Nicky Hager

**blue rider** · 21st August 2014, 17:09

Originally Posted by MisterD

I'm really unsure what the significance of that letter is, given that it states that the PM was informed that Goof had already been informed, therefore the decision had already been made and not by the PM?

I see, amidst all the hoo-hah and attempting to find John Key's finger prints on this, it's now been realised that he was still on holiday in Hawaii, following a visit to the US.

I really think the opposition et al should give up on this, they seemed to be getting somewhere with the Collins attacks but have resorted to Christchurch lawyery types complaining about a road being named after someone not from the Village of the Damned on that front. Opportunity to create HDC Way missed, what?

I notified the Prime Minister ..........that i was going to release redacted documents in response to the request by Cameron Slater

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/john-...script-4321301

GUYON One of the issues that's come in from the sidelines, I guess, on this trip was the accusations of Israeli spying in Christchurch. One of the things that I don't think we have asked you is why or if you raised this with the parliamentary select committee which looks at intelligence issues.

JOHN I certainly haven't raised it with the parliamentary select committee.

GUYON Why was that?

JOHN Well, because that committee hasn't met for that purpose. That's not the- We wouldn't share that level of information. Not all of those members will have that level of security clearance for that sort of thing. I mean, that committee meets and debates legislation. Now, there may be members of that committee that have understanding in that area, but certainly not the committee.

GUYON Did you brief Phil Goff?

JOHN Phil Goff was briefed, yeah, that's right. I personally didn't brief him, but my understanding from the director of SIS, Warren Tucker, is that he was briefed and he was shown the same note and report that I saw.

GUYON Is the file closed?

JOHN Yeah. It closed on- I probably won't tell you the day, but it's closed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10743290

Documentary evidence

July 24: John Key says the SIS briefed Phil Goff about the behaviour of Israeli nationals in Christchurch. Mr Goff contacts SIS director Dr Warren Tucker to say he had not been briefed.
July 25: Mr Goff and Dr Tucker meet to discuss the matter.
July 26: Cameron Slater asks the SIS about the issue.

As I said, so many funnies

, but I am sure that all sides to it, In fact it is like speeding and driving at a 104.5 km.....all may speed on the Motorway, but only those caught get tickets?

btw. without an opposition you would very quickly risk having an Autocracy and you would not want that? John Key worship and all, at the end of the day would you really want a totalitarian regime?

**Banditbandit** · 21st August 2014, 17:11

Originally Posted by blue rider

at the end of the day would you really want a totalitarian regime?

Only if it did everything my way ...

**pritch** · 21st August 2014, 17:30

Originally Posted by oldrider

Judiciary is supposed to be independent of government ...

Yeah but Slater ran to the cops and complained about being hacked. This from a dude who used material stolen from the Labour Party's computer records but... He also suggested the Police take a hard look at Dot Com as a suspect. Slater doesn't like KDC so he must be the guilty one.

Dot Com has spoken to his legal people about Slater slandering him or similar. So with one thing and another it's quite possible that the judiciary will be involved.

I wonder how many people at the IRD read Hager's book. In the emails there is mention of Slater receiving some $80,000 a year from the tobacco industry, $12,000 pa from somebody else. There was also apparently paid use made of his blog by big food interests and possibly others as well. I hope he has remembered to declare all of this in his income tax return. Otherwise it's quite possible that the tax man will become involved as well.

**Oscar** · 21st August 2014, 17:34

Originally Posted by pritch

Yeah but Slater ran to the cops and complained about being hacked. This from a dude who used material stolen from the Labour Party's computer records but... He also suggested the Police take a hard look at Dot Com as a suspect. Slater doesn't like KDC so he must be the guilty one.

Dot Com has spoken to his legal people about Slater slandering him or similar. So with one thing and another it's quite possible that the judiciary will be involved.

.

Speaking of slander...
My understanding is that the Labour Party system wasn't hacked.
It was left open in error and the party had to apologise to those who had info on it.

