Dirty Politics done in the Netsafe style.

48 comments on “Dirty Politics done in the Netsafe style. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Antoine 1

   30 March 2017 at 9:42 am

   Kia kaha
2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

   30 March 2017 at 9:42 am

   Surely there is a strong public interest in knowing exactly what sort of person Jordan Williams is, especially in the context of the case before the court at the time.

   IIRC, he was crying about having his reputation besmirched after another woman had “confided” in him.
   • lprent 2.1

     30 March 2017 at 9:47 am

     Public interest isn’t one of the direct principles in the HDCA. Read section 6

     However it is part of what the court and Netsafe has to look at. Look at s6(2)(b)..

     Drat missed that
     • reason 2.1.1

       31 March 2017 at 10:28 am

       The HDCA was pushed through by a dishonest bully under false pretenses …

       “The ex-Minister of Police and Justice, who resigned in 2014 due to close ties with an “attack blogger” who was “mercilessly attacking opponents” is the same who in April 2013 had been promoting her anti-cyber bullying legislation.” …

       “Capitalizing on Gang Rape: The Roastbusters Connection” …… “This 30 June 2015 NZ Herald article describes the legislation as “wide-reaching” and continues:

       ” The legislation was drafted after the so-called Roast Busters case, in which teenage boys boasted on-line about sex with drunk and under-age girls.

       But it wasn’t at all.

       It was drafted in April of 2013 and the Roastbusters scandal did not emerge until November 2013.”

       “Despite this, the Roastbusters scandal was used as direct and deliberate justification for the passage of the anti-Troll bill over and over and over and over and over and over again.

       From official Parliament websites and press releases, to the National Party website, to a slew of media and NGO websites, the Roastbusters scandal was referenced time and time again as being the catalyst for the bill.”

       https://www.spinbin.co.nz/grotesque-hypocrisies-behind-new-zealands-anti-troll-legislation/

       ***************************************************

       Judith and the Nacts real purpose is being dealt with by Lyn … as he fights the attempted gagging by low lifes …. who do not want the bad reputations due from their own actions and words.
3. Keith 3

   30 March 2017 at 10:11 am

   Was it not suspected that the unexpressed intention of this act was to suppress negative comment about this government and probably as a direct result of the exposure of their filthy practices in Dirty Politics. One way of the other they appear to have good control of what remains of the corporate media but this area was one they had no control of.

   Much like Keys Whistleblower legislation, because National MUST not allow any truth to escape!

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11694279
   • lprent 3.1

     30 March 2017 at 10:30 am

     I couldn’t possibly comment.

     However the ‘interesting’ reinterpretation of the requirements of the actual use of the Act does tend to make it hard to know what in the hell NetSafe are looking at and why.

     The legislation was a compromise between mass systems like facebook or twitter who are willing to deal with the kiddie or nutter complaint if Netsafe complained, and sites like this who are somewhat more discriminating and knowledgeable about their audience, environment, and the local world. For that matter we tend to be somewhat more discriminating about ‘authors’ including commenters.
     • Rightly or Wrongly 3.1.1

       30 March 2017 at 1:26 pm

       To stop a flood of malicious and vexatious complaints floating in from the ether I would have thought that Netsafe would not pass on complaints until they verified the identity of the complainant.

       Anything else is ridiculous.
       • lprent 3.1.1.1

         30 March 2017 at 3:28 pm

         They may know. However they did not do what they should have done when they sent me a notice of complaint and tell me as they are required to do in the act.
4. weka 4

   30 March 2017 at 10:28 am

   Did they really confuse The Standard with The Daily Blog?
   • lprent 4.1

     30 March 2017 at 10:31 am

     Yes. I didn’t comment much on that little error. However in my email to Netsafe pointing out their many deficiencies it was the first on my list.
     • inspider 4.1.1

       30 March 2017 at 10:52 am

       From what you have described it looks as though Netsafe have just done a flick on pass using a basic template.

