Hager could face charges for receiving hacked data

A recent Supreme Court decision which ruled that computer files were property has put the spotlight on whether Nicky Hager could now be charged with receiving hacked (stolen) data from ‘Rawshark’, who is credited with hacking Cameron Slater’s data.

David Fisher reports in NZ Herald (and don’t just diss Fisher because, it looks like an informative and balanced article).

Court decision puts Hager back in frame

Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager may face criminal charges over accepting the hacked material used to write the bombshell book, according to documents obtained by the Herald.

Police will not say whether the investigative journalist is again a suspect, instead of simply a witness, after a pivotal Supreme Court decision which ruled computer files were property.

Documents show the new definition from the court puts Hager back in the frame over the computer files he was given by a hacker which he used as the basis for his book.

This was predicted as a possibility as soon as the Supreme Court decision was made public.

An Official Information Act response to Hager’s lawyers in June saw police lawyer Carolyn Richardson explain there had been a decision – apparently just before the journalist’s house was searched – to treat him as an “unco-operative witness as opposed to a suspect”. It was based on legal advice over an earlier Court of Appeal decision which said computer files weren’t property, she said.

But she said his status could change depending on the Supreme Court’s view of computer files as property. “It may be that the judgment will have some bearing on whether or not [Hager] has himself committed an offence as well as Rawshark.”

The letter supports an affidavit from Detective Inspector Dave Lynch, quoted in submissions from Hager’s lawyers in a current court challenge over a search warrant executed on his home. It described the lead officer in the Rawshark inquiry as holding the same views, with Hager’s lawyer saying it “suggests Mr Hager may yet be charged depending on the outcome” of the Supreme Court decision.

Crown submissions stated Hager was a witness but “had it become apparent that he had committed an offence, then of course consideration would have had to have been given to charging him”.

So the Police will no doubt be considering whether to charge Hager, depending on what evidence they have.

But Hager has openly admitted being given the data and using it for his Dirty Politics book. He would have done that thinking he was protected by the law on possessing the data, but will presumably have been aware of potential risks.

Any shift in Hager’s status as a suspect or a witness could also impact the decision on his High Court challenge to the search warrant executed on his home in October 2014. Hager’s lawyers had insisted there was a higher hurdle to get a search warrant against somebody who was a witness – as Hager was on the day of the search – than for a suspect.

Hager was a “suspect” at the time detectives sought bank records from Westpac without a legal order, police said yesterday.

So this may be a concern for Hager and his legal team, it makes their arguments more difficult to make.

This should deter people from hacking personal and political data in the future, and it should make authors and journalists think very carefully about using illegally obtained data.

It’s worth noting that several journalists also had access to Rawshark data so were presumably given copies. Do they have special protection?

Including David Fisher? He doesn’t explore this angle.

Leave a comment

116 Comments

  1. Mike C

     /  28th October 2015

    This explains why Hager got his Lawyer to release that statement on his behalf … as well as why Fisher wrote that attack piece on Westpac and the Police last week.

    I feel certain that Fisher is donkey deep in the “Rawshark” stolen data scenario … and is as guilty as Hager.

    Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  28th October 2015

      Anyone on the “Get Slater” agenda is donkey deep in it. Personally I think it is all too complicated for the cops to actually sort out. Lots of grey areas.

      Reply
  2. Jeeves

     /  28th October 2015

    If this is so, which it won’t be- then everybody who accessed the ‘Whaledumps’ is equally guilty. If information is property- then the ‘stolen’ information which was transferred into Nicky Hager’s book is equally toxic. Everyone who bought the book received it. Everyone who read the newspapers…
    If information is ‘property’- then this conversation – this blog- these thoughts – are illegal.

    Well I’m guilty as hell- which police station should I surrender to?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  28th October 2015

      Information is not property but computer files and databases are.

      Reply
    • I think there’s a difference between reading a report about some data and having a copy of that data.

      But if someone downloaded some of the data dumped by Rawshark they could theoretically be a receiver of stolen property, but I doubt the police would know who did that nor would they investigate unless that data was used publicly.

      Reply
      • Rob

         /  28th October 2015

        I downloaded it. Come and arrest me. Hager did the country a favour and all you people can do is bag him because, oh isn’t he a smug little shit. If he hadn’t exposed this it would still be going on and in my opinion would be getting worse. Minister of Justice involved here, people from the Prime Ministers office feeding info and fast tracking FOIA requests to be used as hit pieces against political opponents. I don’t care which party was in power, if the situation were reversed I would have expected the same.
        Tobacco advertising is illegal. Was Slater being fed articles by Graham in support of the tobacco industry? Opinion? Or pseudo advertising.
        Any of you come out crying when Hager published Seeds of Distrust bagging the Labour govt just before an election? Doubt it. Stickin to the lefties!
        Then the arseholes who won’t read the book simply because they don’t like Hager (I won’t give him any money) but are perfectly willing to sit on their high horse and pontificate about how they hold the high moral ground because the info was stolen. This isn’t about stolen info, with people like you lot it’s about stickin it the so called left and supporting dirty politics for that reason and that reason alone.
        Thanks for your service Nicky and if you need money for a defense in the future I’ll be more than happy to contribute.
        Drink the kool aid and downvote away.