**mada** · 21st August 2014, 18:03

Originally Posted by Oscar

Speaking of slander...
My understanding is that the Labour Party system wasn't hacked.
It was left open in error and the party had to apologise to those who had info on it.

Ah so if you used a computer at an internet cafe and left your bank account details logged on - fair game.

Or if you leave your door open to your house and someone walks in = not burglary.

Yeh right.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM330430.html

252 Accessing computer system without authorisation

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.
(2)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.
(3)[Repealed]

Did Whaleoil Intentionally access it? Yes.
Did he have authorisation? No.
Did he know he did not have authorisation? Yes.

**Oscar** · 21st August 2014, 18:20

Originally Posted by mada

Ah so if you used a computer at an internet cafe and left your bank account details logged on - fair game.

Or if you leave your door open to your house and someone walks in = not burglary.

Yeh right.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM330430.html

Did Whaleoil Intentionally access it? Yes.
Did he have authorisation? No.
Did he know he did not have authorisation? Yes.

So, you no doubt have proof that Whaleoil was the one who obtained the emails?
Unless you do - then it's slander (actually libel, as it's written).

And of course you kin that those statues apply equally to Mr.Hager, don't you?
Or is it different when the left does it?

**mada** · 21st August 2014, 18:24

Originally Posted by Oscar

So, you no doubt have proof that Whaleoil was the one who obtained the emails?
Unless you do - then it's slander (actually libel, as it's written).

And of course you kin that those statues apply equally to Mr.Hager, don't you?
Or is it different when the left does it?

What the fuck are you talking about? Emails? You just said that the "Labour party system wasn't hacked"

I've provided the law on the matter. The law clearly states it doesn't matter if you can access something when you are not authorised.

Reading comprehension not strong eh?

**Oscar** · 21st August 2014, 18:37

Originally Posted by mada

What the fuck are you talking about? Emails? You just said that the "Labour party system wasn't hacked"

I've provided the law on the matter. The law clearly states it doesn't matter if you can access something when you are not authorised.

Reading comprehension not strong eh?

The Labour Party system wasn't hacked.
It was a public website, open to all, so authorisation isn't an issue, dickwad.
The Labour Party would have been hard pressed to prove which parts of their website shouldn't have been accessable.

Law isn't your strongpoint, eh?

**mada** · 21st August 2014, 18:42

Originally Posted by Oscar

The Labour Party system wasn't hacked.
It was a public website, open to all, so authorisation isn't an issue, dickwad.
The Labour Party would have been hard pressed to prove which parts of their website shouldn't have been accessable.

Law isn't your strongpoint, eh?

It does not matter that it was accessible, when it is not supposed to be accessible and they knew they should not have been able to access it.

Best leave it a jury or judge then.

As innocent as John Banks.

**Katman** · 21st August 2014, 18:44

I seem to remember reading that the person who accessed the Labour party site expressed relief that he wasn't caught.

Sounds to me like he knew he shouldn't be doing it.

**Oscar** · 21st August 2014, 18:52

Originally Posted by mada

It does not matter that it was accessible, when it is not supposed to be accessible and they knew they should not have been able to access it.

Best leave it a jury or judge then.

As innocent as John Banks.

"Not supposed to be accessable"?
So you've seen the website in question and know exactly what happened then?

But you KNEW that it was wrong and now you're saying that it's best left to a Judge or Jury?
My comment stands then - if he's innocent until proven guilty, then the comment was slander.

**mada** · 21st August 2014, 18:59

Originally Posted by Oscar

"Not supposed to be accessable"?
So you've seen the website in question and know exactly what happened then?

But you KNEW that it was wrong and now you're saying that it's best left to a Judge or Jury?
My comment stands then - if he's innocent until proven guilty, then the comment was slander.

I don't need to its all up on his blog..:face palm:

I'm sure we will be seeing everyone suing Hagar for slander too won't we???

**SPman** · 21st August 2014, 20:05

Has anyone actually read the f**king book?

**puddytat** · 21st August 2014, 20:22

I think the Nats are digging themselves a really big hole.......we'll be able to start throwing the first shovels of dirt on their grave on the 16th of September.