       That’s disgraceful given the consequences of a successful complaint.

       Their role is not just to represent complainants, but to ensure due process to protect information providers from non compliant complaints.

       Other agencies (eg Press council, Advertising standards) won’t allow complaints that don’t fit their criteria through their doors. Netsafe should do the same.
5. Patrick 5

   30 March 2017 at 10:46 am

   The Facebook link they’ve provided “Follow NetSafe on Facebook” links to a dodgy looking herbal health and wellness page. A little weird, no?
   • weka 5.1

     30 March 2017 at 10:51 am

     Or really weird. NetsafeNZ’s FB is https://www.facebook.com/netsafeNZ/ The link in the email is https://www.facebook.com/netsafe
   • lprent 5.2

     30 March 2017 at 11:10 am

     Indeed. However their email link I checked out first (didn’t bother with facebook) was valid.
   • Neil 5.3

     31 March 2017 at 8:18 pm

     It sure looks like the email LPRENT received could quite well be a fake email & if it is, it sure makes the author of the email has made some basic mistakes of making sure the link to the netsafe facebook page directed you to their facebook page & not some herbal health wellness page. Also the start of the email saying “Hello there” which is not how someone from netsafe write & also the ending with only a first name & no indentifying job title.
6. D'Esterre 6

   30 March 2017 at 11:59 am

   Is it a scam, perchance? What public servant worth their salt begins an e-mail with “Hello there”? Or am I just out of date….

   Also the misdirected message: if it were kosher, I’d have expected Netsafe to know which blogsite ought to have been the recipient.

   And the way in which it is signed looks strange.

   We run a business from home; we receive many scam e-mails. Aspects of this are of a piece with the stuff that gets deleted from our mailbox.
   • Corokia 6.1

     30 March 2017 at 12:45 pm

     It does look very casual. Addressed to “Hello there” . No last name or position from the sender. I know formal writing standards have declined in recent years, but surely that’s a bit too relaxed for a formal complaint. Though they did refrain from using emoticons 😉
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     30 March 2017 at 2:38 pm

     Got an email that was supposedly from Auckland Transport but all the links went to some website that I didn’t recognise and a quick whois didn’t return anything reassuring.

     So I went through ATs contact page and told them of the email and how it was using all the same techniques as every single scammer throughout the entire world and that if it was legitimate they probably stop using that method. Oh, and that I’d already junked it as a basic security measure.

     The response I got back was that it was legitimate and that I should just blithely click on all those links that redirected to an unknown website with the strange URL. Yeah, not going to happen.

     The point here is that many managers in NZ don’t have a basic grasp of net security or even how the net works and they get really upset and nasty when their competence is called into question.

     I suspect that a few of Netsafes managers blood pressure has gone up a few bars.
     • Dv 6.2.1

       30 March 2017 at 3:26 pm

       Currently the ANZ bank has a warning on its login page about a scam, and click on this link to find out more. I had a moan, they said it was genuine , and showed little concern about the form.
       Click on this link to find out more, yeah right.
       • weka 6.2.1.1

         30 March 2017 at 4:25 pm

         Is the issue there that the website could be fake, or that someone could put a dodgy link into the actual ANZ site?
         • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1

           30 March 2017 at 4:53 pm

           At the very least it trains people to blindly “click here” in relation to their online finances, on websites that look sort of like (but not exactly like the consistent banking page). Mixed security message.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.1.1

             30 March 2017 at 5:28 pm

             +111
         • dv 6.2.1.1.2

           30 March 2017 at 5:17 pm

           ANZ said the link was genuine, but McFlock puts his? finger on it. And ANZ seemed to be oblivious to the problem.
           I suggested they put the line after the logon- no response.
     • D'Esterre 6.2.2

       30 March 2017 at 5:27 pm

       Draco T Bastard: “…. many managers in NZ don’t have a basic grasp of net security or even how the net works and they get really upset and nasty when their competence is called into question.”

