National keeps digging itself into a hole on budget leaks

Written By: - Date published: 9:57 am, June 12th, 2019 - 141 comments
Categories: national, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags:

Yesterday Ed posted this comment.  I thought it summed up  National’s current budgetgate problems perfectly and deserved a post of its own.

I was surprised to hear on the news (Radio NZ) that there is still discussion of a purported accusation by Grant Robertson that National had hacked information. There was an article and discussion on The Standard that analysed the various statements and showed that this was not true. 

I look at it this way. The first we knew of anything was Simon Bridges releasing some information. At that time he refused to say where it came from, but implied that he may have more; there was predictable speculation that it had been leaked by Treasury staff or someone else; that is was a deliberate sting to identify a leaker, or that someone had hacked a system. Nobody knew who had given Bridges the information or how they had got it. Robertson asked National not to release any more information, and about that time also said that Treasury had identified that their system may have been hacked – again no knowledge of by who, or implication that it may be anyone in particular but they had referred it to police.  

GCSB became involved and determined that the system had been entered through a parliamentary services computer, presumably by someone authorised, and that there were 2000 entries over 20 hours. Still no implication of anyone in particular. Note that National were connected to the leak however by having the information, and deciding to publish it.

Then Simon Bridges came clean that it was a staffer in a National party office, which implies that he had been protesting about a non-existent implication of something that was, known only to National, true! 

That leaves whether it was a hack or not. Simple search, says Simon, but then we learn that it took at least 20 hours and 2000 specific searches (not using Google), which to most people looked and smelled like hacking. This was not a simple download – it was hard work over quite some time – plenty of time to think through the ethics and to have advised Parliamentary Services or Treasury. 

So was it a hack? Most people would think so – it was using a fault to access information that they knew they should not have access to, spending a lot of time and effort getting little bits at a time. The tree was not cut with a single stroke, it took 2000 hacks to get as much as they could or wanted to get. It was obtaining information without authorisation – to most New Zealanders that is a hack – but what’s in a name? 

The real decision of concern was Bridge’s decision to publish the information to embarrass the government / public sector. He did not need to do that, but could have used the time to prepare for his speech on the budget. I don’t know why he is not being called on the false accusation that the government accused National of doing something illegal (they didn’t), and is not being criticised for releasing material that he said should not have been made public. Double standards and woolly thinking are being used to obfuscate and divert attention from the nastiness of Bridge’s decision to publish. Bridges needs to be called on throwing out false accusations to divert from his own shameful behaviour.

And Shouty Simon is back:

Good on Suzy Ferguson for trying to get Bridges to answer questions rather than trotting out his attack lines and avoiding questions about his leadership and support.

Bridges is in a difficult situation.  I wonder how it will end?

141 comments on “National keeps digging itself into a hole on budget leaks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dukeofurl 1
    12 June 2019 at 10:04 am

    "GCSB became involved and determined that the system had been entered through a parliamentary services computer, presumably by someone authorised, and that there were 2000 entries over 20 hours"

    That seems to have been worked out Treasurys own web staff , not GCSB.

    They were told that information by Treasury, and GCSB said it wasnt their area- a network intrusion- so Treasury should go to Police , which they did. If was a day and a half before the Police said it wasnt involving 'illegal behaviour' ( Im wondering if Police used their contacts to ask National about what they did before Bridges fessed up)

  2. xanthe 2
    12 June 2019 at 10:16 am

    disgusted with RNZ over this

    deliberately obfuscating and making big emphasis over "not a hack" but not explaining what actually happened which in popular usage is "hack"

    very suspicious over GCSB actions in this (or were they just unwittingly drawn in?)

    in any case the NATS knowingly used information they were not authorised to have obtained through multiple targeted exploits

    the only good thing about this is that a number of media players (editors?) have shown their hand

    • Gabby 2.1
      12 June 2019 at 11:27 am

      They also wheeled in a couple of righties to confirm Slick's successfulness and Joodee's eminent suitability. Corin seemed to accept Hootie Blowhard's assertion that the govt had been caught in a lie without comment.

  3. The Chairman 3
    12 June 2019 at 10:48 am

    This (the following) isn't good. It has been reported Ardern has given different timelines of when the GCSB information came to the Beehive.

    Moreover, has implicated herself.

    Ardern told the House that Little did not answer the 8.43pm call because he was in a meeting, but the GCSB also contacted the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet at about the same time, and she was notified soon afterwards.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12239460

    Luckily for her, a recent poll indicates most voters don't care.

    • Muttonbird 3.1
      12 June 2019 at 11:04 am

      56% believe National was wrong to seek out and release confidential budget information.

      64% believe Grant Robertson should not have to offer his resignation.

      These are landslides in the court of public opinion and show you are fighting a losing battle on this.

      • The Chairman 3.1.1
        12 June 2019 at 11:27 am

        When was the poll taken? Before or after the recent timeline and GCSB info coming to light?

        Who really wins if there is no accountability? And do you think the lack of accountability will encourage better or worse behaviour going forward?

        • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 11:44 am

          You sound strident, Chair, desperate to pin something on the PM. This issue won't do it. Be calm. Save your outrage for something outrageous.

        • SPC 3.1.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 1:49 pm

          Your take on this is compromised by sharing an ulterior motive with National, to undermine the government.

          Thus you do not see what the real issue is here.

          1. Simon Bridges has fatally compromised himself.

          1(1) A former prosecutor (reminds me of the head of police prosecutions who drove home drunk from a police bar) who participated in something totally unethical – unauthorised access to acquire confidential information. The US government is seeking to extradite Assange on this charge, and this while we have the Dotcom case before a court, the AFP is investigating journalists and concern about Huawei security. This puts him offside with the 5 Eyes and the keep everything government information safe mantra.

          1(2) This is the same man who went on a mission of vengeance against someone who leaked his expense details a few days in advance – and ran someone out of his caucus without proof, merely suspicion. Hardly someone committed to the principles of our justice system. And now he is releasing confidential government information – there is saying one thing a politician does not survive is blatant hypocrisy. So who still in his team lead him astray and into this trap to end his leadership?

          1(3) Journalists love the story – we have National arguing the case that it is wrong to accuse those who access and release confidential government information of a crime and their police force in their decision taking their side to support this argument. How things have changed since Hager. Local journalists have all the ammunation they need to accuse both National or the police of double standards if they change their tune.