        Reply
        • Rob – that’s utter bullshit. Hager revealed nothing of substance. There’s no such thing as “dirty politics”, just politics. Hager revealed that… journalists and bloggers get fed stories by politicians! Really?!!! No shit!!! The fact that anyone thought this was a great revelation stretches credulity. As for Slater being paid for his posts, so what? It’s still his opinion. I wish people would pay me to put my opinion on the internet, but for the moment it’s just a free service I offer 😉

          My issue with Hager is that he a) pretends that this is not something that everyone does, and b) he stole the information that he revealed in his book. He’s a party to a criminal act. I don’t know why you think this makes him some sort of hero.

          Reply
          • Jeeves

             /  28th October 2015

            Did you read the book? No.
            The matter of real substance was twofold-
            That Simon Lusk, Slater, Jordan Williams, Aaron Bathnagar had a plan – not to win an election, but to misinform the voting public to such a degree, and to make toxic any voice to the contrary, and to control the media to such an extent – not that they could win an election, but that they could game democracy to the point that only they could ever win an election. They had a plan to make sure that no matter what the truth was, it would only see the light of day if they chose to release it.
            Fold two-
            These filthy traitorous bastards had several highly ranked elected government officials acquiescing to their activities because some of it suited them at the time.

            Show me any evidence that anybody else in politics is happy to lie down with the filthy craven dogs whose ultimate plan is to wrestle political choice away from their own people and substitute a far right wing elite in control.

            The opinion pieces were just fluff around the periphery, that Carrick Graham, Hotchins, and the likes of Odgers were part of the inner circle was just mere context to the sort of filthy cesspit they thrived within.

            Your opinions aren’t even fluffy…

            Reply
            • Mike C

               /  28th October 2015

              @Jeeves

              So … the release of Hagers book just a few weeks prior to last year’s election … wasn’t also an under handed attempt to sway voters opinion then? LOL.

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              @Mike C
              So the release of Seeds Of Distrust just prior to an election was an underhanded attempt to sway voters opinion.
              Did you cry about that mike?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th October 2015

              Frothing claptrap, Jeeves. Slater was hand in glove with his political allies in the Beehive no more and no less than the Lefty bloggers are. Both are full of self-grandising b.s. Goff pissed off the GCSB by lying about his briefings from them so of course they were happy to release the facts under FOI. If you think Labour don’t leak like a sieve to tame journalists and bloggers whether in or out of power I have a harbour bridge I would like to sell you.

              Substance: not a single snide innuendo of the zillions Hager slimed into his book has been substantiated by any resulting inquiry.

            • Jeeves, OMG! How dare those dirty right wingers conspire to tell the truth as they themselves see it, attempt to win elections, and retain power! It’s almost as if they are participating in the democratic process! Bastards!

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              “Slater was hand in glove with his political allies in the Beehive no more and no less than the Lefty bloggers are.” Bullshit. Did labour have the minister of justice feeding info? Did they have govt depts fast tracking info to their bloggers or journalists? If so let’s see some substantiated evidence.
              “not a single snide innuendo of the zillions Hager slimed into his book has been substantiated by any resulting inquiry.” How many inquieries have there been. At least one was a bit of a whitewash.
              “Goff pissed off the GCSB by lying about his briefings from them so of course they were happy to release the facts under FOI.” Yeah, that’s how our security agancies should work eh. Don’t piss us off or we’ll release some shit we have on you. Oh, and we’ll fast track it to a blogger because we were told to.
              Claptrap? Well you’ve proven you know how to write it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th October 2015

              @Rob, about this harbour bridge. It’s in reasonable nick for an old fellow with a couple of nice Japanese wings. It’s just sitting out there in the harbour ready to go wherever you want to take it.

              It’s worth, oh I don’t know, say half a billion, but I’ll let you have it for a few grand. What do you say?

