Discussion:
A contrast in announcements
(too old to reply)
Rich80105
2020-02-28 05:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
Tony
2020-02-28 20:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
Rich80105
2020-02-28 20:47:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.

Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.

So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Tony
2020-02-28 21:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Crash
2020-03-02 07:50:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.

Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-02 08:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Tony
2020-03-02 19:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
Rich80105
2020-03-02 23:17:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them. You have
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not. Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Tony
2020-03-03 01:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Rich80105
2020-03-03 02:39:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:48:12 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Since you determined to play sematics, I see hacking as closer to
unauthorised entry and dishonesty, and is usally associated with
expoiting technical vulnerabilities.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
On the contrary, they are signficantly different. Go read a
dictionary, Tony. But You raised dishonesty, not me - perhaps that is
what you really think National was being . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Again you appear to have no moral compass other than "but they all do
it"- regardless of whether that is true or not.

The realty is that apparently the vulnerability was there in 2017, and
nobody took advantage of it - perhaps National spends more timethan
other parties looking for technical vulnerabilities . . .
Tony
2020-03-03 03:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:48:12 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Since you determined to play sematics, I see hacking as closer to
unauthorised entry and dishonesty, and is usally associated with
expoiting technical vulnerabilities.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
On the contrary, they are signficantly different. Go read a
dictionary, Tony. But You raised dishonesty, not me - perhaps that is
what you really think National was being . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Again you appear to have no moral compass other than "but they all do
it"- regardless of whether that is true or not.
The realty is that apparently the vulnerability was there in 2017, and
nobody took advantage of it - perhaps National spends more timethan
other parties looking for technical vulnerabilities . . .
Dishonesty and lack of ethics are blood brothers.
Fact - they actually do all do it.
Nut a hack is entirely unrelated to the subject.
Rich80105
2020-03-03 04:41:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:42:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:48:12 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Since you determined to play sematics, I see hacking as closer to
unauthorised entry and dishonesty, and is usally associated with
expoiting technical vulnerabilities.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
On the contrary, they are signficantly different. Go read a
dictionary, Tony. But You raised dishonesty, not me - perhaps that is
what you really think National was being . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Again you appear to have no moral compass other than "but they all do
it"- regardless of whether that is true or not.
The realty is that apparently the vulnerability was there in 2017, and
nobody took advantage of it - perhaps National spends more timethan
other parties looking for technical vulnerabilities . . .
Dishonesty and lack of ethics are blood brothers.
Fact - they actually do all do it.
So far only one MP - the then Chief Whip from National - has been
prosecuted. You seem to be a bit short on evidence again, Tony . . .
Post by Tony
Nut a hack is entirely unrelated to the subject.
Tony
2020-03-03 05:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:42:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:48:12 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term
need
some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Since you determined to play sematics, I see hacking as closer to
unauthorised entry and dishonesty, and is usally associated with
expoiting technical vulnerabilities.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
On the contrary, they are signficantly different. Go read a
dictionary, Tony. But You raised dishonesty, not me - perhaps that is
what you really think National was being . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Again you appear to have no moral compass other than "but they all do
it"- regardless of whether that is true or not.
The realty is that apparently the vulnerability was there in 2017, and
nobody took advantage of it - perhaps National spends more timethan
other parties looking for technical vulnerabilities . . .
Dishonesty and lack of ethics are blood brothers.
Fact - they actually do all do it.
So far only one MP - the then Chief Whip from National - has been
prosecuted. You seem to be a bit short on evidence again, Tony . . .
Wait and see. NZ First is in the headlights and not before time.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Nut a hack is entirely unrelated to the subject.
John Bowes
2020-03-04 20:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:42:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:48:12 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:25:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need
some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
Waht a terrible lie.
Terrible because it is not true and terrible because a child could do better.
You deliberately used the word hack because it carries connotations of
dishonesty. Whereas there was no dishonesty and there was nothing that could
have been sued for.
I have covered that above - yu are techinically correct that it was
not a hack, but used as a colloquial expression it is legitimate to
descrbe an organisationt that discovered a mistake by Treasury, found
out a small amount of information, and spent many hours obtaining
little by little further pieces of what they knew was confidential
information which should not have been published by them.
The word hack is plain wrong and is one you deliberately used because people
see hacking (quite rightly) as dishonest. Your use of it was dishonest and
deliberate.
Since you determined to play sematics, I see hacking as closer to
unauthorised entry and dishonesty, and is usally associated with
expoiting technical vulnerabilities.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You have
Dishinest, unethical the difference between the two is tgrivial in this context.
On the contrary, they are signficantly different. Go read a
dictionary, Tony. But You raised dishonesty, not me - perhaps that is
what you really think National was being . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
raised the issue of dishonesty - I had not.
Why did you raise it if
you did not think there was substance to a charge that had not been
made. I have said that their actions were clearly unethical and/or
unprofessional; I note you have not tried to argue that I was
incorrect in that regard.
Not necessary, what they did was what any party would have done.
Again you appear to have no moral compass other than "but they all do
it"- regardless of whether that is true or not.
The realty is that apparently the vulnerability was there in 2017, and
nobody took advantage of it - perhaps National spends more timethan
other parties looking for technical vulnerabilities . . .
Dishonesty and lack of ethics are blood brothers.
Fact - they actually do all do it.
So far only one MP - the then Chief Whip from National - has been
prosecuted. You seem to be a bit short on evidence again, Tony . . .
Which has nothing to do with hacking and everything to do with him being like you Rich and nuttier than a fruit cake :)
John Bowes
2020-03-02 20:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
If they didn't care they wouldn't have bothered publishing the data you fool! Lies and abuse are all you're good for Rich:)
Crash
2020-03-02 22:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National, but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
report can be downloaded here:

