Eagleson is a Key-era/aligned henchman with much baggage that may potentially become a liability in the weeks ahead.
He will move on with a generous payout.
Time to reduce MMP threshold to 2% and make broad (2-5 party) coalitions the norm.
Then, the required skills for politicians would be: collaboration, communication, relationship-building, authenticity and longer, more enduring political cooperation that outlives individuals.
Politicians without these skills would slowly disappear to be replaced by those who embrace a newer, more collaborative and collective style of politics, less inclined to look after the interests of a few paid for by subsidy from the many.
Inspiring. Glad I followed RB's tweet, arrived at this post and had time to read it. As you know, things have a way of working out. Best wishes for what happens next…
He knows about security so it's probably "Il0veJud1th"
Yeah, that's good. Thank you.
Actually, he knows about security guards. Not their job, but who they're screwing, which hand they wipe their butts with, whether they wash their hands or not, etcetera.
- his password was "whaileoil" or "IloveJudith"
This is probable more likely than people would believe.
When you have a low-traffic website on shared hosting ...
Slater strikes me as a technological novice, which leads to a whole range of other possibilities:
- he inadvertently revealed his Gmail password to somebody
- somebody bought his old computer with the data just "deleted" (not wiped)
- somebody socially engineered their way into his computer(s)
- he lost his Time Machine backup drive, or sold it without having wiped it properly
- he inadvertently made his dropbox/google drive publicly available
- his IT support are convincing actors with some sense of fairness/moral fibre
- (millions of other possibilities here)
Is the publication of the contents of the "cup of tea" tapes i.e. discussion between Key and Banks, justified on the same basis?
How could the publication of this material be justified legally?
He said on Morning Report that he had extensive discussions with the person who leaked it to him, negotiating about what would be used and how, so it would be hard to say he didn't know something about them.
It is quite straight forward these days to have extensive discussions with people who remain completely anonymous.
The "knowing" part of this could be easily circumvented by using a simple script to traipse around keeping publicly-available data.
Thats what Google does. COULD GOOGLE BE HACKING EVERYBODY?
Lots of speculation as to how Slater's material was obtained but most theories are all too complicated (not impossible, of course). More likely something simple was the cause, like Slater using an obvious password, not wiping an old hard drive, or something of that nature.