       Very peculiar: I’d assumed that wouldn’t apply to anybody working for Netsafe. If we can’t expect punctiliousness in such matters from Netsafe of all organisations, what is the world coming to?
       • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2.1

         30 March 2017 at 6:34 pm

         You would expect the people at Netsafe to know what they’re doing but lprent’s article proves that they haven’t got a clue.
     • Strypey 6.2.3

       7 April 2017 at 2:37 am

       “The response I got back was that it was legitimate and that I should just blithely click on all those links that redirected to an unknown website with the strange URL. Yeah, not going to happen.”

       It’s really disturbing how much of people’s information is being blithely turned over to gratis “services”, companies like MailChimp and NationBuilder (yes I’m looking at you NZ Greens) who send HTML emails full of those weird links, which are designed to allow them to do all sorts of sinister tracking stuff, and can be a vector for all sorts of other spyware infections.

       I always turn off HTML email (HTML is for the web!) on any email system I used. When I get those dodgy mass emails, I immediately unsubscribe, and email the organisation to tell them why, and suggest some replacement services that respect their users and subscribers. If enough people do that, maybe there will be one less spyware-based business model, and the world would become a very slightly better place.
7. One Anonymous Bloke 7

   30 March 2017 at 12:20 pm

   Would anyone consent to intimacy with Jordan Williams if they knew his true intentions?

   Crimes Act S128 (a) 7: “A person does not consent to an act of sexual activity if he or she allows the act because he or she is mistaken about its nature and quality.”

   You can draw your own conclusions about what Jordan Williams is.
8. Matthew Whitehead 8

   30 March 2017 at 12:22 pm

   Netsafe is being paid enough that they should be doing basic checks to tell that the complaint is being directed at the correct site, for starters, let alone all the issues with not gathering the legally required information. It is completely unacceptable that they not have a human checking these things, or that they do have a human checking them and they missed such a basic error.

   And yeah, I have real sympathies if it’s the nurse who’s actually complaining. If it’s one of the scum who were talking about her though… tough bikkies. Were I Martyn, I would ask them to prove it wasn’t true before I considered taking the comment down.
   • lprent 8.1

     30 March 2017 at 1:19 pm

     $16.4 million for budget year 2016/7

     I figured that whoever it was making a false political claim would target TDB, Pete George, and probably a few other sites as well. That was why I decided that this was complete crap and to go as public as possible. As much to warn as raise awareness.

     If they go ahead and get a court order while I’m not in court or represented, then I will force an rapid hearing including a review of the way that NetSafe mishandled this. I will also go for costs.

     Besides – to me it is pretty obvious that whoever took the complaint at NetSafe simply didn’t read the post, didn’t know the Act, and I really don’t have time to deal with net illiterate numbskulls at present. It’d be simpler for me to detail a lawyer to oppose it at court while retaining the freedom to criticize NetSafe’s lack of competence.

     NetSafe were chosen because they are the choice for the net safety of schoolchildren. It isn’t a common demographic on this site or virtually any politics, tech, or any other type of site that I have frequented in the last few decades.

     Incidentally, if anyone has any horror stories with the Act and NetSafe. Please feel free to share them.
9. mary_a 9

   30 March 2017 at 12:56 pm

   Doesn’t seem a credible way for an agency such as Netsafe to do legitimate business. Quite sloppy in fact.

   I would have thought there would have been more checks and balances done prior to issuing such an email. The blog site discrepancy by the agency is quite weird! From memory I have never seen a Stephanie Rodgers blog or post on The Daily Blog. However, I stand to be corrected there.

   Anyway good luck Lyn with getting it sorted. We look forward to a satisfactory outcome, if that’s possible!
   • weka 9.1

     30 March 2017 at 1:36 pm

     Stephanie did write there for a while, a long time ago. I’d be surprised if that was why they made the mistake.
10. Psycho Milt 10

    30 March 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Interesting that people whose profession is working with the internet got the wrong blog name and also got the URL of their own Facebook page wrong – doesn’t fill you with confidence.