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              @blairmulholland
              You wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and kicked you in the head.
              Saw a post while back by you. Something along the lines of us righties will always win the arguement with a leftie because we know we’re right.
              Hahahahahaha

            • Rob, now I can’t tell if you are being wilfully ignorant/stupid, or whether you are throwing out partisan chaff. How do you think Helen Clark ran her administration? She had a bunch of journalists on speed-dial, and her and H2 were constantly tipping them off. And of course they use their Ministerial warrants for partisan purposes! That’s just how the game is played. There’s nothing illegal or even immoral about it, that’s just how you get your message out when you are in power. It’s called POLITICS, and it’s no picnic, but if you don’t like it, you don’t have to play. What you don’t do is write a grubby little book that acts like only one side does this stuff, while the other side is lillywhite.

              Do you really not understand that this is just how normal politics is conducted in every democracy on earth?

            • Rob, I believe what I said was something along the lines of “the Right will always win the argument in a fair fight”. Yes, I do believe that. The Left always have to resort to lies, bullshit and obfuscation, because the truth always bites them in the arse.

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              @Alan Wilkinson
              I already own it as I’ve stated here a number of times. Thief!

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              @blairmulholland
              Good Lord, you’re a loon.You’d be amusing if you weren’t so over the top loopy.

          • THUNDERBIRD 4

             /  28th October 2015

            He ain’t no hero

            Reply
          • Rob

             /  28th October 2015

            Really? Nothing of sustance? Well, for a book (which in a month sold approx 20000 copies) containing ‘nothing of substance’ it has certainly provoked a lot of public debate and controversy.
            “The fact that anyone thought this was a great revelation stretches credulity.”
            Really? Minister of Justice eventually loses her position over it, fast tracking FOIA requests and being pointed in the right direction by members of the Prime Ministers office, among other things. Care to point out where this has occured in NZ before? Referenced would be nice.
            “As for Slater being paid for his posts, so what? It’s still his opinion.” Opinion? Or a piece written for him by a tobacco company lobbyist and being published under Slaters name in an attempt to hide that fact.
            “My issue with Hager is that he a) pretends that this is not something that everyone does..” Care to point out where he says that?
            “…he stole the information that he revealed in his book.” No he didn’t. It was given to him.
            Have you read the book Blair? Or are you one of those that believe they can have an ‘informed’ opinion without that benefit.
            Who said he was a hero. As far as I’m concerned he did this country a favour, doesn’t make him a hero.
            You’re the one spouting bullshit here Blair.

            Reply
            • Rob, I’ve no desire to read the book, and frankly, I don’t need to – its contents have been extensively reported on, and if there are any gold nuggets our left-leaning media missed, I would be greatly surprised.

              If you think the book is responsible for Collins losing her job, you don’t understand politics very well, and besides which, even if you assume she’s a scalp of the book itself, big whoop. The NZ public looked at the book and decided that “dirty” politics is actually just politics, and voted for John Key in even greater numbers than before.

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              Of course you don’t Blair. You’ll just take what you’ve been told as absolute truth cause you’re a good little boy. And them damn lefties would have picked out all the bad bits so I’m well informed.
              “If you think the book is responsible for Collins losing her job, you don’t understand politics very well…” If you think it had absolutly nothing to do with it you’re a fool. You’re making it patently obvious you can’t be objective. Follow the party line!! I’m a good little righty!!

            • Rob… Collins lost her job because she was a leadership threat to Key. Not because of any problems around the SFO which was the allegation. An investigation cleared her. JK saw a chance to get rid off a rival and also a Minister who had tarnished her copy book with her mishandling of the Oravida situation.

              And by the way screaming Loon etc doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

              Clark was a master of the dark arts as was Mike WIlliams the then Labour President. Never heard of his little digging trip in Australia over the H Fee? digging trip to try and smear Key with improper acts when employed in the finance industry…

              All sides use what ever they can. National has been outed – it could easily be Labour or the Greens.

            • Oh dear Rob, when did I ever say I was objective?! You clearly don’t know much about me if you think I’m a “good little boy” (a rather condescending thing to call someone with children of his own pushing forty, but there you go). If I really was a right wing toady, I probably would be working in the Beehive right now, but unfortunately, I have a fondness for calling people out on their bullshit, and in politics that doesn’t make you any friends. C’est la vie.

              I’ve worked in politics, and I’m acquainted with Slater, Bhatnagar and Odgers among other colourful characters. I know exactly what they are like and how they operate. They are political people who do political stuff. Apparently this is a great scandal to the Nicky Hagers of this world, because only his side of the fence are allowed to do such things and win elections. Apparently it is a scandal to you as well, but like I say, unless you are stupid or disingenuous, I can’t see how. This is politics, it’s what people do and how people operate. At the end of the day, the public votes, and even with the fanfare of Hager’s book, they still voted for John Key. This suggests they don’t find Hager’s “revelations” as scandalous as you and he do, and good for them. They shouldn’t.

    • Mike C

       /  28th October 2015

      @Jeeves

      Anyone silly enough to buy Hagers book should go to jail … because in my opinion that is a crime in itself … even if you didn’t bother to read it. LOL.

