The source of the Panama Papers speaks

A post by ‘John Doe’, who claims to be the source of the Panama papers, gives a mention to New Zealand and John Key but also promotes the next revolution, digitized..

THE SOURCE OF THE PANAMA PAPERS SPEAKS

Income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. It affects all of us, the world over. The debate over its sudden acceleration has raged for years, with politicians, academics and activists alike helpless to stop its steady growth despite countless speeches, statistical analyses, a few meagre protests, and the occasional documentary.

Still, questions remain: Why? And why now?

The Panama Papers provide a compelling answer to these questions: massive, pervasive corruption. And it’s not a coincidence that the answer comes from a law firm.

That sounds quite like political activism.

Shell companies are often associated with the crime of tax evasion, but the Panama Papers show beyond a shadow of a doubt that although shell companies are not illegal by definition, they are used to carry out a wide array of serious crimes that gobeyond evading taxes.

I decided to expose Mossack Fonseca because I thought its founders, employees and clients should have to answer for their roles in these crimes, only some of which have come to light thus far. It will take years, possibly decades, for the full extent of the firm’s sordid acts to become known.

It’s hard to believe that one law firm from Panama is a major part of the problem throughout the world.

For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have. My viewpoint is entirely my own, as was my decision to share the documents with Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), not for any specific political purpose, but simply because I understood enough about their contents to realize the scale of the injustices they described.

One person claiming to have done it all by themselves sounds familiar.They seem to fancy their chances of starting a revolution.

Historians can easily recount how issues involving taxation and imbalances of power have led to revolutions in ages past. Then, military might was necessary to subjugate peoples, whereas now, curtailing information access is just as effective or more so, since the act is often invisible.

Yet we live in a time of inexpensive, limitless digital storage and fast internet connections that transcend national boundaries. It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: from start to finish, inception to global media distribution, the next revolution will be digitized.

He goes on, including singling out New Zealand and John Key for a mention.

Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands.

That’s all that’s said about here but it has stirred up media and discussions.

Stuff reports on this in Panama Papers whistleblower calls out John Key over silence on ‘fraud Mecca’  and quotes a response from Key:

Key said he was aware he had been singled out over the Cook Islands in the overnight statement, but said it was historic.

Speaking at the National Party northern regional convention in Auckland on Saturday morning, Key said he was confident neither he nor any of his ministers would be on a list of several hundred names due to be released on Monday morning.

“I won’t be on that list. These people have had these papers for a year looking through politicians,” he said.

“I know my own personal situation. I can assure you if I’d been in it or my ministers had been in it, we’d well and truly know by now. He’s made reference to me as the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

“We haven’t seen the papers so we can’t comment in any great note and when we get the chance we’ll work our way through them.”

There will no doubt a lot more attention paid to this as more information becomes available (which is really quite sparse so far).

But The Standard are already relishing the chance to pile more on Key, with two featured posts on it today:

Panama leaker’s statement singles out John Key

Over night the Panama Papers leaker “John Doe” released a “manifesto”.

In it he/she mentioned just one national leader by name, singling out our very own John Key, for his “curious silence”…

Why was John Key singled out by Panama Papers hacker?

Why, out of all the rotten, corrupt and unprincipled nations of the earth, did the Panama Papers hacker single out New Zealand’s John Key for special mention?

Simon Louisson does his best to interweave Key with the post of the supposed source of the Panama papers.

I think that at this stage the self promotion of the next revolution, digitized, is of more note.

 

 

Leave a comment

112 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  7th May 2016

    I think it is obvious the Panama hacker has a NZ connection and axe to grind. Time for the GCSB and SIS to step up and earn their salaries.

    Reply
    • Hall

       /  7th May 2016

      It’s to late Alan the damage is already done. It just demonstrates how ineffective our “intelligence” agencies really are. If they can’t protect the government from a common hacker then how can they protect us from terrorism. No they have already failed so hand it over to the police.

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  7th May 2016

        “It just demonstrates how ineffective our “intelligence” agencies really are. ”

        Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. A few points on the intelligence agencies you seem to think are ineffective.

        1. They can’t stop something if it is done by someone they are not watching, so if this hack was done by a NZer they may not have been watching them, or even known about them.

        2. If this was done by a NZer, thanks to a few issues a few years ago they now have more hoops to jump through in order to electronically monitor any NZers, and unless the NZer was involved in something that would have a serious impact on National Security, and not just something criminal, then it isn’t their area – criminal behaviour should be monitored and dealt with by the police.

        3. The Government are not the one’s that were hacked, an overseas private firm was – hardly something that is the responsibility of NZ intelligence services.

        4. You will never know what they do, and how much they do, in order to protect NZ, because the problem with intelligence is that the successes are very, very rarely publicised, but everyone knows the failures.

        Hall, your comment above shows you are either ignorant or an idiot, but whatever you are, you obviously don’t know anything on the subject of intelligence services.

        Reply
        • Hall

           /  7th May 2016

          So Missy what you’re saying is that our intelligence services are powerless to stop external threats. Yes I agree with you. It kind of makes you wonder why we waste money on them.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  7th May 2016

            Didn’t you say you worked previously in the intelligence service Hall?

            Reply
            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              No I’ve never said that, Stopping making things up.

          • Missy

             /  7th May 2016

            No that isn’t what I am saying Hall – stop making things up, and learn to read and comprehend correctly.

            Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  7th May 2016

        We don’t normally write off investigation of a crime simply because it has happened so we can’t stop it. Solving the crime is highly likely to prevent future crimes. Neither have the police much of a track record in solving technologically sophisticated cybercrime. If there is anything GCSB/SIS should be the bureaucratic experts on it is that.

        I think there is a clear distinction between the Panama hack and Snowden’s revelations. The latter was attacking government activities. This one is attacking private individuals, very many of whom may have done nothing illegal at all.

        Certainly the German-NZ axis is suspicious though not conclusive. It seems to me a very long stretch to see this originating as a hit targeting Key. Much more likely to be an opportunistic side-swipe once the data was revealed. I could easily see Hager prompting it given the chance.

        Reply
        • Hall

           /  7th May 2016

          The police have a better record then GCSB. Can’t recall the GCSB solving or preventing any crime. If a crime has been committed then it is a police matter and not an intelligence matter.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  7th May 2016

            What cybercrime have the NZ police solved that required anything more than following up information others provided?

            Reply
            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              That’s how crimes get solved Alan, by following leads and collecting info. Is there another way to do it? please enlighten us.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  7th May 2016

              The question is whether the police have the knowledge and tools to investigate cybercrimes without being given a direct lead to the perpetrator. I thought that was obvious.

          • Missy

             /  7th May 2016

            Can you please provide examples and statistics of GCSB’s success rate vs failure rate?

            Oh, right you can’t, you don’t know.

            Reply
            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              Police claimed responsibility for that one, it says so in the article.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  7th May 2016

              Yes, they were called in and searched his place and found CDs. A pity Hager didn’t leave some CDs around with Rawshark’s name on them, then the police might have solved the crime.

            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              Yeah because the GCSB and SIS found out who Rawshark was right??

            • Iceberg

               /  7th May 2016

              “because the GCSB and SIS found out who Rawshark was right”

              Who knew they were trying to?

            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              I was being sarcastic but on a serious note Hager alleged that he had the SIS surveillance team sureivilling him.

            • Iceberg

               /  7th May 2016

              “I was being sarcastic”

              No, you just got exposed as an idiot. Again.

              “but on a serious note Hager alleged that he had the SIS surveillance team sureivilling him.”

              Sorry, still not taking you seriously.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  7th May 2016

              Didn’t you say once that you were a sniper Hall?

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  8th May 2016

              PDB
              you owe me for a keyboard covered in coffee…stop it you naughty boy!

    • Gezza

       /  7th May 2016

      Not strictly the same issue I know, but this reminds me. I dunno what’s happening with Svetlana. Haven’t heard back from her since I sent her $20K the other week to organise local lawyers and accountants to get my Nigerian-based previously unknown rich uncle’s massive bequest paid into my bank account here … I wonder if her computer’s been hacked or something? o_O

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  8th May 2016

        I’ve heard back from Svetlana. It’s all good. She just needs another $5K for air fares. Some of the necessary documents need to be witnessed in Las Vegas for some reason, then it’ll all be taken care of by Thursday pm our time. I’ll wire her the extra $$ tomorrow. Can’t wait. This bequest is gonna set me up for life. 😛

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th May 2016

          Can you please take Hall with you to sign for your bequest in LA? A one-way ticket will be fine. He can report back on the US primaries and be our US reporter to complement Missy in London.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th May 2016

            He can’t apparently. I think he’s announced that as a dual US/NZ citizen he’s now standing over there to challenge The Donald as an Independent. 😎

            Reply
  2. Pantsdownbrown

     /  7th May 2016

    Sounds like Hager is going to ‘selectively’ release some names of New Zealanders involved with foreign trusts this week – like he did with his selective use of Slater’s emails in writing ‘Dirty Politics’. Labour & the Greens have apparently already being briefed in what will be released so they can do a media-blitz at the same time before anybody named has an opportunity to defend themselves.

    Again Hager will make money from a slanted book based on stolen data about people committing no illegal offense. Labour & the Greens will again be the kings & Queens of dirty politics whilst trying to tell the public they don’t do such stuff.

    So why is Key the only leading politician singled out in this hacker’s statement? Considering New Zealand is apparently only mentioned at most in 0.5% of all the Panama documents it seems pretty remarkable. I think Bradbury (for a change) has the answer of who the hacker might be doing a favour for in specifically mentioning/ smearing John Key;

    M. Bradbury: “Who would want vengeance on the Prime Minister of NZ with the skills to hack? Vengeance is a dish served best about half way through the next election cycle”.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/07/and-the-deluge-of-details-showing-nz-is-a-tax-haven-has-begun-wheres-your-messiah-john-key-now-national-voters/

    Reply
    • Hall

       /  7th May 2016

      This is politics if you can’t handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. PDB do you think Bradbury is talking about Rawshark or Kim.com?

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  7th May 2016

        Hager is supposedly a respected ‘journalist’, not a politician…….

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  7th May 2016

          Mostly Bradbury is usually talking about himself. Other characters just get a mention in passing.

          Reply
        • Missy

           /  7th May 2016

          PDB, you have that partly right, it should be ‘Hager is supposedly a respected investigative journalist’….

          I don’t think Hager will be happy that you forgot that he is a self-titled investigative journalist.

          Reply
  3. Interesting that Hager has been linked to “John Doe”. He has featured as a leading researcher in NZ’s analysis of the Panama Papers as part of the Investigative Journalists coalition. If the John Doe is a male as claimed by the German newspaper who received the terabytes of information, then if he is also European or US, it makes no sense for him to seek out the NZ Prime Minister for special mention in his diatribe against Capitalism, unless Hager suggested it would help the global cause of replacing the Wests Capitalist economy with a communist-socialist equal share to all regardless of work ethics, intellect, inheritance and all of the things needed for success. I hear the rumbling that it all a Hager et al setup. Watch that space as Dotcom version2 arrives.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  7th May 2016

      Hager is just small fry I think in the scheme of things, originally involved in sifting through anything New Zealand related as no one else really cared about us down here considering we are only a tiny dot in this entire beat-up.

      German – hacking – anti-John Key.

      Reply
      • PDB, my understanding based on a summary of what happened in the beginning, as related by the ICIJ on its website, was that the initial look at the detail was handed to the NZ and Australian members of the ICIJ because of their record of handling highly sensitive data without any leaks on previous occasions. The ICIJ named Nicky Hager as looking at the whole of the database, not just NZ information. The database is to be released in full on 9 May2016 and should be worth search or two. It is in .csv form so you need Gephi to interpret the information. It is available free for download if you Google Gephi!

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  8th May 2016

          I think it gives an indication of how small a part NZ plays in this saga – appears Hager has the name of 300 odd New Zealanders he is preparing to release the names of out of around 240,000 names the ICIJ will release on their site soon.

          With such a small portion of New Zealanders involved I believe Hager did more work assisting on siting through other countries databases then he did searching through for New Zealand connections.

          It’s a sad day when 240,000 people, the large majority of which are not doing anything criminal, get their names and addresses published publically worldwide and are in turn victimised.

          Reply
    • Solid analysis BJ given the available facts and history. I’m not a part of their faction and will never be. I’m sympathetic to Kim but not a factional ally.

      It’s not enough, for the sake of analysis, to just say German newspaper leads to Kim. Kim is half Finnish for instance. You need a viable narrative. For the sake of argument, excluding Kim’s internet businesses, has he been proven wrong about the surveillance state, the WB email or anything else? On that note, was Hager proven wrong on anything he wrote? I am absolutely not in agreement with the criminal act that got that information for either of them, but I consider that it’s important to fully explore the picture. There are enough bright and experienced minds here on YNZ to have a conversation that should have taken place two years ago..

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  7th May 2016

        “the WB email or anything else?”

        Are you the only person in the known Universe that believes that email was real?

        You might also recall he was just slightly wrong in thinking that forming a political party would topple Key.

        Reply
        • I’ve seen no evidence the email is fake or real. The evidence was never tested.

          He set up IP to take down JK/Nats? I must have missed Laila Harré saying that exactly. I was too busy admiring a new party on the scene (Huge for our stagnant democracy under MMP) and greatly admiring innovative policy relating to the Internet.

          Can you show me where, apart from Right smears, Kim stated he was formed IP to “topple Key”?

          You should have made the point that there’s criminality going on. Why didn’t you make that point! You’re just Ad Hom and making large statements with no evidence. You appear very intelligent and knowledgeable about how things work here, and the “rules of the game” 🙂

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  7th May 2016

            I’m sure you can’t be that naïve Ben – if the Internet party was more than a ‘get out of jail card’ for Dotcom then why did everybody bail out of it once they got hammered in the election?

            If the letter was real then why did Dotcom and all the media drop it within hours of it being produced? Because it was an obvious forgery – hence why Dotcom has never referred to it since.

            Reply
          • Iceberg

             /  7th May 2016

            “I was too busy admiring a new party on the scene”

            Just didn’t want that one hidden away amongst the rest of the bollocks. It’s too good.

            Reply
          • David

             /  7th May 2016

            ” I must have missed Laila Harré saying that exactly. I was too busy admiring a new party on the scene (Huge for our stagnant democracy under MMP) and greatly admiring innovative policy relating to the Internet.”

            That must be why you missed the other 20 or so political parties that have come onto the scene in NZ in the last 10 year years? Not many of them had the cash IM had of course, perhaps that’s what distracted you?

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  7th May 2016

              “Not many of them had the cash IM had of course, perhaps that’s what distracted you?”

              The cash certainly distracted many Laila, Bradbury, Minto, Harawera…..

              Only fair to assume it distracted others.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  7th May 2016

              Many of the left were either swayed by Dotcoms cash or his claim of being able to bring down John Key – no moral fibre to be seen.

            • Nope. Effective social media reach, image of party aligned with many of my beliefs and use of innovative new political campaigning tools.

              I didn’t see any of that cash and never attended a single IP/IPM meeting except Moment of Truth. It was pretty surreal going through metal detectors and bag searches going in BTW. Has that been normal at events those other 20 parties you speak of run?

              Also, I’m an anarchist. I’m against centralised governance by default. Theres no reason for me to keep up to date on new parties since, by default, anything resembling my political ideology shies away from power and seeks only self-emancipation wouldn’t appear there?

              Hope that clarifies.

            • David

               /  7th May 2016

              “Also, I’m an anarchist. I’m against centralised governance by default. Theres no reason for me to keep up to date on new parties since, by default, anything resembling my political ideology shies away from power and seeks only self-emancipation wouldn’t appear there?”