https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/

I refer you to paragraph 1:
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".

National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-02 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Tony
2020-03-03 01:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
No more so than Labour and others.
What rubbish, to differebntiate between unetyhical and dishonest is petty and
unsustainable.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Nonsense.
Rich80105
2020-03-03 02:43:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:50:38 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was either illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
No more so than Labour and others.
Again your false equivalence and claim that "but they all do
it"justifies any action. So just when has Labour (or any other party)
made private information public for political purposes, Tony?
Post by Tony
What rubbish, to differebntiate between unetyhical and dishonest is petty and
unsustainable.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the National
Party . . .
Nonsense
So who else "publicly released" information about the budget, Tony? If
you believe my statement was nonsense you must be able to give a
reference for the public release . . .
Tony
2020-03-03 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:50:38 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was either illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
No more so than Labour and others.
Again your false equivalence and claim that "but they all do
it"justifies any action. So just when has Labour (or any other party)
made private information public for political purposes, Tony?
Post by Tony
What rubbish, to differebntiate between unetyhical and dishonest is petty and
unsustainable.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the National
Party . . .
Nonsense
So who else "publicly released" information about the budget, Tony? If
you believe my statement was nonsense you must be able to give a
reference for the public release . . .
More bullshit. The case is over and lost by you and your adoring cohorts.
Facts are facts.
It was not a hack - irrefutable fact.
End of story.
Crash
2020-03-03 07:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-03 07:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
Perhaps you have not read the report. See the excerpts below:
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."

"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."

"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————

It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
Crash
2020-03-03 07:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.

You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-03 18:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
Crash
2020-03-03 20:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-04 02:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.
It pays to be careful when quoting a report that is itself publicly
available. In fact Clause 1 said "1. Two days before Budget Day in May
2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget Sensitive documents accessed from
the Treasury’s website were publicly released."

