OnPoint by Keith Ng

Read Post

OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance

402 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 17 Newer→ Last

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to James W,

    even comparing it to something the All Blacks would do to the Wallabies.

    Not "would do" - he actually said they "did do".

    I was stunned by the statement, as he said it within the context of the All Blacks looking at the Wallabies accidentally unprotected confidential website data and downloading it for their own strategic gain. His words were something along the lines of 'they would do it, because I know they did do it'.

    So, naturally I thought sure that the next thing I'd see on the telly or read in the newspaper was the All Blacks management being interviewed with a confirm or deny explanation. But never saw them questioned once.

    Eventually, I came across some article that said it had nothing to do with accessing data using a computer system - rather the Wallabies had not erased some drawing on a whiteboard in a room somewhere - and the All Blacks (or their management, it wasn't made clear) looked at the whiteboard when passing by the room which had an open door.

    I felt Key's use of the All Blacks behaviour to legitimate Jason Ede's dirty work - just appalling. He basically said they were cyber-spies when nothing could have been further from the truth.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I thought he changed over to the National Party when the campaign started with Joyce at the helm but had his Beehive pass after, when he should have forfeited it. Until then Ede was in the PM’s office, which is why it is said that we ,the taxpayer paid his wages. I figured the National Party paid him after he went to ground.

    Yeah, that is what everyone thought at the time he disappeared, but there’s this thing called the “Prime Minister’s Fund”. Selwyn Manning covered this early on (near the bottom). I have seen confirmation that Ede worked in the Prime Minister’s Office, and that he had a Parliamentary pass even after he left the office to work on the campaign. I have never seen confirmation that he was employed by Ministerial Services.

    The difference between ParlSer and MinServ is vast, constitutionally speaking as the former is part of the House of Representatives and not beholden to the Government of the Day and the latter is part of the Government of the Day. Also, Ministerial advisors who are not drawn from respective Ministries are not regarded as public servants.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to tussock,

    Majority of people who cared enough to vote.

    The majority voted for Not National. 48% voted for National. That's not a majority.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    yes don't confuse the fact that they got a majority of the seats in parliament with the percentage of the votes they got ... they got a parliamentary majority from less than 50% of the votes because of the 5% threshold and all the votes that were ignored as a result

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2600 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Russell Brown,

    EDIT: And of course, the list of people being slammed and smeared as “hackers” included … Keith Ng.

    What are the salient facts that mean that Keith is not a hacker? (especially as might distinguish him from from Cameron Slater and Jason Ede and the Labour Party website?)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Rob S,

    One plus in regard of this unsavoury affair is that the methods the National Party have been employing has know been brought to light and with a bit of thought they can be countered.
    With the two track smear strategy seemingly originating in the States I'm sure there are tactics that have been used to negate and even use it against those who employ it.
    I think that when it was first announced that the Labour computer had been rifled through and data taken [illegally I think] they should have been proactively finding and bringing the perpetrators to justice instead of being made to look guilty for their [admittedly lax] security and issuing an apology.
    The whole Dirty Politics story has not been stopped and if Labour wants to I think that they could use it as a means of showing up 'Team Key' and some of the loathsome individuals involved and the methods they've employed which should be confronted.

    Since Apr 2010 • 130 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Keith Ng,

    But does that mean that Key should not have to answer any questions about Ede? That Collins should (almost) stay a minister? That Katherine Rich should stay on the HPA?

    There hasn't been a question time in a while. Surely it's at least possible that this will come up? :-)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Homer, in reply to James W,

    people who hacked into the Labour website

    They really, really didn't. I wish people would stop saying this; it's needlessly inflammatory and false to the point of undermining any legitimate complaints that are attached to it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 81 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    intent

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19633 posts Report Reply

  • John Armstrong, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    The media is no longer part of the fourth estate, but are part of the entertainment industry.

    Or, as a friend of mine once put it, 'the News is just another TV programme'.

    Hamilton • Since Nov 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • dave stewart, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    On the subject of the AB's. Perhaps it is only when they choke to script in next year's RWC that the love for this bunch of blue crooks will start to wear off. And given the apparent cosiness between the black team and the blue team there would be some poetic justice for their downfalls to be intertwined so.

    Since Aug 2014 • 36 posts Report Reply

  • Keith Ng, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    But this assumes we should want the media "to persuade" their audience about news stories.

    I made this point quite explicit in the post - this is what journalists already do. I think the format of news hides that, but it's always there. When a politician does something which a journalist thinks is bad, they don't go find a supporter to get a "yeah, it's not that bad" quote from; they find an opponent to get a "THEY MUST RESIGN!" quote. They know exactly what that person is going to say, and they go to that person because of that. They are simply using that subject's voice in place of their own, because that's what the format demands.

    And as I said - if they broke Dirty Politics and Key lost, of course they'd claim credit for having brought down a government.

    As I wrote in the post, I'm not saying that they *should* persuade, I'm saying they do, but they failed.

    And I'd like a bit more guidance of what it'll become instead before I sign up to that vision ... because how do I know that the campaigning, crusading, judgmental institution you're wanting to unleash is only going to do things that I like?

    Of course not! Of course they're going to be occasionally dicks about it. But we're not talking about handing everything over to the fourth estate. I'm just saying the fourth estate is entirely powerless at the moment - and we should be really bloody worried about that. Regardless of whether I have a solution or not, I'm just asking people to recognise that fact that the fourth estate is getting its ass handed to them.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 543 posts Report Reply

  • John Armstrong, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Or are you really saying that John Key was so obviously a dirty lying liar the media should have said “Fuck it, we’re not even going to pretend to be objective any more, and we’re going to take everything in Hager’s book at face value and ignore any response from Key”? Because that’s somewhere I’m not willing to go.

    This particular wave of the discussion may have already passed, but I doubt that anyone is seriously suggesting this. Possibly something more along the lines of 'show, don't tell'.

    Hamilton • Since Nov 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • John Armstrong,

    PS I haven't posted for a while, so maybe I should clarify: not that John Armstrong. I really should get around to amending my handle one of these days..

    Hamilton • Since Nov 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to tussock,

    Parliament holds the PM to account, see. We basically told them not to worry.

    I don't know what we told them and neither does the government, because the election doesn't ask people why they're voting for who they vote for. For all we know, people might have just been saying they think the opposition's worse or that they want a bunch of Ministers who can win an Olympic rowing medal. I don't see why this should make it okay for the government to ignore the rules.

    But the law and the cabinet manual both state how Ministers and their staff are meant to be doing their jobs, either according to accepted precedent or according to the law. Enforcing that detailed type of stuff with a popularity contest where 2 million people also have to consider a million other things which also affect them is a dangerous system to rely on. We might as well just do away with all the other laws and processes which protect the rights of everyone, even when they voted for someone else.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Just reading about Jarrod Gilbert over in the dirty politics thread, I'd like to say I would be quite happy to put my name into a website run by a trusted party that assigned me a OIA request that someone who didn't want the government tippid off by who was asking wanted forwarded onto the government. In such an imaginary website I could check and veto a request before it went out under my name (as I wouldn't be wanting it to be used for sending threats etc) and because I would, in an imaginary way, be using an email address assigned by the site the response could be automatically fowarded by the site.
    Now the idea needs a little refinement, most obviously around the authorising stuff sent out under my name and maybe some limits on who it can be sent to (govt addresses?) but I thought I would throw it out there, because while I know a lot about data matching I also know a lot about things that would confound data matching.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to John Armstrong,

    PS I haven’t posted for a while, so maybe I should clarify: not that John Armstrong. I really should get around to amending my handle one of these days..

    I think the difference in tone was pretty obvious :-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Rob S,

    I think that when it was first announced that the Labour computer had been rifled through and data taken [illegally I think] they should have been proactively finding and bringing the perpetrators to justice instead of being made to look guilty for their [admittedly lax] security and issuing an apology.

    That's what I thought too - particularly given it was reported that the credit card details of their membership was also downloaded.

    I recall thinking at the time - if I had been on that membership database and my credit card details had been obtained by someone I had not intended to have them - I'd have expected notification from the Party that my CC number was compromised.

    I wonder if they did do that? And if so, you'd think at the same time as advising you that you might want to cancel the card, you'd think they'd also tell you that they intended to inform the Police of the matter so that forensic investigation could be commenced.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    There hasn’t been a question time in a while. Surely it’s at least possible that this will come up? :-)

    Yes, it is a shame that Nicky couldn’t get the book out prior to Parliament rising. But it will most certainly be pursued with vigour, I’m sure.

    In fact, I’d put some money on a by-election in Helensville inside 12 months. Anyone for iPredict?

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to David Hood,

    Just reading about Jarrod Gilbert over in the dirty politics thread, I’d like to say I would be quite happy to put my name into a website run by a trusted party that assigned me a OIA request that someone who didn’t want the government tippid off by who was asking wanted forwarded onto the government

    You might want to have a chat with https://fyi.org.nz about the possibility of that.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    I felt Key's use of the All Blacks behaviour to legitimate Jason Ede's dirty work - just appalling. He basically said they were cyber-spies when nothing could have been further from the truth.

    You, Madam, are my new heroine. So few here see through the shit as well as you have.
    The bulshite meter went through my roof on that analogy. The Roast Busters have a better defence than JK when it comes down to excusing National's aberrant behaviour.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    Re the online NZ Herald/Stuff National Party advertisements - is that normal? I recall seeing the NZ Herald one and I found it rather shocking (as did various foreign friends). I don't recall seeing such advertising before for political campaigns in NZ (but have for commercial services in the UK), but is this a normal thing in NZ, either online or offline.

    It does rather seem like it should not be allowed this close to the election, although I'm less concerned with any party doing it earlier in the campaign for some reason.

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1018 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to John Armstrong,

    I should clarify: not that John Armstrong. I really should get around to amending my handle one of these days..

    He's the one that sucks.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4590 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    Well thank you! The fact of the matter is – there is so much to be said about John Key’s ethical approach/worldview that he makes an excellent subject for ‘real world’ case study examples for my students. I teach ethics to environmental science students at tertiary level. It’s amazing how few have been exposed to the subject.

    I’ve written an entire lecture around this interview with John Key;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9480610.stm

    Money can buy him anything – even his very own “facts”, in fact!

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • WH, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    maybe it's people like us and what we see as being "correct" who are ... wrong?

    The difficulty is that these sorts of problems regularly arise in situations where the right answer is known or where the weight of evidence clearly favours the rejected view.

    It's at least worth talking about the possibility that public understanding is being impeded by the ineffective presentation of evidence and countervailing low information commentary.

    Since Nov 2006 • 778 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 17 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.