    Still, it was nice of Jandy to draw this to our attention, as I don’t remember reading that post at the time. Although, I guess that wasn’t the point…
    • weka 10.1

      30 March 2017 at 4:28 pm

      Hard to know if they are unaware of the Streisand Effect, or don’t care and this is just someone having a go at Lynn and/or the Trust/site.
11. McFlock 11

    30 March 2017 at 1:39 pm

    This sort of shit should be netsafe’s bread and butter work, yet they still haven’t figured out how to meet statutory requirements in their notice.

    How are they expected to muzzle dissent and discontent within the peasantry if they can’t even run a basic checklist to ensure they comply with the law?

    If you were a real bastard you’d just refuse to respond until it goes to court, upon which you’d demonstrate that Netsafe hadn’t delivered formal notice and that therefore can the trust get court costs and make them start the entire process again, please.
12. Richard@Downsouth 12

    30 March 2017 at 2:14 pm

    This is very interesting… I wonder what Netsafe will say
    • lprent 12.1

      30 March 2017 at 3:31 pm

      I may find out. Or I may not. I would take a bet on something eventually.

      Either way I suspect that the bounds of the Netsafe behaviour will need to either be set by the Ministry of Justice or the courts.
13. Cemetery Jones 13

    30 March 2017 at 3:45 pm

    “The complaint relates to two blog posts hosted on The Daily Blog, which are:

    · a blog post published on 14 September 2016 by Stephanie Rodgers ”

    Rodgers and Bradbury are comrades now? Ok this is definitely a Slater conspiracy theory.
    • mickysavage 13.1

      30 March 2017 at 9:14 pm

      Hehe.
14. Pete 14

    30 March 2017 at 4:37 pm

    April the first is Saturday. Someone got their days wrong.
15. ropata 15

    30 March 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Hopefully Netsafe gets their act together and the person who complained of “serious emotional distress” is not further distressed by this post. I would have waited before going in guns blazing like this.

    This post is OTT, it might not be dirty politics, it might just be someone who doesn’t understand the internet outside of facebook. The confusion between TDB and TS seems to point to that.

    At least you (lprent) haven’t named names, apart from the usual suspects.
    • repateet 15.1

      30 March 2017 at 6:20 pm

      Over the top? “Under the top”, well under the top, is the performance of Netsafe.

      I presume they understand the internet outside of Facebook and understand the Act.
      Would what’s here be here if their performance was acceptable?
    • Sacha 15.2

      30 March 2017 at 9:15 pm

      “Hopefully Netsafe gets their act together”

      If they want to be an official regulatory agency, hope should not be a factor.
16. In Vino 16

    30 March 2017 at 6:19 pm

    I agree with the chorus of support, and cynicism regarding Netsafe.

    A bit finicky – maybe you could fix an awkward double negative:

    “Netsafe apparently doesn’t think that the statute’s provisions do not apply to them. My notes in bold italic.”

    Then wipe this response entirely, or leave the first line?
17. EE 17

    30 March 2017 at 8:17 pm

    If this isn’t a Scam, then it is Online Bullying & Harassment.
    Have you reported it to the appropriate authorities.
    https://www.netsafe.org.nz/reportanincident/
    • In Vino 17.1

      30 March 2017 at 8:23 pm

      Good call, EE
      • xanthe 17.1.1

        30 March 2017 at 11:09 pm

        Thats actually not a silly idea at all EE . the result might be surprising!
        would be interesting to see how long it played anyway
18. Neil 18

    31 March 2017 at 8:04 pm

    I maybe wrong but the way I see it is that these emails between Williams & Slater were already in the public domain after Rawshark published them for the public to see, so how can LPRENT be in breach of the   Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 when these emails were already in the public domain

Links to post

1. Blasphemy in New Zealand: Scrap the Law Now! | Zeitung für Katzen: posted on 9 May 2017 at 9:28 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS