Steven Price

Phone hacking illegal, but email hacking fine. Well, if it’s my email it is

Nick Davies will forever be known as the journalist who broke the phone-hacking scandal in the Britain, bringing down the 168-year-old News of the World tabloid.

At a Christchurch WORD event on Tuesday night, he discussed his views on the media and his book, Hack Attack: How the Truth Caught Up with Rupert Murdoch, with The Press editor Joanna Norris.

Starting in 2008 after a tip-off, Davies, who works for The Guardian, began investigating illegal phone-hacking and bribery by journalists employed by News International.

He wrote more than 100 articles over two years on the activities but it was only when he revealed News of the World journalists had listened to and deleted voicemail messages left for murdered teenager Milly Dowler that public outrage forced the police to re-open investigations.

By 2011, it was revealed more than 210 people had been complicit in the illegal activities and victims numbered more than 5000.

Don’t hold your breath that the same will happen in New Zealand when it comes to email hacking. ?Journalists,?decent, trained and skilled, have been directly involved in the Dirty Politics hacking against me and others. ?? Read more »

From the passenger seat: It’s only just begun

by Pete

If you haven’t yet, read Cam’s 8:00am article first.

We have gone through a period where people have asked me how I can possibly be associated with “someone like” Cameron Slater. ?We’ve been quiet, taking the blows, day after day. ?Occasionally a post to warn people to choose which side of history they want to be on.

As with Kim Dotcom, when we told people to pick carefully, this particular story has had too many people pile on top of Cameron thinking that the guy who laughs at dead babies, calls people feral and is generally unpleasant (all extreme distortions floated by his enemies) was going down. ?As happens in cases like these, when people sense blood on the floor, they pile in.

Personally, I am bursting at the seams. ?I’ve been wanting to tell the story for months now. ?But being quiet and letting the investigations continue have paid off. ?We don’t care who rawshark is. ?We’ve known for months. ?We don’t care who paid him. ?We’ve known for months. ? The patience to stay quiet has taken some energy, and it is still not the right time to tell all. Read more »

How to complain to the Privacy Commissioner

Nicky Hager’s associates hacked my emails. He decided that it was his right to publish my emails.

He claims this is an honourable journalistic enterprise.

He is wrong.

He has written a book, he is making money from that book and has stated he wanted to attack me and the National party.

A book is not a journalistic enterprise, David Fisher has already paved the way in this respect with his High Court loss. Nicky Hager should have remembered that along with his lefty lawyer Steven Price. That case has not be appealed and stands as an important precedent.

Secondly in writing a book for money, and stating the reasons he wrote the book, he has established that there is malice involved. Any pretence of attempting to use journalists privileged has fallen by the wayside.

Worse still, since we are talking about journalists ethics, is that Nicky Hager failed to contact a single person he has written about in his book. Not one. He wrote the book and he published personal and private email conversations without so much as asking permission from other parties, or indeed the owner of the emails. Even I had the courtesy of speaking to [removed pending court decision] and offering him a right of reply, I even posted his right of reply unaltered, I recorded those conversations as well so they cannot be denied. I even rang Len Brown before we published.

Nicky Hager didn’t do any of those things.

Here is the thing though…he is threatening to dump more emails. You have to wonder why? Surely he put the best ones in the rather thin 140 page book?

Nicky Hager has brought News of the World style hacking to New Zealand, rather ironic don’t you think?

Hacking emails, breaching people’s privacy all for profit.

And he dares to claim it is the National party involved in dirty politics. ?? Read more »

Am I a journalist? Steven Price examines

Steven Price is a media blogger and an expert on the law around media.

He was quoted in the HoS article but has expanded his quote somewhat on his blog.

[I]s Cameron Slater entitled to the same privilege to protect sources that other journalists have?

As the NZ Herald?reports, the owner/operator/author of NZ?s most widely read blog is being sued for defamation. The plaintiff has formally asked him whether he knows the name of his source. (You might have thought that the answer to this might simply be ?yes?.?But I guess there?s an obvious follow-up). Slater has refused to answer on the grounds that he is a journalist, writing for a news medium, and therefore does not need to reveal his source. This rule is contained in?s68 of the Evidence Act 2006.

Note a couple of things. First, in order to get this source protection, Slater has to show that his blog is a ?medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news.?

The law is aa clear as that…and simple, it is a wonder the judge made the ruling that he did.

[T]he judge ruled that he doesn?t even get that. This is because:

Whale Oil is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s68? of the Defamation Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news.

The judge gives very little reason for this conclusion. It seems a very questionable one. Whatever you think of WhaleOil, it?s hard to deny that he breaks news stories, and that he writes commentary on news. When you factor in the requirement that the courts are supposed to have regard to rights of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act when interpreting statutes – and there?s a respectable argument that protecting sources facilitates the flow of important information – then there seems a powerful argument that this section ought to be construed widely enough to encompass at least some bloggers.? Read more »

Saying what the rest of us think

As is usual these days the only commentators that Red Radio run to are Pinko scum. They clearly don’t like MPs saying what the rest of us where thinking:

Commentators say two National Party MPs showed a lack of judgement in posting tweets implying the guilt of a teenager charged with an attack on a child in Turangi.

Louise Upston and Tau Henare both tweeted their thoughts after an arrest was made on Wednesday.

Both condemned the accused in separate tweets before he stands trial.

Mr Henare would not comment on tape, but said he stood by what he had written.

However, he says on his twitter account that he may have got carried away with the initial tweet.

Ms Upston says she was only trying to show her support for the police who worked on the case.

She does not believe her comments have jeopardised the accused’s chance of a fair trial.

Media law lawyer Steven Price says it’s always inadvisable to make public statements about the guilt or innocence of a person before a trial.

However, he says that the twitter comments are likely to have been forgotten by the time the trial comes.

Media commentator Russell Brown says neither Ms Upston nor Mr Henare have demonstrated respect for the law and its processes.

He says legislators have a responsibility to uphold the law.

Looks like Russell Brown is halting his constant self promoting blog posts about Media 7 and his mum’s lamb chop recipes to get back into politics. He may find that times have moved on and one post a week regurgitating your radio slot really doesn’t cut it anymore.

Steven Price is of course the flea lawyer who tried unsuccessfully to sue me on behalf of Pearl Going.

Intentional or Unintentional, Ctd

via the tipline

This should shed some light on what Steven Price has to say about the issue?with?regards?to intentional or Unintentional.

The tipline information comes from an experienced cameraman:

I’ve listened to what Bryce Johns says and find it totally inconsistent with any accidental recording, it had to be deliberate for the following reasons:

1. The lapel radio mike on the table is not a recording device, it does not store any sound, it is a?transmitter?that sends audio to be recorded on a sound track on the video camera.

2. When the camera is not recording (i.e. the rec button “off”) it will?not?record audio.

3. For Ambrose to have recorded the entire conversation meant the camera had to be on and recording for the entire duration of the photo op.

4. No professional camera man would have run their camera “on” throughout the entire several minutes of the photo op. Cameramen will “button on” when they wish to take a shot (i.e. a wide shot of the two sitting together) and then usually “button off” when they reposition the camera or change the shot. This is done to cut down on the amount of extraneous blurred and wobbly images they would otherwise end up with when they came to edit the material. They may also “button off” to save battery power used when the camera is rolling.

5. The only time a camera will stay rolling is when they wish to record an entire passage of audio (e.g. a press conference).

6. Modern TV cameras have VU meters on the side of the camera and often in the eyepiece of the camera that show the camera is recording audio on two tracks (i.e the mike on the camera body and the wireless radio mike have two separate tracks or channels with which they record sound.

I find it impossible to believe the camera would have missed the obvious VU meter indications that he was recording audio from the radio mike.

Labour uses public funds on its focus groups

MPs cleared to use public funds on consultantsParliamentary Services says public money can be used to pay for work done by political consultants and advisers – as long as it is aimed at making MPs better at their jobs rather than electioneering.
The issue of public funding…
[NZ Politics]

This article today confirms what everyone has suspected, that Labour does indeed use public funds to pay for its focus group research. We, that’s you and me, pay for their focus groups. That is an outrage.

Of course they dress it up under the guise of advice to help their MP’s do their job better. What a crock!

It is time for all concerned citizens to call for Parliamentary Services spending to be brought to account instead being a shadowy slush fund for all parties to dip into.

At the same time we need and independent Corruption Commission established with its first cases to be investigating the shenangins surrounding Labour, Owen Glenn and New Zealand First.


Proving the point that trying to save the planet is pointless


As Ruapehu erupts we see the following being spewed into the atmosphere;

  • H20 – a greenhouse gas, it is convenient to ignore
  • C02 – a greenhouse gas
  • S02 – causes acid rain
  • H2
  • CO – poisonous
  • H2S – rotten egg smell, acid rain
  • HCl – acid rain, ozone depleter
  • HF – acid rain – ozone depleter

So the poor Kiwi taxpayer gets slammed while Mother Earth which what we are supposed to be saving tells us to shove it by spewing more toxic gases into the air in a shorter time than any industry might do.

I wonder though, do the owners of the land have to pay the carbon liabilities for such and outburst?

Powered by ScribeFire.