Labour has failed in its bid to set up a commission of inquiry into privacy breaches.
Clare Curran introduced her Electronic Data Safety Bill last year.
She wanted an inquiry into several serious privacy breaches, including one in which a member of the public downloaded 7000 sensitive Ministry of Social Development documents through a Work and Income self-service computer kiosk.
Under the terms of her member’s bill, the commission would have investigated the breaches and recommended how best to prevent further unauthorised access to private information held by government departments. Read more »
Before we get started on this article I need to post this portion of the directive from Judge Blackie of ¬†1 October 2012.
I have to post this because Matthew Blomfield is vexatious and runs off to court at the drop of a hat. The reason I have not written about Blomfield for months despite building evidence against him flooding into my tipline is because Judge Blackie essentially forbade me speaking of him unless he was otherwise reported in “old” media.
This morning that happened. Therefore I am able to comment on him and since the story manufactured by Bevan Hurley is about the case I can talk about that too.
Unlike the Herald on Sunday I’ll tell the whole story not just the bits that suit Matthew Blomfield.
You may ask why I said ‘to suit Matthew Blomfield’…well because Bevan Hurley never spoke to me or even called me prior to publishing this story. He also didn’t disclose that he met Matthew Blomfield and sat having a coffee with him at the concession stand at the Manukau District Court on Monday for 20 minutes prior to the case being heard. He also didn’t disclose that he left with Matthew Blomfield as well and never spoke with me after court. We can be assured that Bevan Hurley wrote this story on behalf of Matthew Blomfield as he always does. I have email correspondence that proves that Matthew Blomfield and Bevan Hurley have worked on stories before. I will present that in my defence against Blomfield’s spurious claims of defamation.
Right now to fisk the article (No link because they don’t deserve one)
A blogger who broke the Len Brown sex scandal story has been ordered to reveal confidential sources after a judge ruled his site was not a “news medium”.
The landmark ruling was made in a defamation case against Cameron Slater, founder of the Whale Oil site, who is being sued by Auckland businessman Matthew Blomfield. ¬† Read more »
I’m not kidding, they have splashed all over the paper about how…shock, horror…MPs have followed the rules.
Once again the Herald applies their own moral judgement and attacks MPs for following the rules.
Several Government politicians are using a loophole to own properties which are not declared and claim up to $78,000 in taxpayer-funded subsidies each year to pay off the mortgage.
A¬†Herald¬†investigation of property records for all 121 members of Parliament has discovered that six National MPs use their private superannuation schemes to own property that does not need to be disclosed – unlike assets held in trusts. This is because of an exception in the rules of the Register of Pecuniary Interests.
They are declared, they are declared their superannuation scheme, this is extremely lazy reporting by the Herald who it seems has invested a lot of time and effort into an investigation to come up with precisely nothing. But hey it is “the biggest data journalism project in New Zealand.”¬† Read more »
I saw this pop up in my RSS feed and it rings true in many, many ways…especially the description of “excusers”, but more importantly the behaviour of Len Brown as a “creeper”.
Auckland’s Mayor Len Brown is a highly successful creeper. He has a excusers all over the place. Len Brown will get away with it, probably he has got away with it before. People like him almost always get a free pass.
What is a Creeper?¬†
Creepers are on the lookout for someone vulnerable. They can use a number of approaches, but what they want is someone who will not say no.¬† Ideally they want someone who can be pressured into saying yes, repeatedly.
The description of a creeper Emma provides details a promiscuous form of creeper, the mass mail out approach where as high as number as possible are randomly approached.
What about somewhere short of that? What about the Creepers? The ones who have a habit of touching people who don‚Äôt want to be touched? The hand on the leg, the accidental brushes, the sexual remarks that make people really uncomfortable? Would you do something about that?
That is the route of the lazy, unintelligent creeper and is not the best approach. Creepers are just one person so mass marketing is hard to carry off.¬† Creepers are¬† better served to find someone they know is vulnerable and exploit that vulnerability.¬† Doing a bit of research beforehand and then repeatedly targeting the same individual can induce impetus.¬† Read more »
Last night John Key turned up for what John Campbell thought would be another corngate interview, instead John Key played with him like a cat plays with a mouse. In the end all John campbell had was bluster, ranting and arrogance and even that failed him.
Don’t believe me, go watch it.
Still don’t believe me…have a look at what the saner parts of the leftwing twitterati are saying:
@JohnJCampbell Raving is not interviewing, John. A graceless and embarrassing performance. This from your greatest fan. Brian
‚ÄĒ Brian Edwards (@DrBrianEdwards) August 14, 2013
‚ÄĒ wallacechapman (@wallacelchapman) August 14, 2013
Toby Manhire had to concede:
‚ÄĒ Toby Manhire (@toby_etc) August 14, 2013
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‚Äôs 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 ‚Äď 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.
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.
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 ‚ÄúI sorted through 3,500 invoices ‚Ä¶ about half of what I obtained‚ÄĚ.
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‚Äôs some¬†lawyerly¬†punch and counterpunch about whether, in fact, Ng went so far he‚Äôs at risk of jail under New Zealand‚Äôs Crimes Act, even though ‚Äúprosecution guidelines meant action was unlikely to be taken‚ÄĚ.
And the relevant legislation:
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,‚ÄĒ
(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,‚ÄĒ
(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).