              Err, what about The Pirate Party? Seems to meet your needs.

              As for the metal detectors, they were part of the show, or are you really that naive? Oh, and the the only innovative thing about IM was just how quickly so many sold out, they hardly even blinked. Sue Bradford really when up in my estimation for calling it right.

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  7th May 2016

        Ben: But what did Hager achieve with the book ‘Dirty Politics’? He indeed got things wrong in interpreting some of Slater’s bullshit (the stuff that suited Hager’s agenda) for fact.

        Absolutely nothing came from it – no illegal activity – all he did was unmask a ‘dirty’ blogger who already told everybody he was dirty & was proud of it?

        With this in mind we go back to the only illegal activity in the whole affair – the stealing of Slater’s private communications. Did the illegal activity justify the end result of nothing happening? Did it meet the standard of ‘in the public interest’? Of course it didn’t – no where near it.

        Ben: (Kim Dotcom) has he been proven wrong about the surveillance state, the WB email or anything else?

        He lied for months about the ‘moment of truth’, he forged a letter from the movie studio to John Key (if he hadn’t why did it die a sudden death soon after it appeared), he was found to have lied about John Banks in court, he lied about knowing of illegal pirating in his business – how many ‘wrongs’ do you need?

        Reply
      • Hager admitted he was wrong on some aspects.

        Reply
        • Did Hager ever admit he got some aspects wrong Pete? If so I missed it. What aspects did he admit he got wrong. I really have concluded he thinks he is in the same league as Mohammed (swt), and has a monopoly of the truth! And we all know where that leads us!

          Reply
      • Missy

         /  7th May 2016

        Ben, Hager was proven wrong on some of what he wrote in his last book – I can’t remember off the top of my head, but in an interview he admitted he had made up something based on one email, it was something that he claimed Dunne had said (though the email was one of CS), and he admitted in the interview that he was wrong on that.

        So, I think you are a little delusional if you think Hager is right on everything. He takes stolen information and then incorrectly comes to conclusions based on his agenda and reading of it, the problem with some of his books as that they involved organisations that cannot dispute what he has written publicly due to National Security – or the Security of personnel (mainly the one’s on GCSB / Defence etc).

        As for Dotcom, wrong on the surveillance state? From what I remember he just regurgitated the ramblings of a traitor to the US – and spy to every other country he stole information off – and put it out as his ideas, and the email? Are you serious? Of course he was wrong on that, even his media lapdogs saw that he was wrong on it.

        Reply
        • Hager also accepted some claim/s about Farrar were incorrect.

          Reply
          • Missy

             /  7th May 2016

            Ah, forgot about those ones, remember those now.

            To be honest Hager is crap at interpretation and analysis of information, his books are mostly regurgitation.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  7th May 2016

              With an element of flatulation.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  7th May 2016

              The problem with Hager is that he goes into his work with a predetermined political conclusion then attempts to get the stolen information he uses for his narrative to fit that, regardless if it does or not.

            • David

               /  7th May 2016

              “The problem with Hager is that he goes into his work with a predetermined political conclusion then attempts to get the stolen information he uses for his narrative to fit that, regardless if it does or not.”

              The problem is that he doesn’t see that as being a problem.

      • Hager admitted he was wrong on some aspects, or unproven at least. Farrar and Rodney Hide come to mind.

        We had a thread here exploring some of this.
        https://yournz.org/2014/12/01/blog-project-hager-never-gets-things-wrong/

        Reply
    • Hall

       /  7th May 2016

      interesting point Bj. I agree this doesn’t match Hagers communist MO and Kim.com does have connections to Germany.

      Reply
  4. Ok. I said “for the sake of the argument” meaning you clarify your understanding and we debate it. Please leave Ad Hom and putting words in my mouth out. Let’s not make this about me. Hope that’s alright.

    PDP.

    1. Agree with you. I don’t think anything can justify illegal activity and a breach of privacy. Hacking is very different to whistleblowing.

    2. “He lied” = he prevaricated or obfuscated content for strategical reasons maybe? Not exactly unheard of from the ruling party either man. The email dying could have happened for untold reasons. There’s no evidence to specifically state it died because it was fake. That’s not how the media, or information that could destabilise a countries political leadership, works.

    As for Banks, he was acquitted based on the CROWNS approach to their prosecution. The Solicitor General “has a lot to answer for” in Banks own words. So that acquital didn’t happen because Kim was shown to have deliberately lied.

    Covering up his illegal Internet activities? Well… I’m not sure that’s the picture I took away from reading the evidence. It’s tricky but half point for that one at least.

    Missy.

    1. You’re quite correct that the conclusions Hager has drawn may be flawed or wholly inaccurate. No contest.

    2. National Security is spook speak for “You peons don’t get to know how it all works”. It rarely actually affects NatSec and is more about political stabilisation.

    3. Dotcom put together Assange, Snowden and himself. Snowden is technically a traitor to the intelligence services and ruling elites… I don’t see how enlightening the normal citizens of his country about pervasive and unvoted for mass surveillance is being a traitor to the people. He sidestepped the complicit media and politicians to expose information that voters are entitled to in any free, non-facist society. Or you don’t think the normal people are allowed to know how they are governed? Protected? Slippery slope.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  7th May 2016

      For a ‘whistle-blower’ you sure seem pretty selective on who you blow that whistle at………

      Reply
    • Missy

       /  7th May 2016

      Ben, I am sorry, I didn’t realise you have worked in Intelligence and knew definitively that what they do is political and not for National Security, since I do not have such inside knowledge I guess I will have to bow to your obvious inside knowledge in knowing that information rarely affects National Security – perhaps you could provide some examples where information has not been released on National Security grounds but it was in fact political not for the security of NZ.

      Ben, no technically about it, Snowden is a traitor, and not just to the elites, if you believe he is in Russia out of the goodness of Putin’s heart you are either naive or stupid, he would not have been allowed to remain in Russia without handing over information. The estimates of the information he took vs what was released show a large discrepancy in the numbers released in the media, so if he has handed secrets from the US and allies to the Russians he is a traitor and has put lives at risk, the full impact will most likely never be known.

      As for the information Snowden released, you do realise that 1. he was not an intelligence analyst so had absolutely no idea about the information he took, or the impact it would have on the wider society, and whilst enlightening those who want to know every little secret he has also told our enemies how information is collected, MI6 contribute the rise in ISIS partly to them changing communication methods as a direct result of Snowden’s leaks.

      What the intelligence services do is nothing to do with how we are governed, but maybe there is some information that needs to be debated, but it can be done without irresponsibly dumping information that you have no understanding of that includes national secrets, methods of intelligence collection, and names of individuals. Or do you think that putting lives and national security at risk is a good pay off for essentially being a nosey parker?

      Remember Ben, the more you know about what the Intelligence services do, the more those that wish you and other NZers harm do too.

      Reply
      • Oh Missy you’re even more deadly when you talk like this 🙂

        Spooks are spooks. Geek spooks and army spooks. Some bureacracy. Some oversight. Information is protected, rightly so. Very little leaks out. What does leak out would have to go through MSM up until maybe 10 years ago. MSM very easily bargained for re Info exchange. 99.9% of what leaks out has zero public interest and is either boring or tactics, tools and targets. That information damages the public by flagging the ‘enemy’ to what’s going on. Spooks have used ‘leaks’ to obfuscate real tactics, tools and targets before too.

        I wasn’t saying that spooks are political. I’m highlighting (vaguely) the politicisation of an environment that should be above being used as politicians lapdogs. Key uses NatSec info for political advantage – Fact. Terror warnings, Milk, Jihadi brides. Labour did the same when it suited them. It would take a very strong IGIS and Heads of SIS/GCSB to keep the Services free from political interference, given the lack of public oversight and reliance on Govt re funding etc.

        What parts of what I have just said do you disagree with?

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  7th May 2016

          Well for starters I disagree with your idea that all intelligence officers are the same. An IT person in the intelligence services is not the same as an intelligence analyst, he/she would not have the training or understanding to know and understand the information or its impact – what part of that do you not understand? or disagree with? and if you disagree with it then please enlighten as to what your experience and qualifications are that make you so qualified to be able to be taken seriously as an authority.

          Second, Army Intelligence officers are different to Intelligence Officers in Civilian organisations, quite simply because what they do is different, their training is different and what they need to know and understand is different.

          Third, there is a difference between strategic and tactical in the military and civilian organisations, so therefore skill sets and knowledge is different.

          So no Ben, a ‘spook is not a spook’ and Snowden was not qualified, or experienced, in what he released and he put people’s lives and National Security at risk. What do you disagree with in that? And what basis do you have for your disagreement? Why do you think you are more qualified than the head of MI6 and MI5 to be able to determine that this is wrong?

          “I wasn’t saying that spooks are political.”

          By suggesting that the organisation is used politically you are suggesting those that work in the organisation are political, so yes, you are saying that they are political.

          ” I’m highlighting (vaguely) the politicisation of an environment that should be above being used as politicians lapdogs. Key uses NatSec info for political advantage – Fact.
          Terror warnings, Milk, Jihadi brides. Labour did the same when it suited them. It would take a very strong IGIS and Heads of SIS/GCSB to keep the Services free from political interference, given the lack of public oversight and reliance on Govt re funding etc.”

          This is a stupid statement Ben, you are implying that the SIS and GCSB provide information to the PM to use for political reasons, thus you are essentially saying these organisations and the people who work in them are political. When the reality is, that like all Govt Departments, the SIS and GCSB would provide weekly briefings to the PM and other Ministers as required, and MP’s (I seem to recall Goff mentioning he got briefings), and the PM takes that info and uses it himself. So what do you suggest they do, not provide briefings, keep the Government in the dark about what is going on in case they use it for political purpose. You have a very limited understanding on how Government departments work, this shows that.

          As for the three things you mention:

          1. Terror Warnings. Any in particular – or just general. And would you like the Government to not tell the people of NZ that there may be a risk of terror attack. Just because there hasn’t been one doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in NZ planning one, maybe the fact they haven’t carried one out shows the intelligence services and police are doing their job? Or do you have some evidence to show that NZ has no terror threats? maybe that stupid naive view the left take that NZ is isolated and benign and has no enemies….

          2. Milk – huh? Are you talking about the blackmail case against Fonterra last year? If so, then please realise it was the Police who released the info on that, I am not sure what the PM did in order to make it political

          3. Jihadi Brides. If I remember correctly, it was the media that beat that one up, and tried to make it more than it was, then blamed Key when they were made to look like fools. Didn’t he say New Zealanders had gone to Syria, it was the media that said they left from NZ.

          Ben, you appear to contradict yourself, first you seem to think what Snowden did was good so the people know what is happening, now you seem to be saying that the PM should not reveal information to the public. Either you want to know what the intelligence services and Police are doing or you don’t.

          Reply
          • You’re pretty good Missy. Experienced 🙂 I’ll write you a reply shortly.

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  7th May 2016

              Well gee thanks for that patronising comment Ben, after all I am merely a woman, so having the approval of a man is exactly what I need. [/sarc]

              I don’t care if you reply or not, I don’t need your validation.

            • I was complimenting your reply. AFAIK you’re text with a pseudonym attached. I dont pay any gender any preference or difference. I am sympathetic to broader gender inequality. I’m sorry you feel that I was patronising you.

          • Intelligence doesn’t exist inside a static environment. It is dynamic and responsive to the needs of the government and society of the day.

            Social Internet + Global War on Terror, as an example, has changed the face of terrorism and stochastic terrorism particularly and made radicalisation via digital mediums more and more of an issue. The environment shifted. ELINT vs HUMINT. Funding changes. Focus shifts. Without commenting on the ethics of Team FVEY we can say that the trade off of personal privacy, which is a fundamental human right, for persistent dragnet surveillance systems to ‘protect’ us is a pretty big deal. I do not accept that losing a fundamental human right without notification is justifiable.

            I’m sure it’s really easy to get caught up in all the ‘responsibility’ in the agencies but they shouldn’t forget that they are not above the will of the People. They do work for the people, right?

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  7th May 2016

              Ben, you haven’t addressed any of my points.

          • Hall

             /  7th May 2016

            Missy your comment shows how little knowledge you have of the subject. Perhaps you should stick to subjects that you have experience in.

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  7th May 2016

              Hall, obviously if you recognise my inexperience in these matters you must have vast experience and knowledge, maybe you could use that for the education of us less knowledgeable and experienced persons and explain where I lack experience and what the facts actually are.

            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              Intelligence practitioners do not work independently in the public sector. They work together, that is customs, police, sis, Gcsb, Defence, govt departments and ministries, foreign counterparts all work together to form an intelligence picture. Secondly they use the same principles and techniques to achieve this. It’s call the intelligence cycle – Direction Collection Processing Analysis dissemination. So long story short there is no difference to they way these entities operate when comes to intelligence.

            • Iceberg

               /  7th May 2016

              She seems very experienced at showing up blowhards.

            • Gezza

               /  7th May 2016

              “So long story short there is no difference to they way these entities operate when comes to intelligence.”
              Oh yes there is.

            • Someone with no identity and no consent to assess their experience independently can’t show anyone up.

              Someone with a recorded, demonstrable, long standing history in cyberwarfare, hacker politics, privacy activism and whistleblowing who speaks under their own name though?

              The difference is you lot may have an academic or political understanding of the scene but you only experience it vicariously. I have operated in it. I know my shortcomings and they aren’t batting away anonymous criticism.

            • Hall

               /  7th May 2016

              @ Ben are you winning? have you won any battles in this so called cyber war? what have you done to advance our society? not much I reckon since I’ve never heard of ya. Maybe you know as much as the rest of us…

            • Gezza

               /  7th May 2016

              Off down the super to check out the best popcorns … 😎

            • Iceberg

               /  7th May 2016

              “Someone with a recorded, demonstrable, long standing history in cyberwarfare, hacker politics, privacy activism and whistleblowing who speaks under their own name though”

              Ben “it’s not about me” Rachinger.

              You start this with a post full of contestable statements. They get exposed for what they are, nonsense. In your replies, you make more contestable claims and refuse to address the challenges properly. Other commenters do a good job of showing you are wrong. You patronise the one person patient enough to deliver a coherent argument back to you. Fact is, she completely owned you. You do all this in an environment where other commenters are largely anonymous, and then you bitch about them being anonymous.

              On top of that you drop a whole bunch of dubious credentials, like some child in a sandpit, after saying it’s not about you.

              If you want the right kind of attention and credibility, being frozen in childhood isn’t the way.

            • Uptick for that Ice. This is all just musings to me anyway given I can’t say anything about anything until some close but not allowed to be defined point in time in the future. I found it interesting timing, given this sudden rush from the Left and Hager, and I’m just musing. Opportunistic or actual double blow? I have no idea. I definitely have a childlike sense of wonder at the enormous pile of Pure 100% manure that’s wafting around the place. There’s not really any coincidences in politics, right?

            • Missy

               /  8th May 2016

              Hall, yes the agencies may work together on some areas, but you are wrong if you think that they all operate the same. Yes there is a basic theory to follow, but tactical intelligence is different to strategic intelligence, military intelligence is different to police intelligence, communications intelligence is different to human intelligence, and for each there are different skill sets and different knowledge required, they work together to compliment each other, not to duplicate or do exactly the same thing.

            • Missy

               /  8th May 2016

              “The difference is you lot may have an academic or political understanding of the scene but you only experience it vicariously. I have operated in it. I know my shortcomings and they aren’t batting away anonymous criticism.”

              So, you are saying you do have experience working in the Intelligence field Ben? Which agency did you work for and what did you do. I would love to learn from your experience and knowledge on this, since I apparently know nothing about it.

            • Missy

               /  8th May 2016

              “…I’m just musing.”

              Ah, so you don’t have any experience, and are just trying to talk yourself up then…

    • Iceberg

       /  7th May 2016

      “Let’s not make this about me”

      Happy for you to lead by example.

      “As for Banks, he was acquitted based on the CROWNS approach to their prosecution”

      That’s right, The Crown forgot to tell the high court that they knew Dotcom had lied

      Reply
      • Error of judgement, not misconduct. CoA said in its judgement that there was evidence enough for a retrial. Then came back with a further ruling. Political interference.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  7th May 2016

          “Political interference”

          I’ll give you one thing, you’re an expert with the cloak and the dagger. As many have noted above, reality, not so much.

          Reply
          • I suppose it’s not too much for you to provide Evidence of this ‘reality’ you speak of? I’d take your word for it but for the sake of the argument and those reading you should back your assertion that I’m crazy up with evidence.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  7th May 2016

              You’ll be stocking up on popcorn next week Ben?

            • Gezza

               /  7th May 2016

              Blimey. The opportunity I’ve spotted here today. How long does it take to legally set up a super-massive popcorn-selling operation? Could I get that done on Monday? Is that realistic? I wish I’d had more notice … 😮

            • Iceberg

               /  7th May 2016

              Shall we start with you providing evidence of political interference?

              No one has said you are crazy. Your original, and subsequent, posts on this matter have been shown by numerous others to be a distant relative to reality.

    • Missy, I applaude your assessment of what happened in relation to “Dirty Politics”. No doubt after Hager departs this mortal soil, someone will look through his papers, and establish who Hager consulted and to what extent external sources were used by him to formulate his thesis. I am not one usually to start a conspiracy theory, but I have to say all of my training and experience indicates that his motivation was neither Academic , nor responsible Journalism. This leads inevitably to a conclusion that he has been captured by idealogical politics, and thus his work is fatally flawed. His history is one of railing against the Establishment in a “half-truth”use of so-called evidence solicited from naive immature sources rather than considered mature and relevant sources. I continue to be amazed at how easily he appeals to the anti-establishment groups in our society who seek magic cures for problems which have confounded the best minds in this Globe since time began. How arrogant he is to claim to have the answers?

      Reply
      • Hall

         /  7th May 2016

        BJ your comment was both entertaining and disturbing. You have Hager all wrong. Hager is an investigative journalist by trade which means it’s his job to investigate corruption and injustice. This is a good thing and has many positive benefits for society. If we had no one to keep the powerful in check then the powerful would trod all over the vulnerable for their personal gain. Now Hager stopped Native deforestation on the west coast which was great for all New Zealanders. He exposed dirty politics which prevented someone like Don Brash and the Brethren coming into power, what a disaster that would have been. He exposed NZ true role in Iraq and Afghanistan which had an effect on our current foreign policy. And recently he effectively shut down the WO blog which we can all agree is fantastic. So don’t be so quick to demonize the man BJ.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  7th May 2016

          ‘O’: “Hager is an investigative journalist by trade”

          He is a political activist who writes books based on stolen data routinely ignored by successive Labour & National led governments.

          Whaleoil still goes on, foreign policy remains the same, John Key is still PM, Hager still makes his money through use of stolen property.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  7th May 2016

            Hager might have a face like a smacked bum & a predetermined slant on everything he produces but he has produced information I’m glad I now know.

            Reply
        • Missy

           /  8th May 2016

          Hager is not an investigative journalist – a number of NZ investigative journalists (including Ian Wishart) have stated he is no journalist. A journalist will ask questions, they will get both sides of a story, and they will actually investigate, not reproduce stolen documents and come to erroneous conclusions.

          If you think he exposed NZ’s true role in Afghanistan and Iraq you are deluded, all he did was compromise operational security. I recall an opinion piece by another journalist not long after that book, which showed a number of areas that Hager was wrong in his book, this journalist stated that he knew Hager was wrong because he (the writer) had been to Afghanistan, had spoken to people on the base, had actually seen what was going on, whereas Hager hadn’t bothered. Maybe if Hager had actually gone to Afghanistan and talked to people he would have a better idea, instead he took gossip, hearsay and stolen classified information and came to a conclusion that suited his politics and his agenda.

          If you want to really see how a good investigative journalist works, look at Ian Wishart, I may not be a big fan of some of his work, but at least he talks to people, and visits the places he writes about.

          Reply
      • Missy

         /  8th May 2016

        BJ, agree that Hager has been captured by ideologue politics.

        I know someone who was studying at Vic Uni, and Hager came to talk to them about something, but he was challenged about his book on the NZDF, and asked if he accepted he compromised operational security by identifying high value targets as being present at Kiwi Base in Bamian. Hager refused to accept that by naming names, and disclosing that US personnel were at Kiwi Base he had done anything wrong, he maintained he was in the right and everyone else was wrong – despite the fact that at least one of the people who challenged him was apparently a member of the NZDF. Hager is arrogant, and driven by his own agenda with no thought of the impact on anyone’s lives with his glory seeking.

        Reply
        • Ben and Missy, thanks for your contributions which have raised a series of issues on our Intelligence and Security posture. Ben, I suggest you re-read what Missy has said because I wonder if you really grasped what she said, and it was important. I can not get into too much detail on these subjects because unlike Snowden, I actually understand and believe in the “need to know” principle. If we examine the structure of the security and intelligence organs of state, and the development of the Acts of Parliament that apply to them, we can identify the institutions charged with Strategic Intelligence and Security Assessments and those which are responsible for the tactical aspects. Yes, there is a difference and it is important that we have the expertise in both areas for contingencies ranging all the way to readiness for General War. Why? Well you know the answer, it has to do with all that needs for Satan to prevail is for people of goodwill to do nothing (paraphrase). Hager is worth studying too so as to identify his motives, prejudices, strengths and weaknesses. It is instructive to note the titles of his publications and the focus of his writings which have given him some stature in the fringe communities who are anti-establishment. It can be demonstrated that he has used investigative journalist techniques to build his case by talking to disaffected ex-members of the Security and Intelligence Community who in a couple of cases were naive enough to forget the “need to know” principle. He now basks in the reflected glory of being the “go to man” on Echelon and 5 Eyes. Does he really deserve that accolade?

          Reply
          • Morning BJ. You’re quite correct re Missy. It is childish of me to contest facts with Missy. Especially given she evidentially has a strong grasp of the environment and situation. I didn’t reply in depth because to do so breaches any type of ‘Need to Know’. I took the fair warning about responsible disclosure.

            I agree with you re Hager. Gephi is a great, free data viz tool. I recommend RecordedFuture as an Intel product if you can get through their requirements
            🙂

            Sorry to all for often being a child. In many ways I never grew up. I’m trying though.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  8th May 2016

              I’m trying though.
              Ben you’re articulate enough to know you should probably have used a less ambiguous phrase e hoa. 😉

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  8th May 2016

              Ben: Alan said we should cut you some slack, so on reflection I will……..

              Presume you will be posting on here regularly this week when the media ‘hit’ occurs?

            • Gezza. Lol. Yeah true 🙂

              PDB. I have nothing to do with any media beat up. I’m on trial and thus must leave all real disclosure and/or explanations to the fight between Gareth Kayes and I in the courtroom.

              Just one thing… This is crucial and I want everybody to hear me when I say it.

              There has been a lot of collateral damage done in order to silence me. Some people, and one woman in particular, have been horrifically damaged by his attempts to evade justice. I fully own my actions, all of them, and I look forward to full sunlight on everyone and everything.

              BUT her, and the other innocents who have been targeted, do not deserve to be dragged through the mud a second/third/fourth time. In any discussions I take part in I will not tolerate innocent people, including HIS family, being smeared, attacked or targeted.

              That seems fair to me. Sound fair to you?

            • Ben, Recorded Future beware, there be Taniwha’s there. Know who funds it?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  8th May 2016

              Should be an interesting week……..a few different things going on

            • Yes BJ. RF is an In-Q-Tel funded outfit. In-Q-Tel is the VC arm of the CIA. I’ve been using RF almost since its inception. That should tell you all you need to know 🙂

  5. Zedd

     /  8th May 2016

    SO.. who is the biggest crook ? :/

    IF its not the #1 ‘rock-star economist’.. then why isn’t someone else mentioned first ? “nothing to see here (again with the B-S) !” 😦

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  8th May 2016

      Are you naïve? (I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are over other possibilities). It’s obvious Key gets a mention because someone specifically asks for the hacker/s to do so (your guess is as good as mine in terms of who that would be).

      Also consider the hacker/s mention Key (as PM of NZ) and his failure to do anything about the Cook Islands which New Zealand has nothing to do with in terms of taxation and trust laws. It’s like linking Key to trust laws made in Great Britain or France. So why the unfounded slur?

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  8th May 2016

        regardless.. ‘there is rarely smoke without fire’ (so I hear :D)

        sounds like more rhetoric from one of the ‘Key can do no wrong’ brigade :/

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  8th May 2016

          Nice of you Zedd to not provide any facts with your assertions (as per normal)…..

          Man-made smoke can be just that……..smoke.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th May 2016

          Umm, what are you smoking, Zedd? Your pants seem to be on fire.

          Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  8th May 2016

          When somebody takes your argument apart and you respond with “regardless”. Well, that’s pretty much the definition of deluded.

          It doesn’t matter what facts or arguments you encounter, they will only cause you to double down on dickheadery.

          Reply
          • Zedd

             /  8th May 2016

            why waste time responding to nonsensical B-S ? :/

            Its obvious that some in here think the sun shines out of Key’s A.. & ‘regardless’ of anything I say (or others) they will either just use B-S to attack OR use impolite names, to attack me ! 😀

            have a nice day y’all anyway 😦

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  8th May 2016

              I don’t think the sun shines out of it Zedd. But I don’t think he’s mooning everybody with it either … 🙂

  6. Gezza

     /  8th May 2016

    ‘sup wit Hall? Sniper assignment over?

    Reply
  7. Klik Bate

     /  8th May 2016

    IT’S OFFICIAL – Kim Dotcom provides proof HE IS NOT ‘John Doe’….

    http://thespinoff.co.nz/08-05-2016/is-the-panama-papers-john-doe-actually-kim-dotcom/

    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