Those excepts from embargoed Budget Sensitive Documents were of course
released by Simon Bridges. Do you not remember his press statement?
The SSC says that it was embargoed, which is far from "publicly
available".
Tony
2020-03-04 04:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little
further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a
table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start
of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the
extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack
(they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some
information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in
publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done.
Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term
need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.
It pays to be careful when quoting a report that is itself publicly
available. In fact Clause 1 said "1. Two days before Budget Day in May
2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget Sensitive documents accessed from
the Treasury’s website were publicly released."
Those excepts from embargoed Budget Sensitive Documents were of course
released by Simon Bridges. Do you not remember his press statement?
The SSC says that it was embargoed, which is far from "publicly
available".
It was readily available on the website. There is nothing more public than
that. Period.
Rich80105
2020-03-04 10:46:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:11:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament.
I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little
further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a
table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start
of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the
extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack
(they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some
information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in
publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and
then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done.
Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure
by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term
need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a
mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to
return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.
It pays to be careful when quoting a report that is itself publicly
available. In fact Clause 1 said "1. Two days before Budget Day in May
2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget Sensitive documents accessed from
the Treasury’s website were publicly released."
Those excepts from embargoed Budget Sensitive Documents were of course
released by Simon Bridges. Do you not remember his press statement?
The SSC says that it was embargoed, which is far from "publicly
available".
It was readily available on the website.
No it wasn't. It took many hours to get the little that the National
staffers got, and as far as we are aware nobody else hacked and found
that loophole before it was closed
Post by Tony
There is nothing more public than
that. Period.
Periods don't excuse idiotic comments, Tony
Tony
2020-03-04 19:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:11:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from
Parliament.
I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little
further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a
table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the
start
of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the
extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police
the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a
slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which
the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National
of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack
(they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some
information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in
publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and
then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done.
Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this
failure
by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term
need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you
are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f
information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands
of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a
mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt
hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that
to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they
did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to
return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury’s website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury’s website were publicly released. "
——————
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.
It pays to be careful when quoting a report that is itself publicly
available. In fact Clause 1 said "1. Two days before Budget Day in May
2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget Sensitive documents accessed from
the Treasury’s website were publicly released."
Those excepts from embargoed Budget Sensitive Documents were of course
released by Simon Bridges. Do you not remember his press statement?
The SSC says that it was embargoed, which is far from "publicly
available".
It was readily available on the website.
No it wasn't. It took many hours to get the little that the National
staffers got, and as far as we are aware nobody else hacked and found
that loophole before it was closed
Irrelevant. No hack.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
There is nothing more public than
that. Period.
Periods don't excuse idiotic comments, Tony
I don't know anything about your periods.
John Bowes
2020-03-04 20:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:11:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament.
I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little
further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a
table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start
of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the
extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack
(they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some
information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in
publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and
then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done.
Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure
by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term
need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you
are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a
mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt
hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they
did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to
return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury痴 website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury痴 website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury痴 website were publicly released. "
覧覧覧
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
No I am not. You simply seem to ignore the words "publically
released" in item 1.
You are so quick to point out that the current accusations about NZF
and the SFO investigation are unproven, but hear you are pointing to
the certainty that National released this information as if this was a
proven fact.
It was publicly announced by Simon Bridges! He released sufficient
information to the Press to show that his claim that he had
information was true, and he then released sufficient information
about how it was obtained to demonstrate how it was obtained - by that
time he knew that Treasury had identified the hole in their system.
There was never a lot of information, but enough to confirm they had
managed to put together some facts that were not known by the press or
public, but leave it unclear as to whether they knew more. It was
released at press conferences, over two days prior to the budget!
So what's your point? National got the information that the SSC says
in its report (clause 1) was publicly available.
It pays to be careful when quoting a report that is itself publicly
available. In fact Clause 1 said "1. Two days before Budget Day in May
2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget Sensitive documents accessed from
the Treasury痴 website were publicly released."
Those excepts from embargoed Budget Sensitive Documents were of course
released by Simon Bridges. Do you not remember his press statement?
The SSC says that it was embargoed, which is far from "publicly
available".
It was readily available on the website.
No it wasn't. It took many hours to get the little that the National
staffers got, and as far as we are aware nobody else hacked and found
that loophole before it was closed
Post by Tony
There is nothing more public than
that. Period.
Periods don't excuse idiotic comments, Tony
Oh dear. Poor widdle Rich! Not everyone suffer from his lack of technical skills, comprehension or honesty and the poor wee buggers to thick to comprehend that :)
John Bowes
2020-03-04 20:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:24:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:34:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
In no way whatsoever was it a hack. Those people using that term need some
education.
You are arguing semantics instead of the substance, Tony. Yes you are
correct that in technical terms, this was not a hack, but in comman
parlance, the National Party hacked away at the body o f information
with teaspoon, getting a few headings and words each of thousands of
searches. No problem with that, it was technically avaialble, but
their moral mistake was in then publishing the material. All they
needed to do was show enough to identify that there had been a mistake
made (and anyone thinking that it was deliberate or happened due to
some politician not doing their job needs their head examined), and
legitimately embarrassed both the government and Treasury for the
leak. Instead they took the low ground of releasing informationt hat
they knew was embargoed.
Had National consulted a lawyer they would have been advised that to
release the material would be unprofessional, but it appears they did
not have any professionals to advise them. It is like finding a
dropped diary in the street and instead of finding the owner to return
it, publishing selected bits of the contents to embarrass. Not
necessarily criminal, but definitely unethical.
So yes, have your technicality, but that does not make up for
unethical behaviour from Bridges and his team.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish.
Just political rhetoric.
Agreed Tony. National came into possession of budget material because
they used "2019" as a search component on the Treasury budget website.
It is clear from the recent SSC report that "2018" would also have
worked prior to the 2018 budget.
Anyone could have got the information that National did, including
journalists and members of the public alike. There was no hack, nor
was there any semblance of a hack. The early publication of budget
data had no actual adverse effects whatever so the only major effect
is the reduction of surprise in the budget speech and the fact that
National had more time to research budget content.
The disclosure of information that they knew was private has become a
characteristic of the modern National Party - behaviour that is
clearly unethical and/or unprofessional, but which is not usually
worth suing for damages so they get away with it. Essentially National
are just showing that they are dishonest, know they are dishonest, and
just don;t care. .
National used information that the Government, by their own
incompetence (or the incompetence of a government department on their
watch), made available to everyone. There is nothing dishonest about
this on the part of National,
I have not said that what National did was weither illegal or
dishonest - indeed they were (eventually) honest about how they
obtained the information! It was Tony that raised the issue of
dishonesty. I sais that in publicly releasing the information,
National were acting unethically and.or unprofessionally. National
have a history of making private information public for political
purposes.
Post by Crash
but there was plenty of dishonest lying
about how National came by that information from the former Secretary
of Treasury, immediately afterwards. The SSC investigated and their
https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/investigations/
"Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed Budget
Sensitive
documents accessed from the Treasury痴 website were publicly released.
".
National therefore used data that the SSC has determined was "publicly
released". That shows your last paragraph to be the usual level of
anti-National rhetoric I have come to expect of you.
I believe the SSC was referring to the public release by the NAtional
Party . . .
Given that there is no reference to National is the SC report, your
conclusion is just a laughable att5empt to impugn National. You are
simply desperately in search on anti-National rhetoric.
"1. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 excerpts from embargoed
Budget Sensitive documents accessed from the Treasury痴 website were
publicly released."
"22. Search activity log analysis on the Treasury Website shows that
between 6.48pm on 25th May and 12.49pm on 28th May 2019 three IP
addresses were used to conduct 1923 searches using specific search
terms to access headline and snippet information relating to Budget
2019 information from the cloned website. It is apparent that
information gathered through this activity was the basis for the
documents publicly released ahead of Budget Day 2019."
"36. Two days before Budget Day in May 2019 documents containing
embargoed Budget Sensitive information that had been accessed from the
Treasury痴 website were publicly released. "
覧覧覧
It was not part of the terms of reference to identify the person or
body that made the public release two days before Budget Day, but it
is clear from news reports at the time that it was Simon Bridges, and
it subsequently became clear as Bridges released further information
that it had been put together by his staff over a considerable period
of time shortly before it was released.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the briefings to news media by
Simon Bridges were not related to the National Party?
Again your lack of comprehension makes your false claims laughable Rich! You've been claiming National was mentioned in the report and supply as evidence THREE sections which don't mention National at all! :)

Pathetic and laughable :)
John Bowes
2020-02-28 22:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Scoop provides a good service with announcmenets from Parliament. I
read two of these - see the contrast
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00184/milestones-marked-with-2000-new-cops.htm
This is a good achievement, but misses going just that little further
and telling us what the net increase was in police numbers - a table
over the last ten years showing the number of police at the start of
the year and the number of new officers would have shown the extent to
which this will make a longer term difference in giving police the
numbers they really need. Good news deserves not having a slight
suspicion that the whole story is not being told.
Bullsit! The 2000 'new' cops only just replaces cops who've left the service Rich. THIS report fudges the truth!
Post by Rich80105
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00201/robertson-owes-national-apology-following-report.htm
Typically, this fudges around the truth. One the way in which the
information became known, I don't think anyone accused National of
having done anything illegal, but it was in common terms a hack (they
followed snippets based on heading to patch together some information
over many hours of searching), but National's fault was in publicising
information that they knew should not have been disclosed, and then
playing silly buggers about admitting what they had done. Robertson
was as much a victim as the rest of New Zealand for this failure by
Treasury.
Once again Rich you give us a report that has far more tuth in it than anything you've EVER posted in this ng!
Loading...