Know your hypocrite: Andrea Vance

foo

What, pray tell, is upsetting our News of the World trained lass?  

asdasd

The article starts with “Google secretly gave..”  and then later it says “Google notified the three Wikileaks staff..”

Is that what Andrea is angry about?   Bad reporting?

Or is it something else?

It also says “…warrants were issued by US District Court…”, and “investigation of alleged conspiracy to commit espionage”.

Is this what Andrea is angry about?  The fact that people were intending to undermine the sovereign security of a nation by providing information to its enemies?  Could that be it?

Or is it something else?

Is it that the woman who is News-of-the-World-we-hack-private-phones trained is upset about journalists having their emails accessed by authorities with a legally obtained warrant?

In that case, where was her outrage when the New Zealand media were all over my emails which were illegally obtained but feasted over for months?

Andrea Vance is an intellectual lightweight.   She’s quite happy with a journalist having his emails stolen and then the media using it liberally without regard for privacy, while at the same time being unhappy when a government seeks a legal search warrant and even informs the people of this fact.

You have some pretty screwed up priorities Andrea.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Grizz30

    I am noticing a pattern here. Is it that Andrea Vance was not just a grateful recipient of the Whaleoil emails, but she was complicit in the hack? Please can our curiosity be FREED.

  • the card

    She should stick to her area of expertise….honey traps…

  • James

    oh the hypocrisy . lmfao

  • sandalwood789

    Ridiculous.

    What annoys me with the whole “dirty politics” saga is that supposedly-sane people went onto the “Give-a-Little” site and donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hager’s legal costs.

    The guy has just written a book that is based on hacked information and not only does he get the money flowing in for that, he gets tens of thousands extra as well. Deserved? I think not.

    • About $18k from some journalism freedom foundation too, if you can stomach that one.

      • sandalwood789

        What? I hadn’t heard about that.
        What a *joke*…… a sick joke.

      • That needs sunlight …..

      • Sally

        Is this the foundation with ties to Greenwald?

      • Pete

        I guess you have to declare donations made to you on your tax return? Can you claim expenses against these donations?

    • Vaughan

      Who says they were sane?

    • OneTrack

      Of course Hagar gives that money to the people living in “poverty”(tm).

  • simblor

    The irony in WikiLeaks staff having emails ‘leaked’ is so delicious that I may not need dinner tonight.

  • Not Clinically Insane

    That attitude is nothing short of breathtaking

  • Pharmachick

    It is my understanding that Ms. Vance worked for the News of the World during the time of the phone hacking etc. If this is not true, I am more than happy to retract my statements and apologise. In the meantime, I have but three words for Andrea Vance… “Millie Dowler” and “scum”.

  • I can’t understand what Peter ever saw in her ……

    • caochladh

      Or Trev?

      • kayaker

        only two?

      • sarahmw

        Maybe that is why Jane decided marry me now or ????????? Poor Andrea always the honey pot ,never the Queen Bee.

  • Isherman

    Or perhaps she’s outraged because of the amount of deleting she’s wondering if she now needs to do….

    • sarahmw

      Ah but one can never really delete, easily found by an expert. Maybe that is why she used the F word, now she is worried.

  • LesleyNZ

    I don’t excuse your foul language Andrea. Using that word is not outrageous – it is disgusting.

  • shykiwibloke

    just the tip of the iceberg as far as anxious MSM goes:
    Anxious that their dealings may also hold a thread of emails back to one extradition
    Anxious that the US govt might have accessed their email accounts on Google and others
    Anxious that the ‘intelligence’ (Hah! there’s the oxymoron) is shared within 5 eyes
    Anxious that people in our govt just might know more than they are letting on
    Anxious their off-the-record dealings just might make it to the public domain
    And show their true colours for all the world to see.

    A hard look in the mirror for some indeed.

  • SlightlyStrange

    Be afraid Andrea – especially given stuff use a google mail service.

  • oldmanNZ

    I think what she(Andrea) is trying to say is:

    If their (the leakers) email were hacked and then provided to a MSM or journalist, then it is ok.

    But if it was provided by the Service provider(in this case Google) for a criminal investigation to the investigators ( say FBI? CIA?) as required by law, then that is shockingly disgusting and outrageous.

    Andrea means that the only honest way to get emails in the interest of the public is to hack them? (which mean stealing which then contradict the honest method?)

    I am confused. she makes no sense.

    • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

      Wise words from a good old man….

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    She is preparing herself to be either a Labour or Green list candidate in 2017…..such a hypocrite of the highest order…she deserves to be in one of the nasty parties.

  • Warren Murray

    If you accept that Google was compelled by a court to divulge the information covered by the warrant (which I do), why did it take so long for it to notify the individuals?

    • Bartman

      Maybe they wanted some more information if the first batch was insufficiently incriminating?

    • SP

      Because either A) Google were under no moral or legal obligation to do so; and/or B), as is currently the law in NZ, agencies can request, in their application for a search warrant, for its execution to be carried out covertly. There are many situations why that might be the case and in each the judicial officer granting the warrant must be convinced by the sworn content of the application that there are good grounds for doing so. Covert warrants are not granted lightly. Imagine the Police want to enter a suspected drug dealer/murderer/terrorist’s house and plant a listening device. No point in allowing a perfectly legitimate investigative tool like this if the authorities are required to tell said dealer/terrorist/murderer that they’ve executed the search warrant is there!

      Evidence gathered like this was used by the British Police to convict Emily Longly’s murderer (and his parents) so I presume the Brits have similar provisions. I presume you’d support those circumstances but not the anti-terror ones so thankfully it is up to our Judges to decide when a covert warrant is valid not mere mortals like you and me.

      ed. gram

  • Rex

    Why is this person working in NZ?

  • Give her a break. She’s Irish, isn’t she?

  • NotGandalf

    Couldnt find her opinion piece on Stuff tonight, have her stocks finally fallen so low that she must be considering a one way ticket back to Old Blighty to escape the Dirty Politics fallout?

48%