Whaleoil’s exclusive covert surveillance designs

The All Blacks have been bugged and John Key admits to having to sweep for bugging devices whenever he is overseas. ?Obviously, all the cool media outlets are doing it so Whaleoil has devised their own exclusive, covert surveillance designs. We have a device for each political party as the key to camouflage is to hide your bug in plain sight. ?With this in mind, we have come up with the following designs. ?All we need now is some Whaleoil volunteers ready to plant them. ( Just kidding, they are already in place. )

Read more »

And it better have 6 tiny concrete boots on by the time I get back

via Imgur

via Imgur

How’s that #manban going for you Labour women?

Who will be killing the bugs for you then?


Anyone know what this is?

A mate of mine (Barnsley Bill) who works for a large corporate was in their Whangarei office this morning when, in his words, “this thing screeched, reared up on it’s hind legs and attacked” him. On reflection he thinks the high pitched screeching may have been from him. Anyway after much wrangling with chairs and brooms they managed to capture the beast and now want to know what it is.


#Teatape declaration denied

NewstalkZB are reporting:

A declaration on whether a conversation between John Banks and John Key in a Newmarket cafe has been declined.

Justice Helen Winkelmann?has just?released her judgement, saying she has not reached a view on whether it’s a private or public conversation.

She says she has declined the application.

Why the media should be very, very careful

A Guest Post from a lawyer, via the tipline:

I was just reading another article where Duncan Garner again offered to show a transcript of the illegally obtained recording – this time to Don Brash.? I thought to myself surely if it is an illegal recording then it must also be illegal to publish it.

Sure enough:

216C Prohibition on disclosure of private communications unlawfully intercepted

(1)?Subject to subsection (2), where a private communication has been intercepted in contravention of?section 216B, every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally?

(a)?discloses the private communication, or the substance, meaning, or purport of the communication, or any part of it; or
(b)?discloses the existence of the private communication,?
if he knows that it has come to his knowledge as a direct or indirect result of a contravention of?section 216B.

(2)?Subsection (1) does not apply where the disclosure is made?

(a)?to a party to the communication or with the express or implied consent of such a party; or
(b)?in the course, or for the purpose, of?

(i)?an investigation by the Police into an alleged offence against this section or?section 216B; or
(ii)?giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings relating to the unlawful interception of a private communication by means of an interception device or the unlawful disclosure of a private communication unlawfully intercepted by that means; or
(iii)?giving evidence in any other civil or criminal proceeding where that evidence is not rendered inadmissible by the?Evidence Act 2006?or?section 25?of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 or any other enactment or rule of law; or
(iv)?determining whether the disclosure is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings.

So it is fairly clear that s216B of the Crimes Act has been infringed yet all week the media, and TV3 in particular, have been asking leading questions on what has been said – basically disclosing the contents of the private communication. Note that the definition is wide it includes “the substance” -?and that’s before we even get to disclosing the?existence?of the illegal recording.

Now I guess, in relation to the latter, the various media can argue they did not know it was illegally obtained – the HOS was all very innocent about it so it was ok to publish.? That is a defence if it is believed.

But given the matter is now in front of the police a lack of knowledge can not be argued.? Of course it may still be argued that s216B was not infringed (good luck but the standard is a high one of beyond reasonable doubt and stranger things have happened).? If that occurs then there is a complete defence.

However if reality and the law collide and the recording is illegal then Duncan Garner has probably already fallen afoul of the s216C as the disclosure was made intentionally and in the knowledge that it was in breach of s216B.? There is not a lot of law on this section but I would expect knowledge to be knowledge of the circumstances it was obtained, even reckless as to whether or not illegally obtained – otherwise the law would be meaningless.

Secondly he appears to be blatantly attempting to break the law by handing out transcripts.? I can see no defence under the section for handing out transcripts.

Obviously this opinion is on an all care no responsibility basis as I can only spend so much of work time researching media malfeasance – and given it is off the cuff I would prefer not to be named if you want to push this angle.

Outrageous spin

Look at this outrageous spin from Jonathan Milne at the Herald on Sunday:

It started with an innocent mistake by a cameraman, unable to retrieve his radio microphone from the table as the media were herded out.

When he tried to get it back afterwards, one of Key’s staff told him it had been handed to police. It hadn’t occurred to him that it might have picked up the conversation – till he returned to his office and realised he had inadvertently recorded the conversation.

This is unadulterated horsehit. It flies in the face of other articles and statements from both the cameraman and the Herald on Sunday.

I think when the true facts of the cameraman’s actions make the light of day Jonathan Milne is going to feel very silly indeed with those statements.

The Herald on Sunday has been caught pants down and they are trying to minimise the damage.

Intentional or Unintentional? Ctd

The Herald on Sunday keeps on using the word “intentional” in an attempt to minimise what is increasingly looking like a deliberate act.

It is a bit hard to reconcile their excuses when the main suspect admits as much on his Facebook wall:

Intentional or Unintentional?

From a comment at Kiwiblog, you be the judge:

From the Herald article:

The freelance cameraman who made the recording, whom the paper has agreed not to name, said the recording had been made accidentally after he was stopped by Key?s security staff from recovering the recording device. It transmitted the recording to the camera operator?s equipment but he did not discover until later.

The ?freelance cameraman? appears to be blatantly lying here (and perhaps this is one reason why the Herald decided not to publish the contents, as it was questionably acquired and they know it).

1. So the ?freelance cameraman? claims ?Key?s security staff? stopped him from recovering the recording device. The recording device would likely have had to have been a wireless microphone transmitter (a common but essential piece of equipment used with videocameras), so did he say to ?Key?s security staff? that he wanted to retrieve his ?microphone?? If he said that I?m sure security staff would have allowed that (for obvious reasons). Instead was this ?freelance cameraman? disingenuous and said to security that he wanted to remove ?some equipment??

2. Whilst it isn?t unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter ?on? (prior to use), it is actually unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter ?on? and inside a bag, because that indicates it isn?t about to be used and is using up battery power. Not unless the freelancer was intending to use it ?.

3. Even if the wireless microphone transmitter was unintentionally ?on? and left inside a bag (and thus unintentionally transmitting) and this was all ?innocent? ?. then the ?freelance cameraman?s? story doesn?t stack up at all after this point because his videocamera?s wireless microphone receiver device would have to have been on and the videocamera (or recording equipment) turned ?on? and ?recording?. To make this clearer, this last aspect here indicates the recording could not have been made (even with the wireless microphone switched on and transmitting) because for the recording to be made as said here, a receiving device then needs to be deliberately turned on and the ?camera operator?s equipment? also had to be on and recording.

4. So why would this other equipment be on and recording? Clearly the freelance cameraman was intending to record the conversation!

5. Since the equipment was on and recording, how could this freelance cameraman then claim he ?discovered? the recording ?later??

I use this sort of equipment myself in my line of work so know what I?m talking about. Whatever the device in the bag was, it was capable of transmitting hence why I say it normally would be a wireless radio microphone (eg a lapel microphone or discrete microphone). If it was another type device then have the Herald tell us what it was but a wireless radio microphone is commonplace.