Open mike 08/04/2014

144 comments on “Open mike 08/04/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. North 1

   8 April 2014 at 6:58 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11233921

   Thank you NOT Muldoon, Hanna Barbera, Dancing Cossacks, whoever passed for the National Party’s Crosby Textor of the day, and Rob’s Mob – of which band of mouthy Young Nats our current PM was a member in spirit if not formally. Not to overlook the thickos who so readily fell for the “Reds Under the Bed” hysteria whipped up by the McCarthyist power drunk (and drunk) Muldoon.

   Your infinite superiority in all things is SO vindicated.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     8 April 2014 at 8:48 am

     That’s National – always making things worse off in their eternal effort to cut taxes and shift ever more wealth to the rich.

     Of course, we do have to consider that saving money is, effectively, saving nothing and that capitalism doesn’t actually work.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     8 April 2014 at 8:54 am

     Mr Littlewood said more savings did not necessarily generate more growth.

     “You just need to look at Japan. They have oodles of savings but have had negative growth for years.”

     Oh, FFS. That’s because japan became a major exporting nation and when other nations started to catch up with them their exports inevitably decreased. NZ will go the same way.
     • nadis 1.2.1

       8 April 2014 at 10:54 am

       There are a several theories on the lost decade(s)

       Low productivity growth, mostly for demographic reasons
       Liquidity trap following asset price bubble (NKY topped out near 40,000 it is now 14,800. The Imperial once had a land value equal to California (or so the anecdote goes) etc etc
       It didn’t actually have a lost decade. Standard of living never really fell during the 80’s and 90’s even though asset prices did significantly. Read some of the articles by Eamonn Fingleton.

       Personally I think it is liquidity trap, low interest rates, associated devaluation and a compounding effect from really awful demographics. As to exports it is still the 4th largest exporter in the world, plus a huge amount of production has been moved offshore, mainly to China, and the bulk of the revenue from that still heads home.
   • David H 1.3

     8 April 2014 at 5:35 pm

     Maybe Ol’ TricKey should throw his $50 mil in as a downpayment for the money lost to the crap ideal’s of his party.
2. Zorr 2

   8 April 2014 at 7:09 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9915755/Tau-Henare-tweets-hes-retiring

   Another rat jumping ship… if they were really that confident of winning the next election, why would so many of them be abandoning the S.S. National? I can’t imagine a Nat minister getting over sick of troughing it
   • tc 2.1

     8 April 2014 at 7:19 am

     Easy if the price is right zorr, just dangle a carrott and off they trot.

     Many other troughs for them aside from parliament, just look where blue, knapp, georgina etc are now a bit of cash into the bargain and bye bye potential liability.
     • Zorr 2.1.1

       8 April 2014 at 7:27 am

       You reckon it is because they feel that their mission has come to the end and NZ is now in a state ripe for plunder? Thanks to their own legislative changes of course…
     • David H 2.1.2

       8 April 2014 at 5:38 pm

       And don’t forget the generous Super on top of all those other troughs.
   • Tracey 2.2

     8 April 2014 at 7:31 am

     where is he on the list. Didn’t they hint of dropping him down?

     perhaps he will be the new ceo of a fishing company.
   • Tracey 2.3

     8 April 2014 at 7:33 am

     i wonder how many will disagree with the righties squealing “deadwood”, though?
3. tc 3

   8 April 2014 at 7:13 am

   The nats sent jamie lee ross onto native affairs last night where he was made to look the vacuous slogan touting dropkick he is.
   Flavell puts on a good show for his part in this toxic govt and jones is patchy but can we see more of JLR please, he makes bridges look like a genius.
   • bad12 3.1

     8 April 2014 at 7:51 am

     Yes i was pleased again to see the wide cross section of New Zealand politics represented again on Maori TV’s Native Affairs and like you enjoyed the contempt shown to Ross every time He attempted to waffle in political speak,

     The contrast was stark,starting at Winston,who despite the image has His mind totally ‘around’ Maori issues, quite happily pointing out to Ross that He was in nappies when Winston was first Minister of Maori Affairs, even Shane Jones,presumably understanding ‘the audience’ made His points clearly without the usual attempts to show His education with the insertion of any number of 12 letter words,

     Cut across to the left of that ‘panel’ of politicians and Metiria and Hone looked relaxed,chatty,and open to having a bit of fun, the stark contrast in behavior and speech from those two,who also had a full grip on the issues,being able to succinctly address them to the camera with the minimum amount of waffling bullshit, made Nationals Jamie Lee Ross look every bit the anal retentive He gives every indication of being…
     • David H 3.1.1

       8 April 2014 at 5:49 pm

       Yes I watched it this morning, and it was like tagteam polatics but 4 on 2 and poor old Jamie. (I must admit to laughing at his treatment) just copped it from all sides. And Winston was in fine form in slapping down the young upstart. No wonder none of the Nat Maori MP’s wanted a bar of that show.
   • JanM 3.2

     8 April 2014 at 8:18 am

     Flavell’s waffle was only a smidgeon less irritating that Ross’s I found – he took a long time to say very little. Those two were in marked contrast to the rest of the panel
   • Once was Tim 3.3

     8 April 2014 at 6:46 pm

     I often wonder whether J-L R is one of the trolls that often pop up here from time to time on TS. If you ever catch him spouting his dogma on that dreadful TV1 Breakfast programme, you could place bets on which of the trolls it is.
4. Not a PS Staffer 4

   8 April 2014 at 7:31 am

   Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae was taken into protective custody by police last night. Constitutional lawyers, academics, voters and MP’s were fuming with rage towards the GG.
   MPs had received letters from the un-elected functionary instructing them on how the stand, bow, sit, talk and walk in a deferential manner when meeting celebrities.
   Most voters were of the view that they were smart enough to elect MPs who knew how to get out of bed in the morning and perform all/most of the necessary functions required for social engagement. Jerry will be released when two spongers names Windsor leave to do nothing somewhere else.
5. CAnker the pig fucker 5

   8 April 2014 at 7:41 am

   Response from my complaint to the NZ Herald. I was unaware a column could deplore someone’s behaviour. A defensive response. Note the Herald admits they are critical of others, but at least don’t try and pretend they criticize JK.

   Thank you for your email complaining about two columns which have appeared in the Herald newspaper and online at nzherald.co.nz

   In essence, you complain that the columns, in their different ways, are deliberately slanted against David Cunliffe to smear him.

   It’s important to remember the background of these two pieces.

   Both are columns by two of our most senior political and economic journalists. They are giving their opinion of the performance of Mr Cunliffe as columnists are expected and encouraged to do. Both columns are clearly marked as comment. You would expect these columnists to take a position. In this case they do, around Mr Cunliffe’s concealing of a trust for donations to his leadership campaign.

   Both these cases refer to news stories of that week in which Mr Cunliffe had to reveal the trust.

   An example of the news stories on the topic is here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11216735

   So:

   · Mr Cunliffe had been in the news about omitting to reveal his secret trust for donations.

   · Two columnists, rightly, gave their opinion on his behaviour and performance

   · This was hardly systemic bias against Mr Cunliffe as columnists rightly calling him to account

   As to your specific points:

   · You point out the picture used on Claire Trevett’s column as being unflattering. While it possibly could be considered that – when I saw it I thought it showed Mr Cunliffe in full flight of oratory – the article does specifically point out that some weeks a politician can’t catch a break, like the woman who wouldn’t vote for him because his face is “crumpled”. The picture reflects the structure of the column.

   · You also question the use of the word “laundered” in Ms O’Sullivan’s column. While it is strong language, it is surely justified. Mr Cunliffe admitted he had used a secret trust to hide – or “launder” – campaign funds.

   · You claim that both columns are biased against Mr Cunliffe. They are certainly critical of his actions. They deplore his behaviour. But they are far from “biased”. In fact, Ms O’Sullivan even goes out of her way to mention what she and other business people see as his good points – “He’s a known quantity. He’s personable.”

   These are both strong, critical columns as you’d expect from senior journalists confronted with a lapse by a leading politician. But they do not show systemic bias against Mr Cunliffe.

   The Herald strives to be fair to politicians of all stripes; to praise and criticize across the spectrum where it is necessary. Ms O’Sullivan in weeks around the Cunliffe column, for example, had praised the appointment of Matt McCarten as Mr Cunliffe’s political advisor and, equally, criticized Kim Dotcom’s political behaviour. Ms Trevett had been critical of Judith Collins over the Oravida affair.

   A single column can be highly critical and use strong language. But over the long term, Herald readers will get a nuanced picture of the strengths and weaknesses of candidates through ongoing, in-depth analysis.

   I hope this answers your questions.
   • JanM 5.1

     8 April 2014 at 8:15 am

     It’s not, in my opinion, so much that they have a go at David Cunliffe when he does poos on the carpet, as that they consistently fail to do so when John Key and his ministers commit the same sin
     • karol 5.1.1

       8 April 2014 at 9:09 am

       Yes. It’s often the context that is the issue, and the (lack of) “balance” over time.
     • CAnker the pig fucker 5.1.2

       8 April 2014 at 9:45 am

       Agree, certainly don’t want Cunliffe /Labour to get a free ride (the way Key does). My complaints were very specific, but if you read the Heralds response, they have gone into complete over drive.

       Of not that don’t mention Key as one of the people they have been critical of, so I guess in a funny sort of way, you have to give them some credit for that.

       I have not accepted their response and I have asked the Press Council to proceed with this.
       • framu 5.1.2.1

         8 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

         theyve left you an opening – probably without realising it

         “A single column can be highly critical and use strong language. But over the long term, Herald readers will get a nuanced picture of the strengths and weaknesses of candidates through ongoing, in-depth analysis.”
   • Blue 5.2

     8 April 2014 at 3:44 pm

     Looks like they’re getting the interns to respond to complaints. What a remarkably poor effort.

     My Oxford dictionary gives the definition of ‘launder’ (when applied to money) as ‘to transfer illegally obtained money to conceal its origins’. Wikipedia defines it as ‘the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets’.

     There is no justification for O’Sullivan using that word.
6. captain hook 6

   8 April 2014 at 8:06 am

   I hear just now that toe has given himself the boot. about time.
7. captain hook 7

   8 April 2014 at 8:08 am

   also Radio New Zealand news just reported on the value of the Norm Kirk pension scheme but neglected to say it was the National party that canned it. what a pack of jerks. i.e. both the tories and RNZ.
   welcome to the monkey house.
   • hoom 7.1

     8 April 2014 at 10:11 am

     Yes I caught that one too.
     Just when I have been tentatively quite impressed with the new Morning Report putting hard questions to the right people…

     So far has seemed to be addressing important questions & not taking the attempted bullshit answers from Ministers etc.

     I must say at least from a voice perspective Espiner was a very nice choice, his soft tones are similarly pleasant to wake up to as his predecessor.
     • greywarbler 7.1.1

       8 April 2014 at 2:09 pm

       I disagree. Espiner’s husky, soft tones don’t make much of an impact from a male announcer. And I don’t like the trend of his questioning method. It appears that his idea of asking the hard questions is to frame the important matter in his own mind on one or two points that he puts sharply demanding a yes/no answer whether relevant to the initial subject or not.

       It seems that he is copying Mary Wilson in this insistence on an answer to whatever he has framed as his matter-of-interest. Mary has her own unique approach, and does this at times as referred to here earlier this year, (I quote below.) I fear that Espiner is going to follow this behaviour regularly. spear-tackling his interviewees in order to prove to himself he is a no-nonsense journalist.
       http://thestandard.org.nz/dear-radionz-the-largest-party-does-not-win-the-election/#comment-768240
       Jane Clifton from NZ Listener of 12/Nov/2005 says about Wilson that she can be “grotesquely querulous”. No doubt this thought popped in to her head after hearing Mary Wilson pursuing some point she wanted elucidated, unimportant in itself, but a determined effort to pin down the flighty facts of her interviewee.

       I think that Espiner and Susie Fergusson should go after the story that follows the news item and is of present interest. This morning Espiner wanted to discuss points about possible election partner with Hone when I think the issue was institutional racism. I’ve forgotten now what the topic was. That type of interview just confuses the listener, and is not what we want from a competent interviewer who is committed to getting the facts on the matter under discussion. Instead he was using his interview as a honey trap to get the interviewee so he could put his question in a way that would reveal hints on what was Espiner’s current personal obssession.
   • The Lone Haranguer 7.2

     8 April 2014 at 1:33 pm

     I thought that particular super scheme was the brainchild of Rowling and not Kirk? But it matters little as Muldoon and the Cossacks won the day.

     And to say that it would be worth $$$$ now really is just journalists showing they can use the multiplication button on Excel.

     The super scheme would have altered downwards the take home pay of the workers of that generation, and the generations since. So something else would have changed for any Government to balance their books. even lower wages? no student loans? a poorer WFF? lower benefits? higher taxes? lower treaty settlements?

     Its lazy journalism to suggest that the super scheme would live in isolation of every other piece of Government policy.
     • alwyn 7.2.1

       8 April 2014 at 2:53 pm

       The credit for that little scheme goes, roughly equally to Rowling and to Roger Douglas. Most of the work put into the white paper was contributed by young Roger. Rowling was the PM at the time and was the one who would have caught the flak so he deserves a lot of the credit for it going ahead.
       Kirk was not, I was informed at the time, at all in favour.
8. bad12 8

   8 April 2014 at 8:10 am

   For He whom the bell tolls, ”If evidence befor Him emerged as described by the Crown”,(then it could be),”Reasonably concluded that Mr Banks knew that the returns were false”

   So said Justice Edwin Wylie yesterday at the Auckland High Court effectively slipping the noose over John Banks head,

   Banks appears to have just run out of ‘wriggle room’ with His latest and third attempt to avoid facing trial for filing false electoral returns and the acidic comments from Justice Wylie in again committing Banks to face trial in May would tend to suggest, considering the evidence the Crown has, that Banks is pushing a very large pile of excrement up a very steep slippery hill in His attempts to avoid conviction and expulsion from the Parliament,

   i deduce from Justice Wylie’s comments that the Court will not accept the Banks version of events ”that He didn’t read the electoral return” as any exoneration of the charge, it seems the actions of Banks leading up to the signing of this document will in fact be the ‘crux’ of the balance of guilt or innocence…
   • s y d 8.1

     8 April 2014 at 9:07 am

     “Justice Wylie said if the Crown evidence emerged as forecast at trial, there was enough to find Mr Banks wanted the donations to be anonymous, and knew they would be listed that way because he had kept Mr Hutchison “in the dark”.”

     ‘Mr Key admitted he felt sorry for Banks. “I do a little bit in reality,” he said. “This is a form he filled out in 2010. I believe him to be a thoroughly honest guy.”‘
     • hoom 8.1.1

       8 April 2014 at 10:25 am

       The thing I can’t understand is that if Banks is right, signatures on legal documents are apparently worthless.
       I thought the whole point of having the MP sign the declaration is that he is putting his name & position on the line, certifying that his campaign followed the rules & accepting the price if found to have been incorrect.

       I suspect though that we have worrying at least recent precedent in the form of various Finance co directors getting off for prospectuses etc that they signed.

       This from NZ Herald seems to be very key evidence regarding the Dotcom donation

       Quizzed by police over what he told his team about Dotcom, Mr Banks said he told them nothing. Asked why, he told police: “Well, I wanted him to make it, ah, and I, I told him he could make it anonymous.”
       • Tracey 8.1.1.1

         8 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

         its a criminal charge and proving banks knew he was signing a false document is crucial.

         it see.s banks and graham and brash could all take directors fees from finance companies and actually know nothing… which is what passes cor honest these days
       • alwyn 8.1.1.2

         8 April 2014 at 2:59 pm

         You forget that Banks was not an MP at the time. He was just someone who had been the losing candidate in an election and held no public office at all.
         I suspect he didn’t have the slightest interest in the subject and simply wanted to get the paperwork out of the way and to forget about the whole affair. I suspect most losing candidates are exactly the same.
         Somebody else has prepared the return and he simply asked, is it alright and signed it.
         After all, given that you don’t think you have any electoral future and given you are not in power you can’t do anyone any favours why do you worry.
     • Tracey 8.1.2

       8 April 2014 at 12:01 pm

       but then key thinks the pm is an honest guy.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

     8 April 2014 at 10:31 am

     
   • Tracey 8.3

     8 April 2014 at 12:00 pm

     not exactly. the crown still have to prove he knew the return was false. signing it isnt enough. knowledge is crucial. knowingly not reading it is arguable but tenuous.

     there will be a trial.

     has banks made grannys front page over this, this week?
     • McFlock 8.3.1

       8 April 2014 at 12:43 pm

       That’s the banks defense, but the courts might well rule that a willful lack of knowledge is as good as knowing.

       They don’t like people playing silly buggers with finances, the electoral system or official documents. Banksie snaps all three with his “flicked through but didn’t read” defense.
       • The Al1en 8.3.1.1

         8 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

         Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat

         Ignorance of the law does not excuse or ignorance of the law excuses no one
         • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1

           8 April 2014 at 1:02 pm

           That would be him saying that he didn’t know he wasn’t allowed to lie on a form.

           He’s arguing that he couldn’t have know that what he signed was false because he did not know what he was signing. Slightly different.

           Similarly, if I shot someone who was pointing an unloaded/harmless gun at me, I would only legally be guilty of murder if I knew at the time that the gun was harmless. If I didn’t know the gun was harmless, it would be reasonable self defense.
           • The Al1en 8.3.1.1.1.1

             8 April 2014 at 2:03 pm

             Fortunately the courts have seen through his ‘ignorance’ so far, so I’m hoping that will continue and he gets thrown in to jail in disgrace.
             If only the voters of Epsom had been less ocularly impaired.
   • Rodel 8.4

     8 April 2014 at 3:46 pm

     Sorry I was speeding officer, but in my defense I didn’t read the pages about speed limits in the road code.
     • hoom 8.4.1

       8 April 2014 at 4:49 pm

       Sorry I was speeding officer, but in my defense I only glanced at the speedo & I can’t remember what the dial said.
       • McFlock 8.4.1.1

         8 April 2014 at 5:05 pm

         and I asked my mechanic to break the speedo so I couldn’t tell if I was over the limit
9. dv 9

   8 April 2014 at 8:52 am

   Bank is now saying

   I don’t know what I have to hide.

   Not I have nothing to hide.
   • bad12 9.1

     8 April 2014 at 8:55 am

     That all might change in May to Banks musing ”where can i hide”…
10. bad12 10

    8 April 2014 at 8:53 am

    In the last of its ‘leaders interviews’ in the series RadioNZ National’s Nine to Noon will interview Peter ‘the hairdo’ Dunne around 9.30 this morning,

    This might be described as ‘must miss radio’ containing all the enlightenment of dripping mud…
11. ianmac 11

    8 April 2014 at 9:10 am

    Breaking news:
    “Seven major Hollywood movie studios have filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Megaupload and its founder Kim Dotcom.”

    Wonder why now? Rescue Mr Key?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11234233
    • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1

      8 April 2014 at 9:30 am

      It will be an interesting case. I don’t know what US law is like, but in New Zealand it would actually be a useful case. The law around authorisation is awfully blurry (does the Amstrad case apply or not?). In a nutshell, though, you’re in trouble if you “sanction, approve and countenance” a breach of copyright or in other words the person “means to grant or purport to grant” the infringing copyright act.

      So Dotcom will obviously plead ignorant and say that MegaUpload didn’t sanction or approve copyright breaches. Which is playing hard and fast with the truth, but very hard to disprove.

      So, if US law is anything like New Zealand’s, I think Hollywood has the moral high ground (ugh) and Dotcom has the legal standing (ugh).

      There’s no winner in that battle of the dreadful.

      Still, it highlights the fact that copyright law needs to be updated and certain industries need to update with the time. I’d just rather see Labour and the Greens incorporate that with some sensible, techno-savy candidates rather than hiring the poacher to become the gamekeeper. And from what I’ve heard of Dotcom’s stance on copyright, it’s still more poacher than gamekeeper.
      • ianmac 11.1.1

        8 April 2014 at 10:22 am

        Thanks for the information Disraeli. As a non-legal person I can’t get past the idea that what use of the money that I bank and withdraw is of no interest or responsibility of banking officials. Or the items I store in a lockup then on-sell them.
        Or that electronic materials stored in a cloud, (unless identified by someone as being illegal) can hold the cloud operators responsible.
        • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.1.1

          8 April 2014 at 11:20 am

          It’s something copyright law grappled with. I think the very original authorisation case was about whether a tape recorder was an authorisation. This is obviously too far. Sure, a tape recorder may have led to illegal taping of music, but you can’t hold the tape recorder manufacturer liable for that.

          And I feel in principle the same should apply to “the cloud”. But (and this is not just MegaUpload but all cloud operators), the extent of the copying being spread through sites like those suggest something needs to be done (a willful blindness clause if you like).

          For instance, if you had a bank which was home to all of the world’s money laundering or a single lock-up that was used by all the criminals in one town to hide their goods. Would we say, “well, look, they can’t be held responsible”? Or would we very quickly consider a law change to say “look, you play dumb, if you’re being willfully ignorant then you’re liable”?

          But this is just one aspect of copyright law. The film and television industry needs to make it easier to get the content legally (like the music industry has been doing). There’s no reason to have months gap before international broadcasts that make people turn to illegal means, for example. They’re making the problem more relevant.

          Obviously, most of this is spent on talk of movies or music, but copyright reform is wider than that. Ebooks now means literature can be pirated (and has been, though not Slater posting The Luminaries and then downloading it to show that Mega is bad). Photographers and artists regularly have their works copied across the internet without consent. Cloud services are sometimes used to aid in these endeavours.

          I’m going to sound horrendously snobbish here, I feel like society (especially New Zealand society) doesn’t place a whole lot of value on “the artist”. Authors, musicians, photographers, painters aren’t celebrated much (look at America Cup coverage vs Eleanor Catton winning the Booker!). And yet, we’re celebrating Dotcom’s rise against the establishment when he’s in the business of lowering these creative people’s already quite pitiful income (with notable exceptions).
        • Tracey 11.1.1.2

          8 April 2014 at 12:06 pm

          since 2001 it has become banks and ia business how much you deposit and withdraw.

          the Hollywood lawsuit shows how unlikely it was that key never discussed dotcom on his Hollywood trysts paid by us.
          • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.1.2.1

            8 April 2014 at 12:16 pm

            How many times has John Key been to Hollywood? (genuine question)

            The only time I can think of was late 2012 (October/November). The Dotcom raid was in January of 2012. So that doesn’t contradict Key’s “I’ve never heard of Dotcom before”.

            Quite frankly, my opinion on that question is this:

            John Key knew of Dotcom. Probably not in any detail but I find it hard to imagine he wasn’t aware of a multi-millionaire German with a colourful past in his back yard. But, I don’t think Kim Dotcom has any evidence that Key does know of him, which is going to be the smoking gun.
            • Tracey 11.1.1.2.1.1

              8 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

              john key said he wouldnt be discussing dotcom when he went to Hollywood. you are confusing his lies. the one I am talking about is seperate to the one you are referring to.
              • Disraeli Gladstone …

                8 April 2014 at 1:02 pm

                Did he really say that?

                I imagine he must have walked around Hollywood with his hands over his ears screaming “lalalalalalala I’m not listening” then!
                • marty mars …

                  8 April 2014 at 5:16 pm

                  Or he just lied as that is his usual way of operating
            • David H 11.1.1.2.1.2

              8 April 2014 at 6:14 pm

              Now that is the 64 million dollar question. How many times has he been to the USA? and how many to California. and let us not forget that TricKey lives in Hawaii, and he’s Obama’s Golf Buddy. Well Obama’s arse kisser more like.
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2

        8 April 2014 at 10:32 am

        So Dotcom will obviously plead ignorant and say that MegaUpload didn’t sanction or approve copyright breaches.

        MegaUpload gave the studios direct access to remove their material according to his white paper that he released sometime back.
        • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.2.1

          8 April 2014 at 11:22 am

          The studios obviously don’t feel that what enough (if it did happen). Obviously it wasn’t since you could still find a cornucopia of pirated material on MegaUpload the day before it went down.
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.1.1

            8 April 2014 at 11:41 am

            But it indicates that MegaUpload actually did their best to prevent such copyright material being there and thus is a defense against the charges.
            • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.2.1.1.1

              8 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

              I sort of agree. That’s why I said that MegaUpload has the legal standing in this case, I suspect.

              But I think the issue is that MegaUpload was reactive (they’d wait till the studios found the link and came to them). Whereas, say, YouTube are proactive (they will sometimes flag a video and get rid of it if it is obviously in breach of copyright).

              But I agree that really, with the current law (if US is similar to New Zealand), yeah, MegaUpload has a defence.
              • Draco T Bastard …

                8 April 2014 at 12:36 pm

                But I think the issue is that MegaUpload was reactive (they’d wait till the studios found the link and came to them).

                No, they gave the studios direct access and ability to remove offending content.
                • nadis …

                  8 April 2014 at 12:52 pm

                  “No, they gave the studios direct access and ability to remove offending content.”

                  But then also made new copies of that material available elsewhere on megaupload with a different identifier…….
                  • McFlock …

                    8 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

                    No they didn’t. Their users did.
                    • nadis …

                      8 April 2014 at 1:00 pm

                      point remains – every other cloud manager removes or restricts the file. Mega only deletes a link. No rational business purpose for doing it that way except to facilitate privacy.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      8 April 2014 at 1:14 pm

                      point remains – every other cloud manager removes or restricts the file.

                      Have to be able to tell if it’s the same file which does seem to be a problem. And I suspect that it’s even more difficult with movies that use different encoding, different file names, etc.
                    • nadis …

                      8 April 2014 at 1:27 pm

                      no you’re missing the point.

                      The takedown notice doesn’t apply to a movie, it applies to a particular file. Dropbox for instance when they get a notice for a particular file, they scan their system and restrict that file and any exact copies of that file. Dotcom on the other hand just deleted a link, leaving the offending file and duplicates of it on their system without restriction.

                      result is on mega you vcan fund hundreds of links to the same movie file held in numerous different directories. DCMA notice arrives, just one link is removed still leaving numerous links and copies of the file easily accessible..

                      on dropbox, every copy of that movie file is restricted.

                      very different models. The best analogy for the role of dotcom is a pimp, a money launderer, or an arms dealer….. not actually doing the end crime but living on the proceeds of that crime.
                    • nadis …

                      8 April 2014 at 1:33 pm

                      the amazon story is a different issue. and actually shows the takedown system works, so not sure what point you are trying to make.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      8 April 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      The takedown notice doesn’t apply to a movie, it applies to a particular file.

                      Great. That particular file can be taken, modified ever so slightly, and no longer meet the hash. It even says that on the article about DropBox you linked to.

                      Dotcom on the other hand just deleted a link, leaving the offending file and duplicates of it on their system without restriction.

                      You have no proof of that.

                      result is on mega you vcan fund hundreds of links to the same movie file held in numerous different directories.

                      Chances are that there’s actually hundreds of different files. Even DropBox won’t be able to work out if each is the same without actually opening them and they’re not doing that.

                      the amazon story is a different issue.

                      In some respects but the same in other ways – a different file has a different hash tag and if all these online services are only using hash algorithms to see if the file is the same as another then they won’t pick up anything. Amazon should have it easier as they just need to do a text search and compare but that, I suspect, would still take a hell of a lot more processing power than a hash check.
                    • nadis …

                      8 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

                      “You have no proof of that.”

                      Well actually there is. If you read the FBI indictment it references emails between mega employees stating exactly that, and even more tellingly that they are doing it to circumvent the takedown notices.

                      “Chances are that there’s actually hundreds of different files. Even DropBox won’t be able to work out if each is the same without actually opening them and they’re not doing that.”

                      Do you understand how digital technology works? A file run thru the same hash algorithm will have the same hash each time. You don’t “open the file” to compare. You compare the hashes. If they are the same the files are the same. If they are not they are different. What Mega did (and this is also claimed in the indictment) was create different hashes for the same file. Reputable cloud storage facilities would only ever have one hash for a particular file and its identical copies.

                      But you do point out one flaw in the process – even of the files differ but just 1 byte then they are not the same file. The takedown applies to specific files and their exact copies not to the content.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      8 April 2014 at 3:41 pm

                      Well actually there is. If you read the FBI indictment it references emails between mega employees stating exactly that, and even more tellingly that they are doing it to circumvent the takedown notices.

                      That’s an allegation, not proof. And from what I’ve seen out of the US over those allegations they should be taken with a grain of salt. It is, after all, quite easy to spoof an email as coming from a particular address.

                      Do you understand how digital technology works?

                      Yes I do, you’re the one who seems to have difficulty with it.

                      A file run thru the same hash algorithm will have the same hash each time.

                      No fucking kidding but two different files will have different hashes. What you don’t seem to grasp is that it’s possible to have two different files with different hashes that have the same video in it.
        • idlegus 11.1.2.2

          8 April 2014 at 11:27 am

          oh boohoo, record companies & movie moguls have been ripping off creative ppl for years. i also dont understand why youtube gets a free ride, check out the amount of copywrited material on there, its always my first port of call before i try find a torrent, more often than not the tv show/movie is on there for free download. so why dont they get sued?
          • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.2.2.1

            8 April 2014 at 12:05 pm

            Viacom International Inc v YouTube, Inc.

            They did get sued. The case was settled before the various appeals were heard, but it went in front of a Court three separate times.

            You would have found that out with a quick Google search.
            • idlegus 11.1.2.2.1.1

              8 April 2014 at 2:05 pm

              & youtube got shut down? i must have missed that.
      • nadis 11.1.3

        8 April 2014 at 12:38 pm

        This story explains how a legitimate cloud service manages copyright infringement:

        http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/30/how-dropbox-knows-when-youre-sharing-copyrighted-stuff-without-actually-looking-at-your-stuff/

        If you read the US indictment, they allege that the difference with Mega was that when Mega received a DCMA takedown notice they didn’t do what dropbox, google etc do but they actively created new hashes to facilitate continued downloading.

        As an experiment try this. Pick a popular movie and see how long it takes for you to find a downloadable copy on mega.co.nz

        Last night it took me less than fiveminutes to find and start downloading a copy of the hobbit. There are tons of searchable lists (for instance http://mega-search.me/) of copyrighted material on mega that you can easily find and download. So even with the new improved mega model it is still trivial to find and download copyrighted material. Do the same experiment with any of dropbox, sugarsync, google drive, icloud, mozy, zipcloud, cashpolan etc and I think you’d struggle to find the same degree of facilitation of sharing of copyrighted material. The only real difference in business models is the lack of uploading incentive payments. Megaupload was, and mega is clearly designed to facilitate the anonymous sharing of copyrighted material. Dotcom is a pimp – attempting to take a cut from criminal activities of others.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.3.1

          8 April 2014 at 1:33 pm

          We sometimes receive DMCA notices to remove links on copyright grounds. When we receive these, we process them according to the law and disable the identified link.

          They mean the same thing that happened to Sintel (now fixed but it shouldn’t have happened in the first place).
12. Rosie 12

    8 April 2014 at 9:43 am

    Reminder for tonight’s ERA changes meeting should you be in Wellington:

    PUBLIC MEETING, TUESDAY, 8TH APRIL, 7 – 8.30PM: “GIVE US A BREAK!”

    This is a public meeting to discuss The Employment Relations Amendment Act and how the proposed changes will affect union members and workers. There will be three guest speakers followed by an open discussion on the changes and what action may be taken to prevent this anti worker bill being passed.

    As as so often been the case in recent years, Peter Dunne holds the critical vote.

    The meeting is being hosted by People’s Power Ohariu and is being held at the Uniting Church, 18 Dr Taylor Terrace, Johnsonville, Wellington. All welcome!
13. Penny Bright 13

    8 April 2014 at 10:40 am

    Seen this?

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dotcom-offended-banks-asked-him-be-anonymous-wrote-cheques-team-banksie-sf-154412

    It seems that dodgy John is going ….. going……

    Good work Graham McCready – this was NEVER supposed to happen.

    ‘One law for all’ – actually applying to (former) ACT Party Leader John Banks?

    Whatever next?

    Penny Bright

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
14. phillip ure 14

    8 April 2014 at 11:13 am

    new cartoon..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/original-whoar-cartoon-russel-norman-passes-the-dutchie-on-the-right-hand-side/
15. Tracey 15

    8 April 2014 at 12:09 pm

    heard bennett on radio ythis am discussi ng funding for sexual violence. I reckon she will sit joyce and collins and be next nats leader
16. Pete George 16

    8 April 2014 at 1:09 pm

    The cannabis and psychoactive substances debate continues.

    Public Address: The perilous birth of the Psychoactive Substances Act

    Whale Oil: Where is Colorado’s predicted crime wave from legalisation?

    But there seems to be no political will to address it apart from the ALCP. The Greens seen lukewarm at best, it doesn’t fit with their marketing strategy. Cunliffe says Labour won’t decriminalise. No sign of anything from National on it. Winston and the rest aren’t likely to do anything.

    So we have momentum around the world, we have growing acknowledgement that things aren’t working here as they are but no sign of any change.

    Would this be a good issue to be driven non-partisan by the blogosphere? Is anyone here interested in taking part in a joint effort to make this an election issue?
    • tc 16.1

      8 April 2014 at 1:26 pm

      Distraction politics 101 from the master fence sitter himself, if it concerns you so much lead the charge yourself from your own site as you obviously have the time on your hands.

      Start by proving that ‘So we have momentum around the world..’ with some facts and figures proving it’s a global trend.

      You focus on that whilst the main parties focus on removing this toxic gov’t your mate props up.
      • Tracey 16.1.1

        8 April 2014 at 1:38 pm

        its better than answering the questions put to him on the poverty thread.
        • bad12 16.1.1.1

          8 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

          Wee Petey the Lesser has again demonstrated His remarkable ability to be transparent, everyone has seen through Him in 30 seconds flat…
      • freedom 16.1.2

        8 April 2014 at 5:41 pm

        In Pete’s defence tc (did i just write that ?)
        He has three posts up on his blog on the subject
        http://yournz.org/

        I have no idea what they say though as I have installed the latest in Anti-troll technology. The add-on works a treat. Every time I go near his blog a rabid Gorilla jumps out of my machine and flicks my earlobe with a wet tea towel every three seconds until I leave the page.

        In the seconds between attacks I have deciphered that his posts of late do resemble WOBH an awful lot, mainly quotes from others interspersed with short strings of wordshapes.
        • David H 16.1.2.1

          8 April 2014 at 6:33 pm

          I think Freedom that you may need to tweak the Anti Troll bit, Try getting the Gorilla to leave out the tea towel, and just hit you behind the ear. I mean you even added a link, so the Tea towel is just not working…..
    • Draco T Bastard 16.2

      8 April 2014 at 2:06 pm

      You know, that’s got to be one of the least informative articles I’ve ever read on Public Address.
17. Penny Bright 17

    8 April 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Only recently discovered this site – think some of you may enjoy the content

    http://laudafinem.com/2014/04/08/kiwi-mp-john-banks-strike-three-four-seven-and-the-corrupt-bastards-still-out/

    Penny Bright

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
18. fisiani 18

    8 April 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Did The Cunliffe write his own questions today and if so why was he such a wet squib yet again.
19. freedom 19

    8 April 2014 at 3:32 pm

    from the David Cunliffe FaceBook page

    “Other countries don’t allow offshore property speculation, and neither should we. Labour will restrict sales of property (including farmland) to offshore speculators, so families that live here can get into a home of their own.”

    https://www.facebook.com/david.cunliffe.labour

    obviously more to come

    did a quick scan but saw nothing up on the Labour website yet,
    • Te Reo Putake 19.1

      8 April 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Yep, that Lab/Green/NZF government is looking more and more likely each day. Good times a-coming, people.
20. aerobubble 20

    8 April 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Moro on cycling yesterday.

    Cars that speed out of driveways aren’t just a problem for cyclists on the pavement, but also posties on cycles on the pavement, children on cycles on the pavement, joggers on the pavement, motorized wheelchairs.

    This notion perpetrated by Moro that cyclists are more like motorbikes, than joggers, or children on bikes, r posties or old people in their motorized chairs… …is wrong. Cars that gun out of driveways are a problem for all uses of footpaths.

    Second jaywalking is prevalent in NZ, when there are no cars around, and anyone getting off their bike, lifting it up and running across the road (when no traffic is around), is not jaywalking just because there is a red light. That’s just weird that they wouldn’t take the safer option and just ride on through the red light. As a red light is for motorized vehicles.

    Cyclists are like pedestrians and are not road vehicles, and its about time road users started see cycle lands like they would pavements, as a place not to block, that could have any kind of
    user on them, as they are not part of the traffic but for non-motorized vehicles.

    As to cyclists riding the pavement, they cannot get up to 30 km/hr and have never to my knowledge ever caused a fatality of a pedestrian. Massive horsepower does that.

    Oh, and a caller to Moro said something astonishingly stupid. That competition is natural, actually cooperation is far more prevalent. If we didn’t cooperate the roads would be dangerous and congested, but by accept rules that are fair too all we get to lower the danger and the congestion.
    And that means cyclist should not fear traveling on the road, and that’s why they should ride the pavements so our council planners can realize where the dangers are and start dealing to them.
    No need for research just measure the number of cyclists on the foot path and you’ll get a very good measure of the danger they feel from riding alongside trucks, etc.
    • aerobubble 20.1

      8 April 2014 at 3:45 pm

      Cyclists are slower, so drivers of course see them and comment on them more. Moro needs to realize this, that a segment of the community with their anger hat on will naturally fine narratives that
      use cyclists to push their anger, rather than the othe rway around. Its like road rage by radio shock jock.
21. Tiger Mountain 21

    8 April 2014 at 4:03 pm

    If Labour wants more voters they must not raise the super age.

    A vital couple % of voters and I have met some, “don’t know don’t wanna know” kiwis in their late 50s early 60s will take ShonKey’s bait and switch on not raising the the super age. Labour will get no brownie points what so ever by playing demographics and population bubbles. The fact is super at 60 for those that need it could be afforded if corporate welfare was cut off.

    And now possible tinkering with Lotto at Countdown http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11234506 it will be curly lightbulbs all over again.

    Get real Labour and drop the sideshows, the key, heh, strategic goal for September is denying the Key gang a further term in office. “Feed the kids, house the homeless, a job for everyone that wants to work” as Hone says.
    • Lanthanide 21.1

      8 April 2014 at 10:52 pm

      Kiwis who are currently in their late 50 early 60’s will not be impacted, or only by a few months, by Labour’s proposal to raise the retirement age, assuming it is the same framework as Labour’s 2011 election policy.

      People aged 59 or older won’t have their age of entitlement increase at all.

      For every year under 59, the entitlement is only pushed out by 2 months. Working an extra 2-6 months won’t make much of a difference for most.
22. Te Reo Putake 22

    8 April 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Revealing comment from Key in relation to a anti-Semitic posting on the Young Nats fb page:

    “I’ve certainly never met anybody in the National Party, certainly Young Nats, that’s ever expressed those sort of comments to me. I went to the Young Nats ball on Saturday night and you can probably imagine the sort of reception I got. And it’s pretty well known that my mother was Jewish.”

    “… my mother was Jewish”.

    I think that makes it pretty clear that he does not regard himself as Jewish, which will disappoint at least one frothing Jewish Bankster conspiracy theorist who occasionally pops in to TS.
    • felix 22.1

      8 April 2014 at 5:35 pm

      Of course if there were anti-semites in the young nats then he’s the last person they’re going to express those views in front of, because he’s the fucking leader of their party and his mother was a fucking jew.

      ffs.
      • Lanthanide 22.1.1

        8 April 2014 at 10:53 pm

        I can imagine all of the young nats are all sweetness and spice while bathing in the beatific smirk of their idol.
23. bad12 23

    8 April 2014 at 4:53 pm

    The Envrioment Court has rules that the Public Works Act cannot be used to take part of the ourt views the taking of this piece of land as not essential as there is also another planned route for the road in question…
    • bad12 23.1

      8 April 2014 at 5:11 pm

      Lolz excuse the above comment, what it should say is that the Enviroment Court has said the Public Works Act cannot be used to take a piece of ancestral land belonging to well know writer Patricia Grace,

      The Court says that as there is another planned route for a proposed road in the area the public good provisions of the Act cannot be applied….
      • karol 23.1.1

        8 April 2014 at 5:20 pm

        Yep. Heard it on RNZ news:
        

        The Environment Court has supported Patricia Grace in her fight against the New Zealand Transport Agency taking her ancestral land north of Wellington for a major new road.
        […]
        The court has ruled that moves to take her land should stop.

        In its judgement, it says it would not be fair to compulsorily take the land, particularly when an alternate route or method is available for the expressway.

        Patricia Grace inherited the Maori land. It belonged to her great-great grandfather Wi Parata, who was a Maori leader and donated large sections of land to Waikanae.
        • Tracey 23.1.1.1

          8 April 2014 at 5:30 pm

          i smell a bill under urgency… cant do poverty or sexual violence under urgency… but a road
        • bad12 23.1.1.2

          8 April 2014 at 5:42 pm

          Aha Karol, more on this just on RadioNZ National, it appears that the road can go ahead with a minor tweak to the road alignment

          The Court learned during the hearing that such a realignment is entirely possible as the other proposed route is already owned by the Crown, something which the Transport Agency withheld from both Patricia Grace and the Maori Land Court,(this would seem to fit my definition of contempt of the Court),

          Wi Parata the ancestor from whom Patricia inherited this land was known to have gifted a number of tracts of land to the Crown including for schools and the Main-Trunk Rail-line, which in my view just goes to show that the Crown have not learned a fucking thing despite the billions of dollars of settlement monies so far paid out to Iwi up and down this country,

          The attitude still appears to be if Maori wont give up what little is left of their land when the Crown wants it then the Crown will simply take it,

          The particular block in question is awaiting the sign off into the status of being ‘Maori Reserve Land’ which will mean that it can never be sold nor alienated from the current and future owners in any way…
          • Draco T Bastard 23.1.1.2.1

            8 April 2014 at 6:16 pm

            The Court learned during the hearing that such a realignment is entirely possible as the other proposed route is already owned by the Crown, something which the Transport Agency withheld from both Patricia Grace and the Maori Land Court,(this would seem to fit my definition of contempt of the Court),

            That would fit my definition of corruption and needs to be investigated ASAP.
24. bad12 24

    8 April 2014 at 5:58 pm

    The rock-star economy appears to have taken another dive toward the bottom of the pool, the ‘tax take’ is now said to be down by 1billion dollars+ and the tired excuse that this has been caused by ‘slow’ business tax payers is starting to wear more than a little thin….
    • Lanthanide 24.1

      8 April 2014 at 10:55 pm

      And yet when the economy was booming under Labour (remember those days?), treasury routinely underestimated the tax take year after year.
25. Chooky 25

    8 April 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Interesting review and comments made on Loretta Napoleoni’s book by Wayne Hope on the Daily Blog…

    ‘ Maonomics: why Chinese communists make better capitalists than we do”

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/03/17/the-chinese-centuryreview-of-loretta-napoloeonis-maonomics-why-chinese-communists-make-better-capitalists-than-we-do/

    …particularly pertinent to the strategic situation (trading and military) NZ finds itself in viz China and USA
26. mickysavage 26

    8 April 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Simon Bridges is opening up DOC’s biggest forest park for oil and gas exploration …

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Minister-didnt-know-park-was-in-drilling-plan/tabid/1607/articleID/339311/Default.aspx
    • JanM 26.1

      8 April 2014 at 9:31 pm

      And he fessed that he’d never even heard of it before -ye gods!
    • felix 26.2

      8 April 2014 at 10:39 pm

      Do you believe he didn’t know about it? I’m not so sure.
27. Draco T Bastard 27

    8 April 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Estonia a Global Example of E-Government, Digital Freedom, Privacy and Security

    The technology platform that Estonia built to serve its citizens sets an example for the rest of the world. Each citizen has one ID number to use across all systems, from paper passport to bank records to any government office or medical care. This includes giving electronic signatures, filing taxes and voting. Estonians elect their parliament online, and get their taxes back in two days.

    A bit further checking:

    The electronic voting system withstood the test of reality and was declared a success by Estonian election officials.

    Although the term electronic voting (or e-voting) can refer to both fixed voting locations (as in voting booths) and remote (as in over the Internet) electronic voting, in Estonia the term is used exclusively for remote Internet voting. The security model is modeled after the way in which advance voting and postal voting is handled.

    So, it appears that internet voting is secure and works fine.

    Oh, and that having government fully integrated is also a damn good idea.
    • Lanthanide 27.1

      8 April 2014 at 11:05 pm

      So, it appears that internet voting is secure and works fine.

      How does it account for:
      1. Literal standover tactics, where someone forces someone else to vote for their chosen party.
      2. Keeping voting preferences private, by easily being able to view who someone votes for.
      3. Ensuring copy-cat phishing sites aren’t set up to syphon genuine votes away into a black hole.

      I’m sure there are many many other problems for which the best solution is a physical polling place administered by electoral officials.
      • Draco T Bastard 27.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 7:32 am

        1.) You can vote multiple times before final close
        2.) That sentence makes no sense. Suffice to say that it’s not easy to see anyone’s voting record
        3.) People can check their own voting record

        I’m sure there are many many other problems for which the best solution is a physical polling place administered by electoral officials.

        No, there isn’t.
        • Lanthanide 27.1.1.1

          9 April 2014 at 9:17 am

          Ok, I’ll just accept your blanket assertion that there are no problems at all with e-voting and every eventuality has been accounted for.

          From your answer to 3, it means both 1 and 2 are still easily possible.
          • Draco T Bastard 27.1.1.1.1

            9 April 2014 at 9:54 am

            I didn’t say there were no problems. I said that there were no problems where the best solution was paper voting.

            From your answer to 3, it means both 1 and 2 are still easily possible.

            And correctable.
            • Lanthanide 27.1.1.1.1.1

              9 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

              I never said paper voting was the best solution. I said voting in person at a physical polling place administered by electoral officials.

              From your answer to 3, it means both 1 and 2 are still easily possible.

              And correctable.

              Ok, please tell me how you are going to ensure that no one can blackmail / bribe others to vote a certain way.
              • Draco T Bastard …

                9 April 2014 at 12:42 pm

                I said voting in person at a physical polling place administered by electoral officials.

                So you’d be fine with internet voting at polling places? But if we do that then we may as well allow those who want to vote wherever they are to do so.

                Ok, please tell me how you are going to ensure that no one can blackmail / bribe others to vote a certain way.

                The same way we do now.
                • Lanthanide …

                  9 April 2014 at 7:24 pm

                  No, the way we do it now is by having voting done in a polling place and monitored by electoral officials, and once your vote is cast, no one but you know who you voted for.

                  It’s pretty easy to say say “yes, I voted for that party you blackmailed me to vote for” while lying. The blackmailers have no way to verify that, so there’s nothing they can really to enforce their threat.

                  But with electronic polling done in the privacy of your own home, and being able to look at your past voting record at any time, it is now easy to blackmail someone else into voting for who you say to vote for.
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    9 April 2014 at 8:03 pm

                    No, the way we do it now is by having voting done in a polling place and monitored by electoral officials, and once your vote is cast, no one but you know who you voted for.

                    With the possibility that no one knows who you voted for.

                    But with electronic polling done in the privacy of your own home, and being able to look at your past voting record at any time, it is now easy to blackmail someone else into voting for who you say to vote for.

                    No it’s not because as soon as they’re gone you can change it.

                    And if they’re standing over you then they’re not standing over everyone else. Comes down to logistics – the blackmailers just won’t have enough people to force enough people to vote how they want to change the vote.
    • Colonial Viper 27.2

      8 April 2014 at 11:27 pm

      So, it appears that internet voting is secure and works fine.

      Oh, and that having government fully integrated is also a damn good idea.

      With all due respect. Frak off Draco you’re being idiotic.

      Pay attention to what people like Snowden, Greenwald and Appelbaum have been saying about the completely compromised nature of the internet and all electronic communications before you let off more technology worshipping brainfarts.
      • Draco T Bastard 27.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 7:33 am

        I am paying attention to them. Haven’t seen any reason why we can’t have a better system yet.
      • Chooky 27.2.2

        9 April 2014 at 9:43 am

        +100 CV …..agreed ….dont think internet voting is the way to go…too many points at which votes could be ‘lost’ or sabotaged or muddled or found to be inadmissible mucked up votes

        …besides many of the crucial voters would not know how to use the internet or have internet facilities, so it would add a complexity about getting people to vote at voting booths

        …also be too hard to check back to the source of the vote on the counting and a recount
        • Draco T Bastard 27.2.2.1

          9 April 2014 at 9:52 am

          too many points at which votes could be ‘lost’ or sabotaged or muddled or found to be inadmissible mucked up votes

          That can only happen on paper voting.

          besides many of the crucial voters would not know how to use the internet or have internet facilities, so it would add a complexity about getting people to vote at voting booths

          We can leave the old paper system in place until the old fogies die out.

          also be too hard to check back to the source of the vote on the counting and a recount

          Actually, it’ll be a hell of a lot easier as each individual would be able to check their vote – which they can’t do at the moment.
          • Lanthanide 27.2.2.1.1

            9 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

            That can only happen on paper voting.

            Yes, because denial of service attacks never make electronic systems unusable for long periods of time.

            
            • Colonial Viper 27.2.2.1.1.1

              9 April 2014 at 12:43 pm

              Indeed. This is not like dumping a couple of ballot boxes off the side of the road which contain a few hundred votes total, via computerised systems you can tamper with hundreds of thousands of votes at a time, even as they are being recorded or reported.
              • Draco T Bastard …

                9 April 2014 at 12:53 pm

                via computerised systems you can tamper with hundreds of thousands of votes at a time, even as they are being recorded or reported.

                That’s actually really difficult with online systems. Think about it. You have to intercept the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers that could be in any random location and then you have to actually break the security on each computer as well as the receiving computer all within a short period of time and then you may be able to do something. Chances are that you’ll be detected.

                And Security Tokens make even intercepting those computers communications ineffective.
            • Draco T Bastard 27.2.2.1.1.2

              9 April 2014 at 12:44 pm

              There are defences for DOS attacks.
              • Lanthanide …

                9 April 2014 at 7:26 pm

                The only defenses are “build a bigger pipe”. For anyone sufficiently motivated, they can muster a larger attack force (using botnets as well as traffic amplification attacks) than you can build defenses for.
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  9 April 2014 at 8:08 pm

                  Another person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
                  • Lanthanide …

                    9 April 2014 at 8:22 pm

                    Another person who is relying on wikipedia content as if that somehow wins them an argument.

                    Those systems will all fail under a sufficiently large attack.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      9 April 2014 at 9:02 pm

                      Another person who is relying on wikipedia content as if that somehow wins them an argument.

                      It does against pure ignorance.

                      Those systems will all fail under a sufficiently large attack.

                      Then we make them better. Use a layered system that utilises several of them. What we don’t do is just whine that it can’t be done.
28. Chooky 28

    9 April 2014 at 9:57 am

    @DTB…you might be surprised at how many young fogies dont have the internet…and they would be crucial votes to the Left

    ….sorry think it is easier to lose things on the internet than in a paper trail

    ….and easier to do a Florida jiggery pokery miscount on the internet

    …..i am with CV on this one because he is super smart and i agree with him on most things
    • Draco T Bastard 28.1

      9 April 2014 at 10:20 am

      you might be surprised at how many young fogies dont have the internet…and they would be crucial votes to the Left

      Not really. One of them happens to be a brother in law and he votes NZFirst.

      sorry think it is easier to lose things on the internet than in a paper trail

      Done properly it’s actually harder.

      and easier to do a Florida jiggery pokery miscount on the internet

      Actually, it’s impossible to do a miscount with internet voting.
      • Chooky 28.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 10:35 am

        well you have to convince middle aged fogies like me ….because voting systems credibility in a General Election is crucial

        ….thus far you havent convinced me on any of your points except the one about your brother in law

        …still with young CV on this
        • Draco T Bastard 28.1.1.1

          9 April 2014 at 10:43 am

          well you have to convince middle aged fogies like me ….because voting systems credibility in a General Election is crucial

          Of course I haven’t – you’re stuck in a belief and beliefs are incredibly difficult to change even when facts are readily available.

          I could point out that everything you’ve said about online voting was also said about online banking and none of the bad things came to pass. Online security is better than you believe. Sure, it still has its weaknesses but they’re few, far between and can usually be detected fairly rapidly. IMO, online voting will actually be more secure than paper voting.
          • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.1

            9 April 2014 at 12:46 pm

            I could point out that everything you’ve said about online voting was also said about online banking and none of the bad things came to pass.

            Yeah I guess none of those tens of millions of credit card numbers, customer details and passwords being compromised and stolen from online retailers etc. counts.

            Get a grip Draco, you’re techno-worship is blinding you to the reality of what is actually happening out there.
            • Draco T Bastard 28.1.1.1.1.1

              9 April 2014 at 1:01 pm

              Yeah I guess none of those tens of millions of credit card numbers, customer details and passwords being compromised and stolen from online retailers etc. counts.

              Did you notice where they were stolen from? The online retailers – not the banks.

              And, yes, they do count – so does the response. More security and the accounts being fixed within days. Same thing happens to an election you just annul the votes and have another election a week later.

              Get a grip Draco, you’re techno-worship is blinding you to the reality of what is actually happening out there.

              I’m quite aware of what’s happening out there. The difference between you and me is that I’m not afraid of it and that I think we can improve our democracy by taking it online.
      • Colonial Viper 28.1.2

        9 April 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Actually, it’s impossible to do a miscount with internet voting.

        Gawd dammit Draco, with “man in the middle attacks” and all kinds of other contrivances, exactly this stuff is VERY possible.
        • Draco T Bastard 28.1.2.1

          9 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

          Oh dear, do you even know what a Man in the Middle Attack is? And how many defences against them there are?

          Online voting is just as secure, if not more so, than voting on paper in a polling booth.
          • Chooky 28.1.2.1.1

            10 April 2014 at 8:57 am

            Are there any countries where online voting is done successfully for General Elections?…and with 100% public confidence?

            ….my guess is many people would not vote because it would be more hassle for them( eg finding a computer and then finding out how to work it and find their electronic voting form and figuring out how to vote ) than just going to a polling booth

            …i know plenty of people who do not use internet banking because of the perceived risks …and this includes an accountant who does small business’s books
            • Draco T Bastard 28.1.2.1.1.1

              10 April 2014 at 9:38 am

              Are there any countries where online voting is done successfully for General Elections?…

              Estonia – that’s what started up this discussion. They also do referenda through them.

              my guess is many people would not vote because it would be more hassle for them( eg finding a computer and then finding out how to work it and find their electronic voting form and figuring out how to vote ) than just going to a polling booth

              Well, it won’t that hard. About 97% of NZ households are on the net and the polling booths would still be available on the day for awhile at least.

              i know plenty of people who do not use internet banking because of the perceived risks …and this includes an accountant who does small business’s books

              There are risks but they’re fairly minimal and can be well handled.
              • Chooky …

                10 April 2014 at 10:09 am

                yes well ONE country ..namely Estonia…. is not exactly a great advert for this new internet electoral system

                ….still think it is a techy’s dream

                …dont believe 97% of NZ households are on the internet

                ….still think many people will not vote…both because it is too difficult for them and because they will think it is sus…so you will be marginalising and alienating a lot of people…many of them Labour supporters
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  10 April 2014 at 10:30 am

                  As I said, dealing with a belief is the hardest thing to do.
29. Chooky 29

    9 April 2014 at 12:52 pm

    yeah Dracy get a grip…i dont trust Techys to control a General Election …no way!( i live with one)…they are tricky dickys and to follow their electronic trails is like trying to find a ghost in the mists

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS