taking risks (or not), capitalism and the natural lust in economic models for money, power and profits.

He has proven in this mis-adventure to be just like everyone else.

Keith Ng, The Greens, Labour and assorted proxies all accused Paula Bennett’s office of “leaking” the name of Ira Bailey to the media. Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show that simply isn’t true.

They also show why the initial search for possible breaches failed to detect the vulnerability and it relates to the details publicly available about Ira Bailey.

Once the Chief Executive of the ministry notified the minister of the details on 10 October a staff member did a search and came across his LinkedIn profile. The organisation Ira Bailey works for is apparently an accredited training provider and so the Ministry checked which systems they had access to.

They did this based on the scant knowledge that had been provided in his initial phone call to the Ministry. The emails also reveal that his initial phone call was not recorded.

A subsequent contact was made with Ira Bailey on 10 October. No further information was garnered from that phone conversation.

The ministry remained in the dark, and as one of our largest would have had no idea where to even start looking. Ira Bailey simply didn;t provide enough information or was unwilling to once he found out he couldn’t shake them down for cash.

He instead decided to go to the media and his left wing pal and former Clark office staffer Keith Ng. Far from being the honourable whistle blower it is clear that he gave them next to nothing other than his name and a claim that he had penetrated the systems and that he had spoken to media.

This paints a somewhat different picture than that which Keith Ng would have us believe.

The minster’s office then has to deal with allegations that they “leaked” his details to the media, the emails show that these allegations are untrue. They were more concerned with ascertaining precisely the details of the systems breach.

It would appear that Keith Ng ratted out his source on a paranoid assumption based on a phone call from a proper journalist. Keith Ng named his source, and yesterday he named his hacker pal as well. People will start to wonder whether or not it is worth the risk of ever speaking with him again if he continually rats out his sources.

I must also point out how quickly the request was turned around. I asked this request on Thursday and received the results at 6pm yesterday. Normally government departments and politicians use 20 days as a target timeframe despite information being to hand. In this case it is apparent that the information was to hand, and because I confined the request to a small timeframe and specific details was able to be provided in a timely manner. I think Paula Bennett’s office ar to be commended for that.

The full copy of documents released are below.

Ministry of Social Development – OIA 18 October 2012

David Farrar due to his intrepid journey travel blogging is now in Saigon with family.  I hope they have great and safe time exploring together.

I am heartened that he has taken his family so they can sort all the practical matters travelling with David that need taken care of.  Such as a fast and free internet connection, all parking and haggling before fights break out.  It would be useful as well for David to have a minder when drinking as we all know how friendly and chatty he can be to the wrong people.  And that is in Wellington late at night.

This FB exchange Farrar discusses the handicap of crossing the street in a crowded place where no one realises you are a celebrity and have your own blog and media show appearances. Unlike when you are with the Whale, you have to wait in line with everyone else.

As we worked out from the crowd source donations where the VRWC imposed a 10 x fine of the donation to him, Farrar is mates with Keith Ng who offers some friendly advice to David to blend in.  This tactic served Keith with great results slinking him  into that kiosk a fair bit back now.  Constant pace and have faith, security will not chuck you out.

Then Cactus Kate, protective of David for many years where she can from socilalists and the general enemy, swoops in advising Farrar how to keep cool inside the air conditioning, score free internet and cease boredom by going into their local WINZ offices and playing with the computers in the kiosk system there.

Just do not tell Keith what you have found David else he will cave in to real journalist Claire Trevett and spill his guts about it to her.

Anyway despite counter-allegations that David has not yet left his hotel room, we await more great achievements and most importantly value based choices while shopping in Saigon. There is an entire wardrobe of t-shirts another person too big, to be replaced.  The only thing that will still fit Farrar are the socks,  Maybe. and they should be thrown out to0 looking at the condition of shoes the’ve been in.

I find it highly ironic that Labour is going on about sensitive data security:

Is Labour asking Keith Ng and Ira Bailey to handover or delete the files.. no…they’re making political capital out of them. Remember when they had their own data breach…at that time Labour threatened and blustered and attacked the person who breached their security, such as it was.

While Labour, the Greens and left wing blogs all stick up for Keith Ng and Ira Bailey, I do wonder how things would have panned out had it been revealed that it was me who found this data breach, and that I took files and that I or my source asked for money. I know exactly how it would have panned out… because Labour did it to me.

They accused me of hacking, they laid complaints against me with the Privacy Commission and wrote threatening letters. The whole saga is summarised here.

Contrary to what David Farrar thinks I think Ira Bailey and Keith Ng have a little problem.

The Register certainly thinks so:

Ng himself, however, has come under criticism for his voracious appetite for grabbing files to prove his point. As his blog post shows, Ng took a look at files for contractor invoices, hours worked, medical information, debt collection, fraud investigation. He notes that “I sorted through 3,500 invoices … about half of what I obtained”.

While demonstrating that the network was unsecured represents a considerable service to the public, not knowing when to stop has probably put the blogger well on the wrong side of the law. Over atNational Business Review there’s some lawyerly punch and counterpunch about whether, in fact, Ng went so far he’s at risk of jail under New Zealand’s Crimes Act, even though “prosecution guidelines meant action was unlikely to be taken”.

And the relevant legislation:

Crimes Act 1961

249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—

(a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) causes loss to any other person.

(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—

(a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) to cause loss to any other person.

(3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).

There are many out there calling Keith Ng and Ira Bailey whistle-blowers.

I don’t think that is a fair call to label them as such.

Still others are calling it blackmail, but is it?

Well let’s look at this quite simply.

Ira Bailey, who has a less than honest background, is an employed system administrator and just happens to have some spare time to spend down at the local WINZ office. I don;t know about you guys but I know precious few employed people who willingly spend even a nano-second contemplating spending time in a WINZ office let alone as Keith Ng portrays it, having “half an hour to kill at a WINZ office”.

He then stumbles across some sensitive data and instead of saying something he downloads some copies then buggers off. He calls up WINZ and asks if he can get paid of he tells them where a systems breach is.

When they don’t reply in his timeframe he trots off to his lefty mate, former Helen Clark staffer Keith Ng, who conveniently puts him in touch with a hacker.

Meanwhile WINZ gets back and says that they don’t pay for information. Ira Bailey then says oh that’s alright I’m talking to a journalist.

Several days later after explaining or showing Keith Ng how to do what he did they publish it all on line and create a mass of publicity.

So is this blackmail?

Well, answer this…Had Ira and/or Keith being paid a “consulting fee” would the story have run?

Of course it wouldn’t have…the loophole would have been closed, no one would have said anything and everyone would have been none the wiser. Instead we have this…now I ask again…Is this blackmail?

If it isn’t blackmail it certainly seems to be a new business model whereby you work with a hacker, nick some data, ask for a “reward”, then when told to nick off you publish it and ask for “donations”.

Keith Ng says that he reluctantly named his source…I mean who does that anyway…that is another story…because he “isn’t interested in being the media limelight“:

So. The guy who tipped me off is Ira Bailey. He was one of the Urewera 17. He currently works as a system administrator, has a young child, and is not interested in being the media limelight. That’s why he asked for anonymity.

Yes here he was in 2009 actively seeking the limelight:

Environmental activists intend to block roads and enter buildings in Wellington in an attempt to demand immediate action on climate change.

Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa will set up a camp in Upper Hutt next week, aiming to attract about 250 protesters.

Participants Claire Dann and Michal Lelen said direct action was one of the camp’s four main aims.

Ms Dann said: “When we’re talking about climate change, the urgency warrants direct action.”

Action would include street theatre, road blockades and entering buildings, but non-violence would be a bottom line.

Keith Ng mentioned “we” constantly in his interviews today about his penetration of MSD servers.

This is interesting considering the latest developments.

Mr Boyle said the ministry was contacted last week by a man who said their systems weren’t robust and he would cooperate if there was a reward.

“While he wouldn’t provide any details we asked KPMG to begin penetration testing at this point and this testing has been accelerated and intensified. He did indicate he was working with a journalist,” said Mr Boyle.

This has all the hallmarks of an extortion bid not unlike the ACC affair where a malcontent didn’t get what she wanted and went to the media. Has Keith Ng stumbled into the midst of something more sinister?

Of course it is interesting too that Public Address is part of the Scoop Media Cartel which had their own poor security exposed by me on Friday. The exploit could just as easily have placed malicious code on Public Address.

UPDATE: Now we know who the “we” is…one of the Urewera 17, Ira Bailey.

Keith Ng has outed his source. Worse he has admitted that he has put him in touch with at least one hacker.

I put him in touch with an experienced hacker. This hacker told us that government organisations in NZ don’t really pay for vulnerability reports, and that they were likely to either respond poorly or not at all.

MSD called Ira back two days later. They told Ira that they don’t pay for vulnerability reports. Ira told them he’d been talking to a journalist and the conversation didn’t go anywhere after that.

Right, so this was no civic minded person, it was an experienced programmer, a system administrator, trying to get some coin, rejected from that attempt so shopped the story to his left wing pals in the media…interesting…if you now believe that this fellow just stumbled across a flaw in the kiosks by accident then I have a bridge for sale that you can buy.

ᔥ OnPoint

Keith Ng cuts the Herald to shreds:

“Credibility” is kinda ironic, because on that same page, they stole a picture off Twitter without attribution, said McQuillan worked for Radio NZ (actually the NZ Newswire, and previously for RadioLive), and said she was asked to leave the court by the judge (she was asked to leave the press bench by a registrar, so she reported from the public gallery). How did they get all this wrong? Because neither Cameron nor the reporter who wrote the news story called McQuillan (though John Drinnan, to his credit, called her boss) and got the entire story off Twitter instead.

Hey NZ Herald. Before you criticise someone else’s pants for being unprofessional, perhaps you should make sure that your work isn’t.

Global warming ‘not linked’ to typhoons – Telegraph

Al Gore, proven liar, has again been proven to be a liar.
[quote]Today, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, a study of typhoons is published by Prof Johnny Chan, City University of Hong Kong.

A major conclusion of his study is that global warming apparently is not related to the frequency of intense typhoons.

Instead, such occurrences have a strong decadal variation caused by similar variations in the oceanographic and atmospheric conditions that govern the formation, intensification and movement of tropical cyclones.

Prof Chan said that there are key differences between the Pacific and the Atlantic. In the latter, sea-surface temperature is generally close to a threshold of 27 degrees, beyond which more tropical cyclones are more likely to form, he said.

Although some have linked hurricanes to climate change, others believe the variations follow a natural cycle, he said: “More analyses are necessary before one can say one way or the other.”

For the western North Pacific, the sea surface temperature is always above the threshold. “Therefore, a slight increase due to global warming would not have a great influence”.[/quote]

Whoopsy, looks like the science isn’t settled, looks like the debate isn’t over.

Powered by ScribeFire.