      • Grantoc 3.1.2
        12 June 2019 at 9:47 pm

        According to whom Muttonbird?

        What poll are you relying on for these figures?

        If its one of the most recent TV1 or TV3 polls, because their results are totally opposed to each other, the common conclusion is that they're both, putting it mildly, unreliable.

        The upshot is that I don't believe your statement – unless you are referring to another poll, but I don't think you are.

        • Muttonbird 3.1.2.1
          12 June 2019 at 10:22 pm

          They are both specific questions from the recent Reid Research poll. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they are wrong.

          They are landslide majorities both indicating National has got this very, very wrong.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      12 June 2019 at 11:23 am

      I read that article with some concern as I though it may have some substance. By the end of it all I could say was "Meh".

      She gave estimates of times when she heard about the attack on the server which were close to each other.

      • The Chairman 3.2.1
        12 June 2019 at 11:33 am

        “She gave estimates …”

        Why didn't she give the actual time?

        • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 11:41 am

          She's stringing Bridges along, paying out the twine till he's got enough to plait a rope and then, well, you know what they say, give him enough rope and he'll…

          • alwyn 3.2.1.1.1
            12 June 2019 at 11:58 am

            She had better get on with her activity then.

            Even the Left's friends at Stuff don't think she is telling a believable story.

            "Before the stardust of her election campaign had settled into the mundane realities of governance, Ardern was asked by Newshub's Patrick Gower whether a politician could survive without lying.

            Of course, she responded, adding that she had never told a lie in politics.

            If she hadn't crossed that line before the last fortnight, she's come precariously close now – not an outright lie, perhaps, but certainly misleading by omission."

            and then

            "Ardern – and her supporters – may want everyone to move on, but there are still questions that deserve an answer and haven't yet received one."

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113414969/ardern-falls-short-so-far-in-budget-hack-response

            • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2019 at 12:02 pm

              Trying to pin a "liar" label onto Jacinda Ardern is a desperate act, Alwyn and foolish, given the aura that surrounds her. It won't work and those who pursue the strategy will continue to look pinched. You and The Chairman look that way to me.

            • SPC 3.2.1.1.1.2
              12 June 2019 at 1:34 pm

              It's a Newsroom article on the Stuff site.

              It's line of argument is that transformational means perfect, and as the government management was not perfect, it was therefore failing to be transformational. It's errant nonsense.

              It's hilarious that a party which made unauthorised accesss to confidential government information and then released it to the public, is demanding government be accountable for its silence during a police investigation into whether its action was criminally liable or not.

            • Dukeofurl 3.2.1.1.1.3
              12 June 2019 at 4:29 pm

              What 'lefts friends at Stuff'

              Stuff is essentially The Dominion on a web page. Its been anti labour since for ever. Nothing has changed from Clarks to Arderns time.

            • Gabby 3.2.1.1.1.4
              12 June 2019 at 6:45 pm

              What lie wally?

            • New view 3.2.1.1.1.5
              12 June 2019 at 8:33 pm

              Just a little support from me Alwyn. You and the Chair speak the logical truth. Robert and friends will continue to stare into the darkness with their red tinted sunnies on. It’s always John key or somebody from the past that they use to justify the bumbling incompetence of the current coalition. Lies and deception are indicative Of all Governments and this one is no different. Who gives a flying F about the opposition it’s our Government that should be accountable for how they act. They should be judged on what they have achieved which in my opinion is F. All. They are looking good living off an economy they didn’t build. What goes up will come down and so will they.

        • mpledger 3.2.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 2:32 pm

          Because she wasn't looking at her watch when she was told?

    • Booker 3.3
      12 June 2019 at 11:56 am

      Frankly, if you ask most workplaces for a timeline of everyone’s actions on a particular day you’ll get differing accounts. Saying the timelines or explanations don’t agree is evidence of lying or collusion is conspiratorial thinking. People’s accounts differ? Wow, color me surprised.

      • The Chairman 3.3.1
        12 June 2019 at 2:21 pm

        Saying the timelines or explanations don’t agree is evidence of lying or collusion is conspiratorial thinking.

        From what we know in this case is the timeline (if correct) shows the Government were informed it wasn't a hack shortly after Treasury publicly reported it being a hack. But did nothing to publicly correct Treasury's statement. Allowing the public to be misled.

        • mpledger 3.3.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 2:51 pm

          It depends what you mean by hack. The dictionary definition is "to gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer". That's what National did – they knew they were not supposed to have the data but they kept going after it – 2000 times.

          As Keith Ng said: As an award-winning rubbish hacker, let me tell you: Hacking which is lacking in sophistication, even crude to the point of embarrassment, is still hacking.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12236128

          The GSCB might have decided it was not their type of hack (e.g. a breach of computer security) but that doesn't mean it wasn't a hack by the definition above

          So, perhaps, Robertson should apoligise thusly – "I am sorry if we in any way implied that the National party made a sophisticated attack on the Treasury servers, instead we should have characterised it correctly as a very simple but concerted effort to gain confidential information that they knew they were not entitled to access. "

          • xanthe 3.3.1.1.1
            12 June 2019 at 4:02 pm

            Q when is a hack not a "hack"

            A when the national party does it.

            • Incognito 3.3.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2019 at 4:44 pm

              When pressed on whether New Zealand has a housing crisis, Bridges said: “I am the Leader of the Opposition now, I suppose I get to decide how we phrase things and where we see things.”

              This is a significant statement from the National leader.

              For years in Government, the party denied there was a housing crisis. [my bold]

              https://www.interest.co.nz/property/94145/national-leader-simon-bridges-suggests-nz-has-housing-crisis-declines-interview

            • Naki man 3.3.1.1.1.2
              12 June 2019 at 11:44 pm

              "Q when is a hack not a "hack""

              When someone uses the search bar on a public website.

              There i fixed it for you, but then surely you are not that thick,

              • RedLogix …
                13 June 2019 at 12:09 am

                Tell us all about your system administration and network security credentials again?

              • mickysavage …
                13 June 2019 at 7:36 am

                I actually think that there is a live issue here. The Crimes Act does not talk about hacking but about unauthorised access. It is hard to imagine how probing what was clearly a weakness in the site can be considered to be authorised.

                • Gosman …
                  13 June 2019 at 8:20 am

                  Are you willing to take a private prosecution on this? If not, why not given the important principles at stake?

              • xanthe …
                13 June 2019 at 7:35 pm

                oh Naki. you mean when someone makes 2000 attempts over several days exploiting a search flaw to obtain data that is unauthorised , thanks for clearing that up for us

        • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 4:45 pm

          … the Government were informed it wasn't a hack …

          For a supposed left-winger, you sure do peddle a lot of National's talking points.

          If you want to throw words like "hack" around, first define what you think that word means, then provide evidence that the Treasury secretary and Minister of Finance were operating the same meaning of the word as you are, then demonstrate that GCSB told them explicitly that the data breach did not meet that definition.

          All I've seen is GCSB giving the eminently sensible advice that they should stop using the indeterminate slang term "hack" and instead call it "unathorised access." The people trying to beat that up into a story are doing National's propaganda work for them. How about not peddling Nat propaganda on this blog? Do you think you could let a few days go by without doing that?

          • The Chairman 3.3.1.2.1
            12 June 2019 at 9:16 pm

            It was Treasury and the Government throwing the word hack around.

            I'm not peddling National's lines. This is my own perspective based upon what I've seen reported.

            And to me, it looks as if Labour and Treasury tried to beat up a story to take the heat off them. Their response has been lacking since, making them look dodgy.

            In fact, Labour's handling of this has made the matter far worse IMO. Them and Treasury should have owned the simple glitch from the onset and put the matter to bed there and then. Running around denying the information was correct, calling it a hack and calling in the GCSB and police was all too much. It was restricted info made available (in snippets) on a public website via the search feature.

            But that's not to say National have been saints in their handling of this. However, unlike Labour, do we really expect any better from them (National that is)?

            • lprent 3.3.1.2.1.1
              12 June 2019 at 10:21 pm

              Of course it had nothing to do with National not telling Treasury that it had a problem with their website – right? Which National did the following morning – but only after the source had been discovered.

              Incidentally I still think that the National staffer should have been charged under the computer crimes section of the Crimes Act. I’m incensed that the police appear to have absolutely no understanding of computer crimes because they seldom bring charges under it – regardless of how serious the effects can be. Like this treasury one or that stupid dipshit Slater trying to procure a hack on my computers…

              • The Chairman …
                12 June 2019 at 10:59 pm

                National could have handled this far better. And in doing so would have given them the higher ground. So as it stands, there are no winners from this. They are all looking damaged from where I sit.

                Unfortunately, it has now gotten to the stage where Jacinda has been implicated. And Jacinda is one MP Labour can't afford to be politically damaged.

              • Gosman …
                13 June 2019 at 12:55 pm

                How long will it take you to reach the decision on the private prosecution? I thought you were stating around 6 months. Does this mean you will decide around November of this year?

                • lprent …
                  13 June 2019 at 4:47 pm

                  Figure out when the information becomes accessible to the public from various inquiries via OIA. That will need to include the specific person(s) who have tirelessly extracted the tid bits using (apparently) parliamentary services computers. They are the people who need to be charged in the first instance because they would have to have a unlawful act determined by the courts first.

                  Similarly the grounds for the police to not charge them may become public. Who knows – it may actually have something legally interesting in it. But I suspect it will actually say in effect that prosecution would be too hard for them to do (because they’re particularly dumb when it comes to computer crimes).

                  If the alleged perpetrators were in fact parliamentary services or other civil servants then it may be that their employer(s) will have something to say about it after the enquiries are completed. It really doesn’t sound like it is something that would ethically fit into any public service employment contract. Much like Jason Ede running a dirty politics operation with a close association Cameron Slater out of John Key’s office was a terminal employment experience, so could Simon Bridges running benefiting from some data thieves could also get a terminal exit.

                  It’d happen when and if I’m reasonably confident that there is enough information to run a successful prosecution and that it’d help act as a clarification of the legal position for the police to act on for future cases. Don’t get impatient.

                  Besides, half of the fun is to simply leave Damocles sword hovering. Just think of the ones that have been hovering over Slater for his past misdeeds and the effects that has had on him. Be sure to point that out…

        • Stuart Munro. 3.3.1.3
          12 June 2019 at 6:19 pm

          I'd be more interested in the timeline of accessing the information and passing it within the Gnats. The culpability lies with the thieves, not the householders.

    • ankerawshark 3.4
      12 June 2019 at 12:33 pm

      That's right The Chairman…..Most voters don't care about the leak, hack, unauthorized access.

      I had the thought if the secretary of Treasury decided that by calling it a hack and calling in the police, he was acting in NZ's best interests and this would ensure no more leaks (and it did) then he did the right thing. Think of it this way, if this was a big business and their information had been obtained by unauthorized access, even if it was there fault, they would do everything they could to stop further leaks. I know I would.

      I think it says everything that National spent 20 hours on this……..ie trying to obtain unauthorized access to the budget. There is a great article today by Karl du Frense of all people saying there is nothing to remember John Key for. Yes National did next to nothing for 9 years.

      • The Chairman 3.4.1
        12 June 2019 at 1:38 pm

        There is evidence (the search indexing being repaired) Treasury already new and corrected the security flaw. Makhlouf didn't have to call it a hack to call in the police.

        Which, in the end, didn't look good when they (the police) came back and decided there was no crime.

        It did silence the opposition and saved the Government from further embarrassment in that regard. But raised more questions in the process.

        Is allowing it to be called a hack (when knowing otherwise) and attempting to use the police (albeit the police smartly dropping it) as a means to silence the opposition and save the Government from further embarrassment really a perception that sits comfortably? Moreover, is it one the Government wants to leave hanging out there?

        Now that more evidence has come to light, the public mood on the matter may change.

        • ankerawshark 3.4.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 1:53 pm

          I am thinking that if an opponent were unauthorized to obtain my confidential information (in business or personal, not that I have opponents as such) and I was unsure what else they were going to leak, I would do whatever it took to stop them. This may not be an equivalent situation, but I think the point is worth making.

          National accessed information they were not authorized to have. It wasn't that they randomly came across it. It took them 2000 attempts and took, I think 20 hours. That is dodgy and not o.k.

          They then chose to leak the information. This goes against an agreed understanding around the budget. They could hav

        • SPC 3.4.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 2:08 pm

          There is no embarrrassment to government over the minor security weakness on the Treasury site which National chose to exploit – with fatal consequences for their leader (there is now no way he will return from summer recess to lead National next year).

          It is simply form to end comment while police were investigating. And in using the term unauthorised accesss, rather than hack, on the Wednesday they had moved things on indirectly.

          More information … .

          You are really transparent.

          You support a National conspiracy to get Robertson to offer to resign (form when a leak occurs and National manufactured the leak for this purpose). As for the leak cover up non story – all there is, is a Treasury Sec over-egging the intrusion into the Treasury dummy server as a forced entry form of "hacking". Their reason they want a right wing government and you want a left wing government and you both see this government as being in the way.

          • RedLogix 3.4.1.2.1
            12 June 2019 at 2:36 pm

            The word 'hack' is an informal term with a number of connotations. One of which 'unauthorised access' according to this source :

            https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hack

            Given that Mahklouf did not know the details of how the unauthorised access had occurred it's entirely defensible for him to use the word 'hack'.

            That the actual access was not an 'internal network intrusion' of the kind that falls into the GCSB's scope apparently (I'd like to see exactly why this is so) they suggested it should be passed onto the Police. On the face of it this is a pretty 'unhelpful' response, surely the leaking of a major govt document might have been of a little more interest to them than this.

            As for the Police, their interpretation of 'legal' here seems perverse at best.

            • SPC 3.4.1.2.1.1
              12 June 2019 at 3:02 pm

              For mine, it's likely GCSB knew the source of the search was a parliamentary computer and one and one = National, as they had the information.

              Given it's just a dummy server method used every year by Treasury that's vulnerable, and this had now been exposed (Treasury fixed it on the Tuesday afternoon), you could see why GCSB saw no reason for involvement.

              That police do not want to get dirty in the parliamentary sandpit is fairly obvious, but the principle that what Bridges team did was not illegal is setting a higher bar for future prosecution that journalists would appreciate – one reason for their apparent effort to help National perpetuate the story.

              Given it exposes Bridges as a hypocrite one cannot argue it is partisan (apart from those like Hooton who drives it on because his real target is Bridges).

            • The Chairman 3.4.1.2.1.2
              12 June 2019 at 3:13 pm

              Seeing as the info was knowingly restricted but appeared on a public domain, the term "unauthorised access" is questionable.

              It would explain why the access was not an 'internal network intrusion' of the kind that falls into the GCSB's scope. And it would also explain the position taken by the police.

              Given that the search indexing flaw had been repaired, it is also questionable Makhlouf did not know the details of how the access had occurred.

              • SPC …
                12 June 2019 at 3:32 pm

                I am fairly sure National passed legislation that said that unauthorised access to confidential government information and making that public was pretty illegal.

                Does police aversion to getting involved in the parliamentary sandpit place National above the law? Will journalists claim they too should be exempt from this onerous burden placed in the way of their holding government to account?

                • Gabby …
                  12 June 2019 at 7:30 pm

                  Yebbit that was to protect THEM, not any old peasant.

                • Grantoc …
                  12 June 2019 at 9:55 pm

                  SPC

                  If you believe National's behaviour was 'pretty illegal' why don't you take a private prosecution against them for their apparent 'illegal' activity.

                  Test it in the courts. Nothing is stopping you.

              • RedLogix …
                12 June 2019 at 4:26 pm

                but appeared on a public domain, the term "unauthorised access" is questionable.

                Accessible is not the same thing as 'authorised'. There is no evidence that Minister Robertson authorised the Treasury web team to place confidential Budget documents in the 'public domain' prior to Budget Day. The Minister, or designated person, is the ONLY person with the authority to alter the confidentiality of this important government document.

                An unintended security lapse does not equal authorisation. Any other interpretation is woolly, wishful thinking.

                • The Chairman …
                  12 June 2019 at 9:35 pm

                  While access is not the same thing as “authorised”, one doesn't have to be "authorised" to access info accessible on a public website.

                  • RedLogix …
                    12 June 2019 at 9:51 pm

                    It was never a 'public website'. The Minister was the only person who could authorise the publication prior to Budget and there is no evidence this was the case.

                    Again just because it was 'accessible' does not make it 'public'. This had to be obvious for three reasons:

                    1. The indirect, fragmentary access via the local search engine only. There was never a fully published website with navigable links in the normal fashion. This was clearly a security flaw, not a published website.

                    2. The nature of the material found. Everyone knew the Budget was private and confidential at that point in time.

                    3. The fact that Bridges himself called it a 'leak'. In other words he knew he didn't have authorisation to access these files.

                    • The Chairman …
                      12 June 2019 at 10:26 pm

                      It was never a 'public website'.

                      And that is where your argument falls down. Snippets were indeed accessible via searching the public website.

                      Yes, Bridges should have known he wasn't authorised, but he didn't require authorisation to access the info as it was on a public website due to the search indexing flaw.

                    • Incognito []
                      12 June 2019 at 10:58 pm

                      So, he wasn’t authorised to do something for which he didn’t need authorisation!?

                      In any case, he wasn’t authorised to publish the information in the public domain irrespective of how and where he’d obtained it. He knew this and he did it anyway and thus crossed the line into really dirty behaviour. Then he didn’t come clean until Thursday morning and now he has the audacity to make accusations for being called out!

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2019 at 11:07 pm

                      Snippets were indeed accessible via searching the public website.

                      My argument is watertight. In order for people to use any computer system there must be interfaces where people can interact with it. These can be internet clients, local network clients, physical access via USB ports and the like. From a cybersecurity perspective these interfaces create an 'attack surface'. They can be minimised but never reduced to zero; they are an inherent attribute of all computer systems.

                      The goal of security is to ensure all users are constrained to data and parts of the system they are authorised for. Public users on the public website will be authorised to only access information on that part of the system. They will not be allowed to access private data, or perform admin functions.

                      Normally there will be multiple layers protecting the system 'defending in depth' with tools like firewalls, intrusion monitors, authorisation credentials, or if you really want to get cute, data diodes.

                      In this instance the 'attack surface' was the public website, but the security flaw was the local search tool that inadvertently allowed an intrusion into another part of the system that was not public. That it was a technically easy intrusion (it would have to be for National to manage it) is irrelevant, it was still access to a part of the Treasury system they were not permitted.

                    • Incognito []
                      12 June 2019 at 11:18 pm

                      Case closed, you’d think. Very well explained to a layperson, thank you. The only way to make a computer 100% safe from unauthorised access from outside is to remove it from the network. But then nobody would be able to use it, not even authorised people.

                      Some people seem to argue that the information was in full view on the landing page of Treasury and one couldn’t miss it. Of course, this is inconsistent with the 2,000 access attempts over 20 (48?) hours.

                    • The Chairman …
                      12 June 2019 at 11:27 pm

                      My argument is watertight

                      Afraid not, sorry.

                      In this instance the 'attack surface' was the public website, but the security flaw was the local search tool that inadvertently allowed an intrusion into another part of the system that was not public.

                      Not quite. The indexing in the local search tool inadvertently allowed info held on the secured host to be accessible on the public site.

                      Hence, they weren't accessing a part of the Treasury system they were not permitted too.

                    • Incognito []
                      12 June 2019 at 11:36 pm

                      If you accidentally leave the door to your safe unlocked and somebody tries it, opens it, accesses your information that you store in there and then publishes it into the public domain, it think you’ll agree that it was unauthorised access.

                      In fact, if you have locked your safe and somebody makes 2,000 attempts to open and then succeeds, it is equally unauthorised.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2019 at 11:36 pm

                      This is why aliens don't talk to us ….

                    • The Al1en …
                      12 June 2019 at 11:39 pm

                      This is why aliens don't talk to us ….

                      I will, but only when you rename this topic 'The Chairman keeps digging itself into a hole on budget leaks' cheeky

              • Gabby …
                12 June 2019 at 7:29 pm

                If you pick up my diary are you 'authorised' to read it cherry?

                • The Chairman …
                  12 June 2019 at 9:37 pm

                  If you made it accessible on a public website, then yes.

                  • RedLogix …
                    12 June 2019 at 9:55 pm

                    Not if you sneaked into her bedroom to read it.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    13 June 2019 at 11:05 am

                    Very curious, Robert (best of luck advocating for a Climate Emergency declaration).

                    The Chairman, who by their own admission is "more left than most", appears to be bending over backwards to criticise the public service and government responses to National's acquisition (via ~2000 separate online searches) and public release of confidential budget information.

                    Why, oh why would 'someone' who is "more left than most" write so many comments critiquing the Government? It's not as if the Government started this – the opposition sourced the confidential budget-related info, and the 'leader' of the opposition leaked it to the public via the media.

                    More leaks to come, I’m sure, from the 'tight as a drum' National party. But they’re a big party, and National MPs are so good under pressure and under Bridge's 'leadership'. #Let'sKeepSimon

          • Jimmy 3.4.1.2.2
            12 June 2019 at 2:42 pm

            Robertson would never offer to resign. He has been on the gravy train too long. And who would employ him in the real world?

        • Dukeofurl 3.4.1.3
          12 June 2019 at 2:15 pm

          "There is evidence (the search indexing being repaired) Treasury already new and corrected the security flaw. Makhlouf didn't have to call it a hack to call in the police."

          What evidence ? is it some sort of hidden jewel you know of that glitters in your hand?

          Treasury officilas went to the GCSB , who from the evidence Treasury had said it wasnt something they could investigate – a outside network intrusion- GCSB said Go to The Police

          So they did

          • SPC 3.4.1.3.1
            12 June 2019 at 2:36 pm

            Treasury did identify the vulnerability National used to get minor information (headers) off their dummy server on the Tuesday afternoon.

            But yeah GCSB advised the Treasury Sec to refer the unauthorised access to confidential government information to police. Stopping what had been happening would not change that.

          • The Chairman 3.4.1.3.2
            12 June 2019 at 4:04 pm

            What evidence ? is it some sort of hidden jewel you know of that glitters in your hand?

            It was reported that on Tuesday, May 28 the indexing flaw was repaired preventing any further info going onto the public domain.

            And as it turned out, the police weren't interested. Therefore, calling it a hack and calling in the police all seemed a bit dramatic to say the least. Which, along with Grant's statement tarring National and no correction given, raises questions as to why they went to such lengths?

            • Incognito 3.4.1.3.2.1
              12 June 2019 at 4:14 pm

              It was reported that on Tuesday, May 28 the indexing flaw was repaired preventing any further info going onto the public domain unauthorised.

              FIFY

              In other words, they’d taken measures to prevent any further hacking.

            • alwyn 3.4.1.3.2.2
              12 June 2019 at 6:13 pm

              " Which, along with Grant's statement tarring National and no correction given, raises questions as to why they went to such lengths?"

              Have you ever met any of today's breed of career politicians. They aren't in it for the good they can do. They are in it because it is the only thing they know and they will fight to the death to keep their job, their perks and their power. Debate in Parliament is war, and they go for the kill.

              It is happening to both sides unfortunately. The days of people like Finlayson, Shearer, Joyce and Hague are sadly gone. Now we follow the British situation where they go to University, do a degree in politics, take part in Student Politics and then get a job working for an MP or Minister, or in the Party Office and then become an MP is becoming far to much the norm. Now we have people like Robertson, Hipkins, Ardern, Swarbrick and Ross. They can't do anything else.

            • The Al1en 3.4.1.3.2.3
              12 June 2019 at 6:22 pm

              along with Grant's statement tarring National

              He could only have tarred national if he knew it was them who breached the treasury site. Knowing what we now know, it's no wonder Bridges had to come out swinging – The best form of defence being attack.

              Robertson never said it was the nats that done it, obviously as he didn't know at the time, he just advised them not to publish any more because treasury had said it was a hack.

              As far as I’m concerned, the big issues are why didn’t national abide by the legislation put in place by Simon when he was a minister and report the data breach to the treasury? and why didn’t he own up on the night the shit went down?

              His is the only scalp coming.

            • Psycho Milt 3.4.1.3.2.4
              12 June 2019 at 6:55 pm

              And as it turned out, the police weren't interested.

              1. That doesn't mean no crime was committed.

              2. The police often aren't interested in investigating alleged offences involving politicians, because it's way more trouble (for them) than it's worth (to them).

              Therefore, calling it a hack and calling in the police all seemed a bit dramatic to say the least.

              Sure. More appropriate terms would be "data breach" or "unauthorised access." Why is it that you're more concerned with quibbling over the word "hack" than about a deliberate data breach of a government agency by a party claiming to be a contender for government power?

              • Robert Guyton …
                13 June 2019 at 6:55 am

                "

                a deliberate data breach of a government agency by a party claiming to be a contender for government power?"

                Elegantly and accurately put.

        • McFlock 3.4.1.4
          12 June 2019 at 2:21 pm

          If the police word is the last word on the matter, I will be very disappointed.

          As for your semantic bullshit, I believe you're being disingenuous but let's look at it through a different lens:

          Use of the word "hack" from a Crocodile Dundee approach

          Treasury saw 2000 exploits of their search engine over 20 hours to extract confidential information via an undetected security flaw. They report it to the GCSB like Sue Charlton says "He's got a knife".

          GCSB smirk in their best ruggedly-handsome way and say "that's not a knife", and tell Sue to just take it to the bloody the cops.

          But everyone knows it really was a knife, just that the GCSB's knives are bigger.

          Oh wait – the GCSB thought it was a police matter, even though the cops decided it wasn't? Hmmm.

    • ianmac 3.5
      12 June 2019 at 1:35 pm

      the GCSB also contacted the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet at about the same time, and she was notified soon afterwards.

      Did GCSB ever contact the PM office? Sure about that Chairman?

      8:02pm – Treasury issued its press release advising there had been a deliberate and systemic hack and it had referred this to police

      • 8:43pm – Mr Little's office first spoke to the GCSB. (No. The GCSB called the office.)

      • 9:43pm – Mr Little spoke to the GCSB

      • 9:52 pm – Mr Little contacted the prime minister's office

      • 10:25pm – Mr Little contacted Finance Minister Grant Robertson via text message

      • The Chairman 3.5.1
        12 June 2019 at 1:51 pm

        Did GCSB ever contact the PM office? Sure about that Chairman?

        That is what has been reported.

        Apparently, Jacinda was one of the first in Government to be informed.

        • Dukeofurl 3.5.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 2:19 pm

          Its was the Head of the DPMC who spoke to GCSB , not Adern.

          Having acted illegally themselves in the past GCSB arent the ones to be a reliable source on what is/isnt legal.
          Where did GCSB source its ‘new’ information after previously told Treasury to go to the Police. Did they get the story from National?

          In Keys day we would have had to wait 9-36 months for OIA release of details to be appealed and then Eagleson would have said 'If the documents contradict the PM , then the documents are wrong'

        • SPC 3.5.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 2:30 pm

          You miss the most important detail.

          National originally claimed the govenment accused National of hacking the Treasury site AFTER being informed by GCSB there was no systematic hack of government IT security.

          It is now clear from the timeline

          1. that GCSB only sought to inform government of what they had said to the Treasury Sec, AFTER BOTH the Treasury Sec and Minister of Finance had made media statements. The one by Robertson merely said that National should not release further information while the police investigated the matter referred to it by the Treasury Sec.

          2. The Treasury Sec referred the matter to the police in the afternoon before he informed the Minister of Finance (after 7pm) that GCSB had said it was not a systematic hack of Government IT systems. He presumably made the case to the Minister it was still an unathorised access "hacking" of the Treasury site confidential information.

          3. It was simply a statement of fact by the Minister of Finance that the matter had been referred to the police as a hacking. And given GCSB had suggested the Treasury Sec refer what had happened to police … this is where the government left it.

          • Dukeofurl 3.5.1.2.1
            12 June 2019 at 4:25 pm

            Was the Police AND GCSB told by national 'how they did it'

            Also it seemed very strange that the Private conversations of the head of GCSB and Little were leaked to the media.

            Im presuming it was second hand information otherwise the GCSB head would have packed his briefcase.

            Was the information leaked by national who have sources deep inside GCSB and supplied the inside story ahead of Bridges ' big reveal' the morning of the Budget

  4. Infussd 4
    12 June 2019 at 10:54 am

    Like i said a week ago. This wont be bad for national

    • Muttonbird 4.1
      12 June 2019 at 11:57 am

      It already is. They are polling under 40% now.

      • rozgonz 4.1.1
        12 June 2019 at 12:57 pm

        haha, but only in one poll, the one you choose to believe no doubt…

        • michelle 4.1.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 1:54 pm

          Really it doesnt matter which poll we choose to believe cause they both show soimon is unpopular in the meantime all the sucking up and pandering we can see right through it national are doing there best to smooth over everything cause they are a strong team soimon said

        • peterh 4.1.1.2
          12 June 2019 at 4:04 pm

          And not the one Bridges and the Nats believe

      • infused 4.1.2
        12 June 2019 at 6:47 pm

        you're delusional. tv1 poll was after this mess. it's far more reliable imo.

        • Muttonbird 4.1.2.1
          12 June 2019 at 6:58 pm

          No. The TV1 poll was such a short time frame, just 4 days, and seems to have been rushed. It can be ruled out as being reliable in any way.

  5. Infused 5
    12 June 2019 at 10:59 am

    Also why am I in moderation

    Edit wait what

    [No idea. Machine may be having a bad hair day … – MS]

    • lprent 5.1
      12 June 2019 at 1:00 pm

      The computer probably only has cat hair..

      I don't shed much any more and while my partner has longer hair than my balding pate, but she seems to wash it far from the computer and more frequently than I do.

      Mort the other hand grooms himself almost hourly just outside the chicken wire protecting the nice warm servers.

      So are you suggesting that my cat is bad ?

      😈

      That reverse logic makes more sense than Simon did about his use of hacked material in that interview. He sounds as Kafka as Hooton does when he is lying.

  6. Kevin 6
    12 June 2019 at 11:39 am

    Bridges doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an interview and a party political broadcast.

    • tc 6.1
      12 June 2019 at 12:15 pm

      With our media it doesn't matter as they've shown again that they're simply extensions of the national party political machines. Tranzrail shares anybody ?

      They know it and use it effectively, hats off to them. Up to the govt to do something about this shitshow of a media landscape we now have if they can be bothered.

    • Dukeofurl 6.2
      12 June 2019 at 2:27 pm

      Its how Politicians the world over who are poor communicators talk .

      In Britain its famously called the Maybot

      Staff provide scripted lines , which are to be repeated ad nauseaum to any question at all. The idea is to stay on message which wears out the interview time, doesnt provide a gotcha moment for the news headlines. But the voters just hear a slow chainsaw which irritates them but not sure why.

      End result is 5% in polls

      • alwyn 6.2.1
        12 June 2019 at 6:21 pm

        "Staff provide scripted lines , which are to be repeated ad nauseam to any question at all. The idea is to stay on message which wears out the interview time, doesn't provide a gotcha moment for the news headlines".

        That sounds like an absolutely perfect description of the PM during Question Time in the House. Luckily for her she has Trevor as a bodyguard.

        Unfortunately people don't hear her very often. They only see her through the rose-tinted viewpoint of the MSM reporters.

    • mac1 6.3
      12 June 2019 at 3:51 pm

      "Bridges doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an interview and a party political broadcast." He doesn't know the difference between a party political broadcast and an afetr-dinner speech either, as recently witnessed at a national three day conference.

  7. UncookedSelachimorpha 7
    12 June 2019 at 12:17 pm

    They released the info in the National interest.

    “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
    Groucho Marx

  8. rozgonz 8
    12 June 2019 at 12:53 pm

    How hypocritical can you be? Do you honestly believe if a Labour opposition had found themselves in the same situation that they wouldn't have done exactly the same thing. It called politics DOH, quit the holier than thou act will you

    • I feel love 8.1
      12 June 2019 at 1:12 pm

      Oh gawd, another one… "Labour did it too/Labour woulda done it too", maybe in your head, meanwhile in the real world…

    • Cinny 8.2
      12 June 2019 at 1:36 pm

      They were, and they didn't, instead Clare Curran contacted judith collins re an exploit rather than going to media. But hey don't let the facts get in the way….

      Details of the "vulnerability" were made public in April, after the man – who says he was operating with the best intentions – tipped off Labour MP Clare Curran. She passed on details to Justice Minister Judith Collins and told officials he was prepared to co-operate in any way he could to ensure the flaw was fixed.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8773406/Justice-hacker-sparks-police-probe

      • Marcus Morris 8.2.1
        12 June 2019 at 2:56 pm

        I seem to recall an incident early in the John Key tenure of office when a certain National MP with the surname Worth acted injudiciously. Am I correct in thinking that Labour Leader Phil Goff acted very honourably on that issue – I believe that he had information ahead of JK but informed the PM rather than make political capital for himself. I am getting old. Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me. Whatever the case, Bridges has behaved despicably and only his party devotees will think otherwise.

        • Tiger Mountain 8.2.1.1
          12 June 2019 at 4:02 pm

          That was when randy old goat Worth was caught w*****g over a sleeping woman in a hotel room apparently.

    • ianmac 8.3
      12 June 2019 at 2:01 pm

      The PM yesterday gave 3 examples where over the years, news of leaks were sent to the site owners without releasing the leaks.

    • Dukeofurl 8.4
      12 June 2019 at 2:09 pm

      What do you say to that rozgonz ?

      • I feel love 8.4.1
        12 June 2019 at 4:45 pm

        roz is gonz zzzzz

      • rozgonz 8.4.2
        13 June 2019 at 4:37 pm

        I say BS, but hey Princess Jacinta can obviously do no wrong in your eyes. The fairy dust will eventually settle and you will see her for the complete and utter flake that she really is

        • McFlock 8.4.2.1
          13 June 2019 at 4:44 pm

          But you asked "Do you honestly believe if a Labour opposition had found themselves in the same situation that they wouldn't have done exactly the same thing. "

          It turns out that the Labour party, while in opposition, had found themselves in the same situation… and acted honourably.

          You guys just might be the baddies.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 8.4.2.2
          13 June 2019 at 6:28 pm

          Roz "utter flake" gonz can't spell the NZ Prime Minister's first name; thinks PM Ardern's a fairy princess (ffs)!

          Rozgonz appears to be a simple and worthless cheerleader for 'team National' – a possible Bridges supporter (ffs x2)!!

          “It dawned on me, ‘I know this script, I helped write this script.’ At that point, I felt bad for what I did to Todd. But that’s the modus operandi of the National Party – when people become a liability you push them out the door.”

    • mpledger 8.5
      12 June 2019 at 3:03 pm

      They have (they found a problem with National's website) , they didn't (they informed National of the problem).

      Peter Williams told a story on RNZ about how he went to pick up some party donation money from a company and the company gave him an envelope. Inside that envelope was another envelope which he opened and found it to be a donation to the National party so he returned that envelope to the company so it could be given to National. (IIRC)

      So yea, there is evidence that Labour wouldn't have.

    • Panda 8.6
      14 June 2019 at 5:29 am

      Winston has already shown occassions where they have been in a position of having information and did not disclose it to the media but took it to the Govt at that time.

  9. Kerry 9
    12 June 2019 at 1:37 pm

    So under national I paid $50+ to see the Dr….now I pay $15….and I get an extra $20+ a week during the winter months………Labour is working for me…..after the 9 years of National looking after themselves and themselves only…not to mention useless “tugger” of hair Key….and ACT achieving nothing for any kiwi…ever!

  10. ankerawshark 10
    12 June 2019 at 2:00 pm

    I am thinking that if an opponent were unauthorized to obtain my confidential information (in business or personal, not that I have opponents as such) and I was unsure what else they were going to leak, I would do whatever it took to stop them. This may not be an equivalent situation, but I think the point is worth making.

    National accessed information they were not authorized to have. It wasn't that they randomly came across it. It took them 2000 attempts and took, I think 20 hours. That is dodgy and not o.k.

    They then chose to leak the information. This goes against an agreed understanding around the budget. They could have alerted treasury to attend to the fault and then made political capital out of the weakness due to human error in the system.

    National then accused Labour of slurring them, because it was announced that it was a hack.

    " allowing it to be called a hack (when knowing otherwise) and attempting to use the police (albeit the police smartly dropping it) as a means to silence the opposition and save the Government from further embarrassment really a perception that sits comfortably? "

    The Chairman, the govt had already been embarrassed by the leak/unauthorized accessing of the budget and its publication. They needed to shut it down, because National were in the wrong leaking it, National could have had info that it wasn't in the best interests in the country to have leaked. And like I said, if my confidential business material was being leaked by someone who was unauthorized to use it/have it, I would do whatever it took within the law to stop it.

  11. Observer Tokoroa 11
    12 June 2019 at 2:16 pm

    Simon Digging his Shit Hole

    I am reluctant to blame a person for being a little slow. A screw or two loose. Simon however, has buried his Integrity wantonly. His Honesty too – if he ever had any. He is the Epitome of his Party.

    Simon has less noblity than a poodles piddle. He just screams like a tiny-tott Girl – day and night.

    He told a staffer do distribute significant Documents which National had stolen from Treasury. He Released them to His buddies and to the sickening media Commentators, some of whom slough their way around our Parliament. Nonentities.

    "”labour is this. “Twyford is that. “Labour are Useless''. "”Ardern is a liar”' That is Nationals' ****hole, for it is deeply wrong and incorrect.

    Simon Bridges wanted to destroy a very fine young woman – Jacinda Ardern – Labour. Admired by over 60% of New Zealand voters. Jacinda is our Prime Minister.

    Simon Bridges is admired by 5% of New Zealand Voters.

    Labour Is a fine Political Party that gets excellent Results. It has given New Zealanders an Astonishing 55 Billions of Dollars – personal saved money – within just a few short years.

    Only a mug (or a troll) would pretend to give National a rats a chance of being admired by New Zealanders.

  12. Observer Tokoroa 12
    12 June 2019 at 3:09 pm

    Hello PukeofFurl

    Are you down the same hole as Dear Simon?

    Pity …

  13. Observer Tokoroa 13
    12 June 2019 at 3:14 pm

    Hello Jimmy

    I see you are struggling.

    You like to feel depressed and disappointed. Always remember you only have your little self to blame – Little Jimmy.

    Get back to bed now

    • Jimmy 13.1
      12 June 2019 at 3:36 pm

      Thank goodness there is extra spending in metal health and addiction services for people like you OT. Sometimes your posts and comments are at least funny in a ranty kind of way, but you have lost it…dining on mushrooms from the Tokoroa bush i think.

      • Observer Tokoroa 13.1.2
        12 June 2019 at 7:02 pm

        hi Jimmy

        Lol. I am into cereals. I certainly like to leave Marijuana and Methanphetmines and other dainty dishes to Members of the National Party. Mrs Bennett says she digs the Weed. She never seems to know who is guilty and who is not. Weed problem I suppose.

        Perhaps that is why she spills the highy confidential beans on females and their assorrted mates – at all sorts of odd times. In Parliament and out of Parliament too.

        Enjoy your Toadstools Jimmy

        And remember that the Labour Party are The Party that has enabled 55 Billions of Dollars – to people who saved – Personally in Kiwi saver.

        While John Key was trying to get up the dress of his Cafe Maid. Until Bronagh told him to leave her alone.

        Bit of a rabid rat – our Johny Key – mmm

  14. Peter 14
    12 June 2019 at 3:40 pm

    On two days this week Matthew Hooton has been on RNZ vociferously, repeatedly, claiming that a or some ministers lied. Does anyone here know what he's on about or is it it that he is following up the 'fake news' strategy Simon Bridges has used a couple of times this year ?

    • SPC 14.1
      12 June 2019 at 3:54 pm

      For mine he is part of a faction that is leading Bridges astray and to his downfall.

      TACTIC 1

      Tempting Bridges to exploit access to the Treasury budget information as a cunning plan to induce the Minister of Finance to offer to resign (this is form when a budget leak occurs.

      To do so after Bridges went "postal" after a leak of his expenses, exposes him as a hypocrite – often fatal for a politician.

      TACTIC 2

      Supporting Bridges in his righteous indignation over being accused of doing something improper and demanding justice

      This after he forced a person out of caucus on suspicion, without proof.

      Doubling down on this guy being exposed as a hypocrite.

      It's all worse when you have a former prosecutor who supposedly has respect for the law and due process – he was part of a government that wrote law that said unauthorised access to confidential information was pretty illegal.

    • Kat 14.2
      12 June 2019 at 4:07 pm

      No one is listening to Mathew Hooton let alone taking him seriously, at best his comments echo around creating a cacophony in the murky bluish void between his ears. He joins the other gurgling screeching irrelevant National party poodles creating a sound similar to disappearing bath water swirling down the plughole……..

    • R.P Mcmurphy 14.3
      12 June 2019 at 7:41 pm

      hooton is really big on calling other people liars. that is unparliamentary but nothing deters him from badmouthing anyone or anybody. he is scum.

  15. Observer Tokoroa 15
    12 June 2019 at 7:35 pm

    A Note to the Speaker of the House

    Mr Speaker, The Right Honourable Mr Trevor Mallard

    You may not have noticed that there is a Member of Parliament who tries to bog you down every time he gets a glimpse of you. The Person is an unusual individual, in that he picks little fragants of useless information and throws them around Parliament as if Parliament were a load of invisible insects.

    He does this same thing in front of the Media too. Not that the media knows what an insect has to do with Politics.

    Mr Simon Bridges has a vast variety of Ticks. He uses them to make sure Mr Speaker that you do not understand what the Hell he is saying. Ticks crawl over his thought; apparently, and over his facial expressions, leading him up to where he has forgotten what he thought he wanted to say.

    He comes out 27 times a day with this Tick: "Does Sheee still say this ?" (It is not a nice way to refer to his Wife- is it Mr Speaker ?)

    I Beg you Mr Speaker, to make our Parliament a true and Honest Chamber. I beg you to release Mr Bridges from his tiresome disabilities; and ask him to clean up any other Ticks that he and National may still have in their threadbare Caucus.

    Be Merciful to us all Mr Speaker ! Thank You

  16. WILD KATIPO 16
    12 June 2019 at 8:08 pm

    Alwyn ?… are you there?

    Body language and tone of voice ?

    Hello?

  17. I feel love 17
    13 June 2019 at 9:17 am

    Whatever the semantics around "hack" or "unauthorised access" it's basically theft. The leader of the opposition is a thief (or at the least was a receiver of stolen goods). IMO. #keepsimon

  18. Lucy 18
    13 June 2019 at 9:38 am

    Before we dismiss the word hack we need to consider Kevin Mitnick he compromised a large number of computer systems using social engineering i.e. ringing up admins and persuading them to change passwords and for that he served five years in prison—four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement. So hacking is not just using bots to bombard the system and the National staffer has committed a crime, but as in Trumps case they are yelling hack to obfuscate the actual crime.