      Reply
      • Jeeves

         /  28th October 2015

        Did you read it?
        Of course not-
        So you didn’t read the bit where WO and his mates were **don’t make accusations you can’t substantiate. O didn’t see any thing like that on the – PG**.
        Of course not.
        But it wouldn’t matter would it?
        Of course not- because the emails were ‘hacked’ and it would be morally reprehensible for someone to reveal a child abuser based on ‘stolen’ emails.

        Reply
        • Mike C

           /  28th October 2015

          @Jeeves

          I didn’t need to read Hagers book to know that Slater is a shit … because I already knew he was an arse hole 🙂

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  28th October 2015

            Nah you don’t need to read it mike, but that doesn’t stop you from thinking you can have some kind of ‘informed’ opinion. Probably has to many big words for you anyways.

            Reply
        • [Edited – PG] I haven’t read the book, just the first few chapters on Amazon. But this is first time I’ve read that claim and I would have expected that to be a headline in every MSM. Care to elaborate or withdraw?

          Reply
          • Pete Kane

             /  28th October 2015

            Jeeves, I’m with Duncan on this, it would be best to retract that part or properly explain context as this has the very real potential to damage both the site and (more importantly) its Editor. Reading your usual comments I’m sure its just an unfortunate mix up in context, but needs to be addressed swiftly I, I feel.

            Reply
        • Just a thought Jeeves, can you tell us a page number or at least the context? I’d be interested. Thanks 🙂

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  28th October 2015

            It doesn’t exist. Jeeves was obviously trying to make a point.

            Reply
            • Thanks Rob, I see your point. Unfortunately satire and sarcasm often go right over my head and that particular comment was over the top.

            • Jeeves

               /  28th October 2015

              EXACTLY – It didn’t happen, it wasn’t in the book- and only a few of us here ( Hi Rob) could know that because only a few of us KNOW what we are talking about.
              Only the few of us apparently silly enough to read the book, and actually have an INFORMED point of view.
              The rest of you need to put your heads back in the sand where they belong.

            • Pete Kane

               /  28th October 2015

              Yea, I worked it out too Jeeves a response to Mike’s ‘style’ . Sorry if you felt an over reaction but there may have been a much more ‘cautious’ (legally innocuous) example whilst still making the point But in fairness, if we missed/misunderstood it (not hard in my aging self) then those ‘antagonistic’ to the site, gleefully would have also.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  28th October 2015

    Good decision by the Supreme Court. Obviously computer software and data are property and Hager was a complicit receiver and converted it into private gain. Not quite so clear that Fisher and other journalists did but their employers could well be in the same boat.

    They may have a case for mitigation in that they acted before the law was clarified by this decision.

    Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  28th October 2015

      Why would their mitigations not apply to Hager?
      What does ‘complicit receiver’ mean – is there a special Alan Wilkinson law about “Complicit receiving of stolen goods” ??
      Stop adding legally meaningless terms to things as though it makes them more intelligent.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  28th October 2015

        Complicit = Rawshark was a mate of Hager’s and the pair of them conspired to make political capital out of their crimes. Happy to teach you English any time. And logic.

        Yes, their mitigations would apply to Hager and I fully expect his lawyers to be wheedling that in the near future.

        Reply
        • Jeeves

           /  28th October 2015

          Utter bullshit- He probably still doesn’t even know Rawshark’s real name. There was no conspiracy to make any ‘political capital’ from anything.
          And why on earth would anybody need to ‘wheedle’ out of anything?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  28th October 2015

            I see the number of things you don’t know vastly exceeds even my low expectations. Enjoy your day – ignorance is bliss.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              Watch it Jeeves. We got us one o them highfalutin eggspurts here.

          • Jeeves… Nicky is on record, iirc, in a number places as saying he meet Rawshark, that people he knows know Rawshark and he is a good guy…..think you are stretching it a bit on Nickys behalf trying to paint him as an innocent..

            And no I won’t provide the links you’re more than capable of doing the research yourself…

            Reply
            • Jeeves

               /  28th October 2015

              But …”mates”” ??? Stretching it a bit.

            • So you concede they know each other, but not close enough to meet what test you use for mates….

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              “…iirc…” Did he or didn’t he dave. Your memory doesn’t quite cut as fact.

            • @Rob below. Go and do you own research Rob. Do you think I am incorrect?

            • Have a listen to Nicky in his own words…… describes rawshark as an organised person, the hack as a singular personal political act….

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              So you don’t know if you’re correct or incorrect. Not a very good way to form an arguement.

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              Wasn’t that hard was it dave.

            • Ohhh Rob – you such a lovely individual I thought I would share the video of Nicky with you…

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              I’ve seen that video. You’re a bit behind. He’d already said pretty much the same thing in a Sean Plunkett interview over a year ago. But at least you made an attempt.
              One gold star

            • Ah Rob, or whoever you are, not behind at all. Its all out there, you are just trying to be irritating. But unfortunately I’ve meet and dealt with people way more irritating…

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              Exactly. So why didn’t you just put it there to begin with instead of telling others they should do the work to back up your claims. Irritating indeed.

        • Rob

           /  28th October 2015

          @Alan Wilkinson
          “Rawshark was a mate of Hager’s and the pair of them conspired to make political capital out of their crimes.” That’s a stretch, and a laughable one at that.

          Reply
  4. I wonder what relevance this has to Whale Oil and the Blomfield files?

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  28th October 2015

      @DuncanB

      I would imagine Slater&Co will be starting to shit themselves right about now 🙂

      Reply
      • traveller

         /  28th October 2015

        Lol – you win one and you lose one. Goose and gander for the whale

        Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  28th October 2015

      That was my thought also. And if so, you would think they may wish to each stop playing Rumpole themselves and hire the real thing.

      Reply
    • Duncan – that will hinge on whether the computer disk that Slater was given was Bloomfield’s property OR was a computer disk owned by Company Bloomfield and his now former colleagues were working for.

      If it was the company’s disk then NONE of the information on the disk is personal IF the Company’s I.T. Policy was written as most are, i.e. everything on a Company device is Company property regardless is how most are written and everything sent and received by a Company email address is Company property as well.

      As I understand it of course, as I am not a Lawyer.

      Reply
      • THUNDERBIRD 4

         /  28th October 2015

        It is FACT, in writing from the NZ Police, and the IPCA that the hard drive in question was not stolen, and is not the property of Blomfield, and no receipt has ever been tabled by Blomfield in any Court proceeding showing he purchased the hard drive. Blomfield has these letters as he made the complaint to the NZ Police, they investigated the matter, Blomfield did not like the findings so it went to the IPCA for a review. The only reason the question of the ownership pops up is because it suits those on the “Get Slater” campaign. Blomfield of course always states it was stolen, and he has made that false claim in his affidavits and before the Judges whilst giving oral testimony.

        Everyone needs to ask just one question – Why has the defamation case not proceeded? The answer is a very easy one. Blomfield does not want the case to move forward. Judge Asher told Blomfield many many months ago that he could proceed with his defamation case, despite the activity in the Court of Appeal. The case was then moved from the District Court to the High Court for this reason. The constant minor distractions Blomfield runs with the various contempt proceedings is about getting cost awards against Slater and is just simply playing for time. Blomfield clearly knows that what’s on the internet about him is largely true, hence him being desperate to have it all removed. If Blomfield thought he had an open and shut case why has he not moved ahead with the case? In the meantime bloggers have become media, and journalists out of all of this.

        Reply
        • Jeeves

           /  28th October 2015

          Correct- except for one small point:

          “It is FACT, in writing from the NZ Police, and the IPCA that the hard drive in question was not stolen, and is not the property of Blomfield”

          Should read:

          It is the Police’s OPINION, that the hard drive in question was not stolen, and is not the property of Blomfield.
          The FACT around ownership has not been resolved.

          Reply
          • THUNDERBIRD 4

             /  28th October 2015

            FACT. The hard drive was paid for and was property of Hell Pizza / Warren Powell

            Reply
            • Jeeves

               /  28th October 2015

              THat’s a different “fact” to your first one.

              Although, for what its worth – I agree- I don’t think MB owned it, and I think the NZP are right- but their opinions do not the truth make…

              FACT. Warren gave me the hard-drive and said “Here- this belongs to you now” /Matt Blomfield.

              ??Eh?

            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  28th October 2015

              @Jeeves all I am saying is Police know Blomfield never owned / paid for the hard drive.

            • No, you said a lot more than that, all very familiar stuff, from a new pseudonym but a familiar MO.

      • DaveG

         /  28th October 2015

        Dave1924. Agree entirely. I was certain the drive was handed to Slater. When (most) people enter employment, the contract has a catch all, which states in effect, all material used, emailed, created etc etc on th ecompanies IT systems phones, mobiles, laptops, computers, servers etc etc become the property of the company. Even if MB stored personal date and details on a work laptop then those become company property, and if that was legally passed on, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

        Reply
  5. Mike C

     /  28th October 2015

    @Rob

    “Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious”

    That big enough for ya 🙂

    Reply
  6. Jeeves

     /  28th October 2015

    As opposed to ganging up on individuals like Nicky Hager?

    Reply
  7. Mefrostate

     /  28th October 2015

    Not trying to incite an argument, but I’m really interested in what the prevailing opinion is as to what Hager should have done upon receipt of the files from Rawshark? Particularly those of you who have a strong dislike for Hager, what would you have liked him to do at that time?

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  28th October 2015

      This should be good.

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  28th October 2015

        Don’t pre-judge the outcome mate.

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  28th October 2015

          I’ll do what I like….mate.

          Reply
          • Mefrostate

             /  28th October 2015

            Your sarcastic jibes hinder the quality of debate, and decrease the likelihood that anyone will end up coming to share your position.

            If you truly believe that your personal opinion is indeed the correct one then you should be encouraging good debate, which would help people arrive at the same conclusions.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              Honestly Mefrostate, I couldn’t give a rats arse whether someone agrees with me or not. I’m not interested in trying to change peoples minds, especially on this subject. To much ingrained hate for them lefties, you know, those other people who live in the same country as the rest of us, and whom a lot in this country would like to see pounded into the ground simply for not believing in the same thing they do.

    • Missy

       /  28th October 2015

      He was in possession of data and information pertaining to a hacking, the information should have been passed to the police, as anyone should with information pertaining to any potential criminal act.

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  28th October 2015

        Should it have been passed to the police and entirely kept secret from the public?

        Reply
        • Hagar could have handed it over in front of the Media and made a statement that he had quickly reviewed the information and was deeply concern that behaviour it revealed was not legal hence passing on to the Police. then its in the Media spotlight and a decent journo wouldn’t have let it lie…

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  28th October 2015

            And we would still be waiting to see what was there. Or, opps. we lost it.

            Reply
            • Maybe Rob, maybe… instead the whole thing is discredited in the general public’s mind [unlike us politics tragics]..

              And arguably it lead to National getting re-elected as people reacted to what they considered a political smear…

            • Rob

               /  28th October 2015

              “And arguably it lead to National getting re-elected as people reacted to what they considered a political smear…”
              Also, arguably, what were the alternatives. Cunliffe did himself nor the party any favours with his ashamed to be a man comment. Most guys I know weren’t shy in saying well, now I definitely won’t vote for him, he’s an ass.

            • True Rob the sorry for being a man statement was political suicide by Cunnliffe

        • Missy

           /  28th October 2015

          Yes it should have been passed to the police. It could have been made public without a) re-printing verbatim someone’s private emails or b) Nicky Hager making money out of re-printing private emails

          The way it was done looks very political and cynical on Nicky Hager’s part, and – to use his term – can be interpreted as a form of dirty politics. The release of the book looks political and opportunistic as opposed to some moral duty to bring close links between bloggers and MP’s to light, if it was the latter he would have looked at all political parties and bloggers, not just WO and National, and if he did not want to use the book to try and influence the election then he would not have (as he said) rushed to finish the book in time for the election.

          Out of curiosity, if someone was to hack all of Nicky Hager’s emails and find out information about how he works, his sources, and any (possible) connections to a political party, and if that person then discovered that in that information there were some dodgy and possibly illegal dealings, then that information was passed on to a third party what do you think that third party should do – reprint all of the emails and private communications in a book to make money, or pass it to the police for investigation?

          Reply
        • Kevin

           /  28th October 2015

          It should have been left to judge to decide whether the information was in the public interest and should have been made public.

          Reply
      • Rob

         /  28th October 2015

        @Missy
        And then none of it would have seen the light of day.

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  28th October 2015

          @Rob – So, you believe that publishing hacked emails is okay? Did you think that the accessing by parliamentary services of Andrea Vance’s swipe card records was okay as well? Do you think it is okay for someone to hack and publish the emails and private correspondence of Jane Clifton? What about the alleged attempted hack on The Standard?

          I am very interested in where you stand, as to whether your view on this is motivated because of a dislike of Cameron Slater and your personal politics, or if you truly believe that it is okay to hack and publish information that can be classed as being in the public interest to know.

          Reply
    • Mike C

       /  28th October 2015

      @Mefrostate

      I don’t like Hager or Slater … because they are like two peas in a pod as far as I am concerned.

      If I had received that sort of data … I would have known that it was morally wrong to make money out of it.

      However … Slater and Hager don’t possess good moral compasses … so there is no point in expecting either of them to do the right decent ethical thing is there 🙂

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  28th October 2015

        I agree that the profiteering on stolen information does significantly undermine Hager’s claims that the public “has to know”!

        But I also think that the information is highly in the public interest.

        Reply
        • DaveG

           /  28th October 2015

          Why was it in the public interest. If it were in th ePublic interest, why didnt little Nicky Hager go look at the funding and “leakeage” from maori settlements and businesses, or the health system, and why didnt he look into union rorts and CORRUPTION.

          Oh yeah, it wasnt on his paymasters song sheet!!

          Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  28th October 2015

      I said earlier that he could have claimed public interest had he merely passed it to the news media rather than trying to profit from it economically and politically. Given that he knew it was stolen property he could of course have reported it to the police and shopped his mate Rawshark.

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  28th October 2015

        I think this is where I’m landing with my opinion also – he should have passed the information on to the news media as well as the police. This would allow information in the public interst to come out, but also ensure that the law could be enforced. He could then have subsequently put his book together to tell the story in compelling long-form (if necessary over and above the news media).

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  28th October 2015

          Yeah we all saw what happened with the teagate tapes and that was minor. Papers to scared to publish that? Yeah let’s hand them the real deal.

          Reply
      • Jeeves

         /  28th October 2015

        WHat is “The News Media” ??? I mean for Santa’s sake- aren’t they just privately owned corporations? How can that make any sense?

        I agree- that one ‘option’ may have been to hand it all to the police and say “I think this was stolen” – but that’s the preserve of the naïve and simple citizen who quaintly believes that ‘criminals’ are ‘bad’ and the police are ‘good’. Its for people who believe what they read in the paper and hear on talkback. Simpletons- idealistic simpletons.

        Big boys games have big boys rules – and Hager took bloody good legal advice which seems to have hinged on the weight of the ‘public good’ and the lack of any precedent about ‘receiving’ data. And it was certainly in the public interest- because for each of the 20,000 who actually bought the book- it appears there are a hundred more willing to prattle on blindly about its contents.

        Reply
    • I’ll play. He should have called the Police in and passed it on and said here is evidence of unlawful behaviour by elected officials and their political staff. Simple. Obviously not politically advantageous for those who knew what was happening and also no money via a book for Nicky.

      Rawshark has never said he/she was involved and believed the law was being broken so here is the evidence Mr Plod please investiagte. You know the classic Whistle Blower situation. No he HACKED a private computer and stole the files.

      He may have believed it was in the Public Interest to unmask these behaviour. BUT if he was truly driven by a Public Interest and Public Good motive, why didn’t Rawshark steal fiels from the NZ Labour and NZ Greens as well? My answer is he either had a personal beef with Slater or he was politically partisan….

      Reply
      • Jeeves

         /  28th October 2015

        Because Rawshark was not driven by any political agenda- Here’s the one theory that is going around, that has some credence to it:

        A young man in the South Island climbed into the back of a mate’s car – the driver was drunk – he crashed – and the young man was killed.

        Whaleoil, as usual, saw the chance to jump up and down on his soapbox, and basically said good riddance to this ‘feral’ – no loss to society.

        But here’s the thing – The young man who died was a highly qualified/knowledgeable computer technician- and had many many friends who were the same. A lot of these people were very very VERY angry at Whaleoil for likening their dead friend to some sort of worthless animal who deserved to die. Because of course his only crime was being maybe a bit pissed and getting into his mates car.

        So Rawshark was one of these mates.
        It was driven purely out of revenge, and as far as crimes go- it was the most righteous transgression of the law in recent times.

        THe right wing slater apologists won’t put those facts up front and centre when they simplify everything into “Stolen emails- against the law- end of story- book is all lies”.

        He was going to simply dump everything out there for the world to see what sort of an evil bastard slater was- personal emails/private facts/confidential accounts- the whole lot.
        But he took a read of it and saw what was in there- and thought “Someone could probably do a better job of this than me” – and he found Hager.

        Now if you actually READ the book- then you’ll see that almost 100% of what is said about its content is a) completely wrong, and b) said by people who haven’t read it.

        Reply
        • Yeah sure Jeeves…. that story line was run months ago and discredited iirc.

          Have I read the book? no more than the bits that were reported. Why – because my flatmate lost their copy before I had a chance.

          So according to you I have no right to an opinion about:

          1 – Hacking for political means. And anything to do with Slater is political

          2 – Nicky Hagar. I don’t mind his role – in fact I encourage it as genuine investigative reporting is extremely important. However having seen videos of him talking to school kids about this and read the reporting of his comments, its very obvious he is extremely politically motivated and his cause is old school Values Party type politics… and that is now subsumed in the Greens politics. So everything he says, writes and does in my view is highly coloured and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

          Why did he not expose the journos involved with Slater? Why did he give them any out? What was the quid pro quo?

          Bottom line Jeeves – politicians priming stories via journos and bloggers, going after their opponents with smears and white-anting campaigns, utilising their roles as ministers to work over opponents etc etc. Its all been done by all sides and always will.

          Rawshark was politically motivated he targeted a political operative and handed the info to a political operative…. the getting even for a lad killed in a car crash is a nice smoke screen…in my view anyway

          Reply
          • Jeeves

             /  28th October 2015

            “Yeah sure Jeeves…. that story line was run months ago and discredited iirc.”
            Not sure what iirc is sorry – but where was it ‘discredited’ – happy to drop that argument if that is the case.

            “1 – Hacking for political means. And anything to do with Slater is political”

            Sorry Dave- that logic leapfrogging has even me baffled. So the fact that I despise Slater and comment frequently about him means that I am politically motivated?? Sorry mate- you’re 100% wrong.

            “2 – Nicky Hagar. I don’t mind his role – in fact I encourage it as genuine investigative reporting is extremely important. However having seen videos of him talking to school kids about this and read the reporting of his comments, its very obvious he is extremely politically motivated and his cause is old school Values Party type politics… and that is now subsumed in the Greens politics. So everything he says, writes and does in my view is highly coloured and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.”

            Maybe, like me- he is values driven. Maybe like me- he doesn’t like what he sees. Do you have evidence that he is a member of the ‘Values Party”? Or the green party?
            Or is this the latest catch-all for the right wingers- He has a political agenda so…. so what? And anyway I think you are wrong.

            “Why did he not expose the journos involved with Slater? Why did he give them any out? What was the quid pro quo?”

            Because his book was about the nexus between the PMs office and senior ministers, and attack bloggers. And its no argument to say ” why didn’t you write this/that/the other book?”

            “Bottom line Jeeves – politicians priming stories via journos and bloggers, going after their opponents with smears and white-anting campaigns, utilising their roles as ministers to work over opponents etc etc. Its all been done by all sides and always will.”
            Fair enough- never said it wasn’t. But that’s not what the book is about- but then uninformed people making irrelevant points about books they haven’t read is not new either.

            “Rawshark was politically motivated he targeted a political operative and handed the info to a political operative…. the getting even for a lad killed in a car crash is a nice smoke screen…in my view anyway”

            Fair enough- assumption on assumption on assumption
            You are wrong.

            Reply
            • Ah Jeeves…

              IIRC = if I recall correctly

              You personal hatred for Slater – explain why you have a hatred for him? And given your hatred why I should take anything you say seriously, coloured as it is by your hatred?

              Hagar STOOD as a Values Candidate in 1978. He claims it means nothing now because he was “so young” yeah right…

              As for not exposing the Journos – it has everything to do with the nexus of operatives. They are in the prime trusted position of reporter – balanced, unbiased yada yada. They were part of the operation but Nicky gives them an out so they can reform their ways… Really Jeeves, really? No benefit accrues for Hagar in that scenario at all does it….no hint of blackmail, reform or? Or What? Hmmmm….

              Now if you think I am wrong, and it all was just a hack to get square for a kid getting killed in a car driven recklessly who Salter called feral? Which morphed into something else, all just in time for a general election….Really! What facts do you have to back that up? You seem awfully sure of your position Jeeves

  8. What great for people to respond to all this, morally i think there is something wrong with the book publication for profit. What I also think is wrong is that people expect the police to do an investigation into their own ranks and investigate a political mess that has been allowed by that same police force. More and more everything becomes about power horny persons instead of a caring country led by caring politicians. But everyone that did use the info at hand would have seen this coming. So everyone get of your moral high horses and start looking at hwat we can do as voters and people in a country that still care for each other.

    Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  28th October 2015

      The problem is Geert- that this is NOT a country of people that care for each other. This is a country with a majority who care for themselves and their perception of those they perceive as being like them.
      We are an acquiescent group of post-colonial islanders in the middle of the south pacific- far from the cultural centres of our parent’s birth. We have an unhealthy and undemanding view of the institutes of state, a virtual ignorance of the world around us, a naïve faith in anything in a uniform or wearing a badge, and a very old fashioned British sense that even in the face of unrelenting evidence to the contrary- people in positions of power can be trusted not to hurt US, as long as we keep pointing them in the direction of THEM.

      But one day they may start pointing at US.

      Watch this space for the end of the golden weather.

      Reply
  9. Mike C

     /  28th October 2015

    Georges Blog has been invaded by the extreme Right AND Left today. LOL.

    I feel like I am in a weird combination of the Whale and the Standard 😦

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  28th October 2015

      You’ve only just noticed? 🙂

      Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  28th October 2015

      For once Mike, (but I think maybe more to it than just left/right) we may almost agree on something. All though all may need to look at their own part. Some contributions today have in all seriousness put the site at legal risk. to put it kindly (and I did) that is just carelessness. If the principal purpose of our forum is the advancement of ‘democracy’ then today has been a mixed game. Robust and valid argument, undermined by complete discourtesy.

      Reply
    • Robby

       /  28th October 2015

      @ Mike C. This is why ‘Georges’ Blog’ is better than either of them.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s