Simon Bridges – criminal receiver

Written By: - Date published: 11:48 pm, May 28th, 2019 - 216 comments
Categories: crime, law, police, political parties, politicans, Politics, Simon Bridges, Social issues, uncategorized - Tags: , , , ,

You have to wonder about what kind of law Simon Bridges, a former criminal prosecutor, actually practiced. Should we start an inquiry into his former cases? Because given the events of today – it seems questionable if he understands the legal basis of our criminal laws. Do we really want someone so incompetent at his chosen profession before entering politics (or have a criminal receiver of stolen goods) to run this country? 

What am I talking about… Well this.

From Stuff

Treasury has referred the apparent leaking of Budget information to police, saying it has sufficient evidence to indicate that its systems have been deliberately and systematically hacked.

But National leader Simon Bridges has hit back very hard, saying National had acted “entirely appropriately” and that finance minister Grant Robertson was attempting to smear his party to cover up incompetence – and would need to resign.

In a statement on Tuesday night, treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf said Treasury had taken immediate steps to increase the security of all Budget-related information and would be undertaking a full review of information security processes.

The laws on this are pretty clear these days – regardless what the police may have deluded themselves about in the past.

To explain that statement, I’m just reading Whale Oil by Margie Thompson, a book about Cameron Slater and his paid-for defamation of Matthew Blomfield. Essentially it is about Cameron Slater receiving and criminal using data from a computer system (as all inclusively defined in Crimes Act section 248). The police have spent the last 7 years not looking like they are even vaguely competent, in what started as a simple theft of information from a computer system  – but more on that in a later post.

Basically anyone not having authorised access to material held on a computer or computer system and who extracts that information for a dishonest purpose is committing a criminal act. 

So is anyone receiving and holding that stolen information. Just read it for yourself – these sections are Crimes Act…

This is section 249 covering theft from a computer system

249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
(a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) causes loss to any other person.

(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
(a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) to cause loss to any other person.

(3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).

Similarly there is section 252

252 Accessing computer system without authorisation

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.

Then there is section 246 on Receiving – I’ll skip a couple of irrelevent sub-sections 

246 Receiving

(1) Every one is guilty of receiving who receives any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence, knowing that property to have been stolen or so obtained, or being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained.

(3) The act of receiving any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence is complete as soon as the offender has, either exclusively or jointly with the thief or any other person, possession of, or control over, the property or helps in concealing or disposing of the property.

Then  of course there is section 310 about conspiracies to offend. 

Plus from memory, there are a number of other acts with sections covering people thieving and receiving from computer systems. 

Now I’m sure that Simon Bridges tends to think himself as being above the law … After all he said this as reported by Stuff earlier today

Bridges would not describe how the information came to him and refused to describe the information as a leak.

“I’m not going to say how I got this information, just as I wouldn’t expect journalists to, but I am confident in it.”

He said that the information he had was the extent of the information he had obtained and that the document released by the National Party had been compiled by them to protect its origin.

Now there are special provisions in our legal code to protect journalists and their sources. It always pays even for journalists to remember that this privilege is not absolute. 

However there are no such provisions to protect political parties, nor their employees. So that Simon Bridges has dropped them right in it by claiming that they received the stolen information and massaged it for him to dispose of. That in itself  is in itself a criminal offense.

Similarly, the provisions in the legal code to protect politicians are remarkably limited. They essentially only apply inside the house. As far as I can tell from the reports, these bits of stolen information were not released under parliamentary privilege.

This was up in 2015 by the Supreme Court when they dismissed an appeal against conviction for theft because a copy of a video that is copied is still the property of the original owner and having that copy is therefore theft. This has all kinds of interesting implications in terms of receiving and possessing a duplicate copy – even if the material is subsequently bit modified to pass to journalists.

I’m going to be fascinated on how the NZ Police handle this.  After their  interestingly politically biased screwups on the subject of theft from computers, they’d have to satisfy me that they are actually taking theft from computer systems seriously this time.

If theft was proved to have happened and regardless of who stole the information, they need to charge the receivers and profiters from stolen information. Unlike rawshark, there appears to be no question in this case who actually passed the information to the journalists, and they weren’t an journalist.

Of course, if the police do their usual half-arsed job, then I’ll happily help to get a competent private prosecution off the ground. That will include the required appeals off the ground to help the courts and police in their learning curve.  But I’ll be fighting to do it completely in public as being in the public interest – after all what political parties consider to be criminal behaviour is very much in the public interest. 

In the meantime, I’ll get back to this more interesting book.

216 comments on “Simon Bridges – criminal receiver”

  1. Interesting for sure.

    I'm all for finding out where and how he obtained this info and how the Police will handle this.

     

  2. McFlock 2

    Bridges really is a shit-Midas. One of the biggest budget scandals in twenty years (longer, if you exclude the actual contents of any budget), and he manages to spill it all over himself.

    However this information got out, someone in Treasury should be losing their jobs (if not worse). Especially any minister that signed off on a go-live form before things were ready. Stolen Budget information could be a massive inside trading advantage to someone in the financial game. We know it went to someone in the political game, but the risk is still there.

    A serious breach could cost the country billions.

    A boon for any opposition. Do what Keith Ng did with the welfare kiosk breach: confirm the problem, take it to thwe responsible organisation, and then yell it from the rooftops. Bridges could have dined on it to the 2020 prime ministership. But shit-Midas managed to roll that ball of glitter through an overripe stockyard on a hot, moist day, and with such industry that he conceivably placed himself at the pointy end of some career-destroying charges.

    Meanwhile, Judith watches and waits…

    • Paul Campbell 2.1

      So, the budget data getting out a day early isn't really that big a deal in the scheme of things, it's information that was going to be public anyway … mostly it was just primary schoolyard bragging rights for the Nats …. except that they may have broken the law in doing so …. which is much much more serious than the leak

      • McFlock 2.1.1

        Well, in this instance.

        But what if one of the leaked/hacked announcements was an excise on car parts? Or $500million for solar generation? You find that out two days early, you sell your NZmotorwarehouse shares and buy shares in a cheap NZ solar startup.

        The classic example was the floating of the NZ dollar. 

    • Wensleydale 2.2

      Yeah, Bridges is the gift that keeps on giving. Even when he wins, he loses. National have been face-palming so hard over the past year and a half, I'm surprised they don't all require facial reconstruction surgery. Peter Goodfellow must be on the verge of a stress-induced aneurysm, and Collins must spend half her day cackling into her handbag.

  3. SHG 3

    It was published. Google indexed it. Presumably someone just guessed what the URL would be, and the Budget was there.

    Muppets.

    • McFlock 3.1

      Again, some mixed messages coming out. From stuff:

      The page, which is no longer available online but is cached by Google, shows links to every estimate for 2019/20 year in the various areas National released figures from, except for the Serious Fraud Office.

      The documents themselves were not cached and now return authentication errors when the links are clicked. 

      A spokeswoman for Treasury said that nothing had been removed, however.

      "The documents weren't uploaded to a publicly available website and then removed," she said.

      Earlier in the day Robertson said he had been told by Treasury it routinely uploaded placeholder sites, but not the information itself.

      So Treasury is saying nothing was published other than some boilerplate table of contents pages (which got cached). What they mean by "weren't uploaded to a publicly available website" is anyone's guess: department intranet site, even uploaded to the backend of the public site but not ticked "publish" to keep it authorised access only. Or competently hacked from a platform with all public access actively and intentionally prevented (firewalls bypassed, traffic intercepted, passwords cracked, VPN access from a clone of an employee's laptop, rawshark would be impressed).

       

       

       

    • lprent 3.2

      That is where it gets interesting. Google appears to have indexed the names and the treasury internal links. To access the internal links and the actual files appears to have required access to the internal system. So 252 (2) applies if someone read them inside treasury.

      However copying files and passing them external to the treasury is accessing it for a dishonest purpose. It is outright theft under 249.

      Receiving the files is also therefore an offense.

      Modifying the files so that the journalists couldn't find the source is arguably concealing, but is certainly a copyright violation.

    • michelle 3.3

      pull the other one SHG someone just guessed it and why did they do it in the first place knowing it was wrong 

  4. SHG 4

    lololololol

    • lprent 4.1

      Sigh… You and I/S are obviously technical idiots. 

      A title doesn't give you numbers. It gives you a title. What is the URL for the document? Was it a public (ie externally accessible outside treasury) document?

      I’d point out that we had exactly the same kind of ‘breach’ here a week ago. It was (and probably still is -if I’d fixed the search) possible to see that there are comments on our private posts on this site. Comments that could not be seen.

      • Sanctuary 4.1.1

        I would suggest though it turns on what Treasury define as a "hack."  Treasury may have done something really, really stupid – like use a document URL that is the same as last year except (for example) the date being 2019 instead of 2018 – that any lame ass with recent of experience of government might be able to guess. In that case, heads must and will roll at Treasury, and the National party will be able to muddy the water enough to get away with leaking effectively stolen data because, well, stupid + politics = leaks.

        But if treasury were actually subject to a serious, politically motivated and clearly criminal cyber-attack to steal confidential government documents and the result of that criminal activity has been splashed across the media by Simon Bridges with zero attempt by him to establish the credentials of the source, then Bridges is in serious trouble.

        • lprent 4.1.1.1

          Sure. They might have done something stupid.

          However you're clearly not reading the Crimes Act and understanding the implications.

          Being stupid still doesn't give anyone permission to rummage around with a  dishonest purpose to see what is available at a file level. To do that is a criminal act.

          After all, that Cameron Slater is a technical illiterate who has a problems keeping access to his computer safe does not mean that rawshark gets a free criminal pass if (s)he gets caught charged and convicted.

          To try to say that accessing a computer system with dishonest purpose and without authorisation is not criminal is exactly the same as saying that if someone fails to lock a door then you are entitled to rob anything inside. The ownership of property is the same regardless of if a house or store is locked or unlocked. Stealing it is exactly the same criminal act. Intellectual property in the form of files is the same as your cellphone…

          If that is what you're advocating – then provide me a reason why you think that should be legal.. Or for that matter moral.

          Then tell me why you’d elect a prosecutor who advocates that leaving a window ajar entitles him to rob?

          • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.1

            Yes. The various media types who tell us that it was all perfectly OK because someone just 'guessed' the urls, would all be telling us a different story if it was their computer a rival managed to uplift a scoop from.

  5. Echoes of Julian Assange ?…. however, Assange is more a journalist protecting his sources that embarrassed the most powerful nation on earths military , – and Bridges is not. Bridges is just a cheap political points scorer without the intelligence of an Assange.

     

    However, as someone commented on TDB today… it would seem Bridges has potentially been set up by someone within National .

     

    Btw… your spellchecker doesn't work and the format is not good.

  6. Higherstandard 6

    lprent's general awesomeness is a thing to behold. Life sciences, world's greatness sysop, MBA and now roving Professor of Law.

    • WeTheBleeple 6.1

      Sarcasm?

      I know loads of multi-talented multi-disciplinary people, but none of them are right wing. Unless you think drinking and talking shit is multi tasking.

    • lprent 6.2

      I had to suffer through the basic commercial  law in the MBA plus my partner going through her law degree.

      Plus I have have had to spend time around lawyers and courts.

      But I can read statutes, judgements, and any commentary going on law. And I read a lot of them just for fun.

      By the look of your general level of comments, it is usually hard to see that you have managed to read the posts.

      I guess you just have the usual problems characteristic of the inherently lazy. What you don't comprehend you denigrate.

      • higherstandard 6.2.1

        What… no male privates in your riposte, are you feeling unwell ?

        [lprent: Not sure what you have. Probably just a genetic eunuch fuckwit based on your comments.
        Incidentally, if you don’t stick to the topic, then I’ll ban you again for a few years. ]

  7. Right On 7

    Hager makes a living from publishing hacked material, viewed by many on TS as a hero. Hypocrites.

  8. RRM 8

    LMAO – Where were you when Saint Nicki Hager wrote a book based on STOLEN e mails?

    The so-called "wellbeing budget" is about tanks not teachers. 

    Grunt said there was no $11B fiscal hole but now it’s very clear that there is all that with bells on.

    But MOST OF ALL – Labour expected to control all of the language around the budget through their loyal friends in the media. But OH NOES: The media is loving National's leak, and "Tanks not Teachers" has stuck.  Failbour fails again. 🙂

    [lprent: Perhaps you should read the post again if you’re capable of that (it seems unlikely). Nicky Hager is a investigative journalist. He actually has limited protection under legislation to protect his sources and to publish information from sources in the public interest. Neither political parties nor does (outside of the parliamentary chamber) do MPs have that.

    So what is your point? To just show how much of a ignorant dipshit you are? Please try to read the posts before commenting…]

    • Sanctuary 8.1

      National supporters are all idiots, as evidenced by the above post.

      Also, the meta of Bridges language is that National still have not accepted that they lost the last election. The sense of outrage that they are not in government, and instead they – and not Labour – are in opposition is dripping from his faintly hysterical language.

      • michelle 8.1.1

        you right on the button Sanctuary they still have never gotten over rejection by half the NZ population well they better get use to it cause they are gonna get rejected again because some people are finally starting to see them for who they really are nasty , self serving people.  

        • RRM 8.1.1.1

          Every government gets rejected by over half the population sooner or later! 😎

          See also:

          Helen Clark

           

    • Robert Guyton 8.2

      RRM 's takeaway?

      Bridges has tanked.

    • George 8.3

      Riiight…and once Simon heard that there was a hacker.. and the police are involved suddenly he's the victim of a "witch hunt" Simon the victim… AGAIN! 

    • SPC 8.4

      "Tanks not teachers", parroting the words of Simon says?

      It shows the lack of both integrity and maturity of Naitonal's leader that he would use spending on defence (and also foreign aid), for personal political advantage. 

  9. Sanctuary 9

    You have got to wonder at Bridges political nous. Surely it is more "Prime Minister in waiting" to say you've received these documents, that you are not going to publish them, and then attack the government.

     

    All he has done now is made the debate about whether or not he has done anything illegal, and in any event he looks like the class snitch who couldn't wait to wave next weeks exam to the class.

  10. Sanctuary 10

    Hmmmm, the attack on Treasury began on Sunday night and consisted of an attack every 90 seconds for 48 hours. 

    The questions are now all on the National party.

    Stacey Kirk on Stuff crows about the opposition hit – and gets caned in the comments, which are usually very right wing on that site.

    Bridges has utterly misread the public mood on this issue.

    • RedLogix 10.1

      Exactly. The public knows the Budget is a confidential document for good reasons and that leaking it just because you can demonstrates a complete lack of integrity and political intelligence.

      Regardless of how Bridges obtained these documents, whether by an intentional hack or some IT dumbkoff at Treasury making it easy for them, he should not have then used them for a political purpose. Period.

      That smell on the air? Toast.

      • Gosman 10.1.1

        Do you think the public really cares? Frankly all the public will see is a bit of an embarrassment for Treasury as their security systems were not up to scratch and the Opposition doing what you would expect a political Oopposition to do in trying to disrupt the Government.

        • Muttonbird 10.1.1.1

          Do you think the public really cares?

          I find this line is always trotted out when that person's political party is under pressure.

          • Ffloyd 10.1.1.1.1

            That's the line John key used to use every time nats made a stuff up.  Which was frequently.

        • RedLogix 10.1.1.2

          Opposition doing what you would expect a political Opposition to do in trying to disrupt the Government.

          I expect the Opposition to contest and contend the Government's political program; I don't expect them to disrupt and subvert it. The Opposition is part of the political machinery; it's not there to break it.

          I don't care how Bridges obtained these documents … you don't leak the Budget.

          • Gosman 10.1.1.2.1

            The Opposition role is not to make life easy for the Government of the day. Using leaked information to disrupt the Budget is an entirely legitimate action. There is nothing morally or politically wrong with that.

            • RedLogix 10.1.1.2.1.1

              It is a well understood convention that the Budget is confidential.

              • Gosman

                Is there an understanding that if the Opposition receives information about it prior to the release of the Budget it should not release any information? If so, can you give me an example of this occurring in the past please?

                • Sam

                  There is an unwritten rule that no one fucks with defence in the house besides the Greens of course. You'll notice that Mark Mitchell dosnt troll defence issues but they will troll the minister of defence and each other. Simon and Bennett broke that rule and Mark Mitchel and Ron Marks won't be happy with them. No one is happy with them.

                  • Gosman

                    You and your lefty mates are not happy with them. That is different to stating NOONE is happy with them.

                    • Sam

                      Shhhhhhh. Don't mention to the woke around here that I am a leftie. The woke will claim that I am an alt-right wing ninja. Truth be told I just don't give fucks about them or you.

                    • Gosman

                      Apparently you are able to spout off on behalf of everyone though…

                    • Sam

                      Quote me

                    • Paul Campbell

                      by 'woke' do you mean 'people who are no longer asleep'?

                    • Kevin

                      If Stuff comments are a public barometer, there is large low pressure system circling National.

                • RedLogix

                  The Budget is always a confidential document up until the point when it is released. 

                  This is why for example Treasury run a 'Budget Lock Up' to enable journalists an opportunity to review the details and report in a timely fashion. But crucially they must not reveal any details beforehand.

                  https://treasury.govt.nz/events/registrations-open-attend-budget-2018-lock

                  • Gosman

                    Yeah I am aware of that. However that doesn't answer my question over what understanding there is if the Opposition receives information about the budget before hand. Where is an example of that happening before?

            • michelle 10.1.1.2.1.2

              There is if you have no morals gosman and national have no moral or ethics we know this cause they said they will work with the tar- mikis a sign of sheer desperation and so is getting stolen budget information and this hacking sets a very bad precedent so they need to deal with this asap with urgency and give it the attention it needs to ensure it doesn't happen again 

              • Gosman

                Why is releasing budget information prior to the official day a moral issue?

              • Shadrach

                Morals?  All Governments release budget information before budget day.  Why shouldn't the opposition?

                • Stuart Munro.

                  Because it breaks the convention with respect to release of budget contents. The Opposition is not supposed to have that information before the release date, much less leak it for cheap political points. In theory this is because it might spook the markets, though in practice market expectations of NZ governments are already so compromised that the whole exercise is a farce.

                  Labour, who you love to defame, did not go that far, having greater respect for parliamentary conventions, which are after all the only reason outgoing governments are not routinely clapped in prison. Especially thoroughly corrupt and quasi-criminal administrations like the Key Kleptocracy.

                  • Shadrach

                    The opposition is not supposed to have the information, but they do.  Much of the budget is pre-released these days for political capital (both party's do it), and with the actual budget only a day or so away, there is virtually zero chance of any harm.

            • mpledger 10.1.1.2.1.3

              Giving away information from the budget could put some people’s income in jeopardy.  What if it was in the budget that Labour would buy back all electricity shares at the going rate on the day of the budget.  By releasing that information, Bridges would start a huge run on those shares costing the government millions of dollars.  

              I'm going to assume that that was not in the budget and you may well argue that Bridges wouldn't have released that information.   But there may be other less obvious information may be critical for some people's businesses and livelihoods.

              It was a stupendously bad move by Bridges on so many levels.  It against our national interest but he got blinded by the fact that it was in National's interest … and even on that he was wrong.      

              • Gosman

                Whose incomes are in jeopardy with the information released to date?

                • mpledger

                  I don't know but neither does Simon.

                  It would be interesting to see if someone can sue him if they suffered a loss because of the early release of confidential budget information.

                   

            • George 10.1.1.2.1.4

              I always thought the opposition role was to keep the government "accountable" not create dramas and make spurious and vexatious claims at will on the taxpayers purse?

          • Wensleydale 10.1.1.2.2

            National would probably push small children into traffic if they thought it'd help them undermine the government. Contesting the budget would be waiting until it's released and then shrieking about it being a load of old bollocks in the chamber. This is more wilful subversion and a shit attempt at sabotage. But then anyone expecting National to demonstrate an appreciation of ethical considerations has probably taken a few too many blows to the head. I mean, the budget was going to come out anyway. And yet Bridges is crapping on as though he's pulled a rabbit from a hat and wants a pat on the head. He's like an irritatingly enthusiastic ten-year-old. The man's hilarious.

        • Robert Guyton 10.1.1.3

          "Opposition doing what you would expect a political Oopposition to do in trying to disrupt the Government."

          Really, disrupt the Government? Is that what Oppositions are for? I thought they were charged with holding the Government to account? Seems the National Party are behaving in a manner that doesn't fit that prescription.
          edit: as RedLogix said above…

        • George 10.1.1.4

          National.. and whoever runs them these days, are completely either out of date or culturally blind. (?) One of the main cultural values New Zealander's hold dear is honesty and straight forwardness. These have become more front and center as of the last few years. These sort of tactics were (or are) admired in the 1980's corporate culture or are admired as the values of a different culture. National are really out of step. 

          • Gosman 10.1.1.4.1

            Except people like you thought that all through the years they were in power and people still voted for them.

            • mpledger 10.1.1.4.1.1

              There were some people that accepted National's tactics, just as you do.  But there were many others who didn't believe that National were like that.  People take a lot of evidence in the contrary to displace their own opinions once formed – hopefully people will start re-evaluating.

        • michelle 10.1.1.5

          Actually we do care gosman  because in my view this sets a very bad precedent if this information can be so easily stolen then what about other sensitive material  for example our countries security, legal documents, trade documents that are highly sensitive due to commercial sensitivity this is the political spin we hear all the time commercial sensitivity can effect doing trade deals etc and can also effect us getting told the truth and exactly what is going on. This hack needs to be treated with the full force of the law.  

    • SHG 10.2

      please, anyone with an Internet-connected server in their bedroom sees more than 2000 intrusion attempts on a slow day.

  11. riffer 11

    In my more cynical moments I'm wondering if the Government got wind of a conspiracy to hack Treasury. It wouldn't take much to get "not quite right" documents lined up to be hacked, thereby creating an opportunity for hackers to compromise themselves by getting information that would completely implicate them. It will be interesting if it can be proved these documents were only available from one source AND aren't the actual budget documents.

  12. James 12

    lol. Mark mitchel just confirms that it was from a leak and not a hack. Nor did it come via another party from the leak. 

     

    Dirty politics  from labour here. 

    • mickysavage 12.1

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha … you are joking arn’t you?

    • Sanctuary 12.2

      Can he prove it was from a leak and not the result of a criminal hack? 
       

      As in, it wasn't a hack that provided data to National, or a hack that was given to someone to launder via  a leak to a bunch of willing idiots in the National party HQ who rushed off to the press before doing their digging/due diligence on the origin of the leak?

      Because if/when the police come knocking, these finer points will be important to saving Bridge's skin.

      • Gosman 12.2.1

        He doesn't have to prove anything. They can claim what they like. It is up to others to try and prove they DID receive it from the hack.

        • Sanctuary 12.2.1.1

          Oh yes he does, if he can’t prove how he got them then it looks like he is in possession of stolen documents. And that is a criminal offense.

          After all, if I have a car that looks exactly like yours and has the same rego and VIN as yours do you think if I just say to the police “look, this car got given to me and I don’t have to prove anything” the plod will go “oh, phew, thats fine then- as long as you say so” and head back to the station for a second round of donuts?

          • James 12.2.1.1.1

            there is zero evidence they are the hacked documents – only people saying so are labour. 

            National have confirmed they are a leak and they are entitled to use them. 

            • Macro 12.2.1.1.1.1

              Sorry James but there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Documents documents National hold are the result of an external hack into the Treasury server. The timing of National coming into possession of these documents was after the fact that someone tried, and was eventually successful to access this information after 2000+ attempts to hack the Treasury server. Certainly it is not, as yet, direct evidence. That matter is now in the hands of the Police ,who will be looking for where the hack originated, and if there has been any connection with National from there.

              • Gosman

                Excellent. I look forward to the Police taking Simon Bridges to court on the basis of "strong circumstantial evidence"

                • Macro

                  People have been convicted on circumstantial evidence before Gosman. A finger print on a gun is not direct evidence that the person pulled the trigger, but other supporting evidence may lead to a finding beyond reasonable doubt.

            • mpledger 12.2.1.1.1.2

              I think you'll find that leaked documents are still stolen documents. It is my understanding that people are just as limited in what they can do with them as if they were stolen by hacking.

          • Gosman 12.2.1.1.2

            Nonsense. It is no different to Nicky Hager being in possession of Don Brash's e-mails. 

            • Hanswurst 12.2.1.1.2.1

              Simon Bridges is not a journalist.

              • Gosman

                He's the leader of the Opposition. He probably has more reasons to be able to keep his sources of leaked information private. 

                • Sacha

                  Not under law he doesn't.

                • Hanswurst

                  Possibly the weakest rebuttal I have ever seen, a vague and speculative assertion that makes bugger all difference to what I said.

          • lprent 12.2.1.1.3

            There is certainly enough evidence for the police to gain a search warrant of the National party when the information was received and laundered – according to Simon Bridges. There also appears to be enough evidence for parliamentary services to launch an investigation inside of parliament.

            Do try reading the post…

        • James 12.2.1.2

          actually treasury have said “However he could not confirm whether the Treasury website was the source of the Budget information leaked by National.”

           

          (Nz herald)

          robbo and Nash etc have made the claim themselves – they have to prove it to be true – they don’t get to use the goat fucker attack. 

        • Psycho Milt 12.2.1.3

          He doesn't have to prove anything.

          As a receiver of stolen property, the burden of proof isn't going to run in his favour…

           

          • Gosman 12.2.1.3.1

            Where is the evidence he was the recipient of stolen information?

            • RedLogix 12.2.1.3.1.1

              The evidence is that Bridges released confidential Budget documents to the press. (How he obtained it is irrelevant.)

            • Psycho Milt 12.2.1.3.1.2

              The evidence is that Treasury was hacked and data stolen, and shortly afterwards Simon Bridges was advertising his possession of some of that stolen data. 

              You may actually be asking for proof he was the recipient of stolen information, which would be for the courts to establish.  I personally would be quite happy for that to happen…

              • RedLogix

                There are two aspects here; one is how Bridges obtained the Budget documents, the other is their confidential nature

                In the OP Lynn makes the comprehensive case that Bridges was not authorised to have access to them. Unless he can produce a letter from Mahklouf himself, stating that Bridges had such authorisation, then Bridges has committed an offense simply for accessing them.

                The second aspect is even more damning; even if hypothetically Bridges was authorised to have access to these documents, under no circumstances would he be permitted to place them in the public domain.

                • Macro

                  Absolutely.

                  Bridges has acted totally irresponsibly in this matter, no matter how he came to be in possession of this information. Under the now repealed Official Secrets Act 1951, he would have been committing an offence. I'm not so sure about that under the Official Information Act, but he is certainly sailing very close to the wind. Certainly he appears to be in possession of stolen information whether it was "leaked" or hacked.

                  • RedLogix

                    Then there is the deeper question of Bridge's judgement. All senior managers and political leaders are required to handle confidential information … Bridges has just demonstrated in the most spectacular manner imaginable that he cannot be trusted with it.

                    No-one can have confidence in him. Even if the Police eventually fumble this, don't charge him, and even if nothing legal sticks, Bridges is now a terminal problem for his own National Party colleagues. They will have roll him.

                  • Gosman

                    Yes please let's subject the leader of the Opposition to an official police investigation. I can't wait.

                    • Macro

                      If Bridges' doesn't understand his responsibilities wrt the handling of sensitive information, then he doesn't deserve to be in Parliament, let alone "leader" of the opposition.

                    • Gosman

                      Yeah, the Police should immediately be called in by the PM and Simon Bridges arrested on suspicion of accepting and disseminating stolen information. Do you think it will happen?

                    • Macro

                      So now you finally admit that it was stolen information.

                      We will see how the police handle this matter, as I'm sure that it is not over yet.

    • You seem confused about the difference between "confirms" and "asserts."  They're not the same thing.

    • Tricledrown 12.4

      The CCP James given Nationals masters. 

    • michelle 12.5

      Its a leak from a hacker or a hacker leaked never mind the semantics we get the gist 

    • Wensleydale 12.6

      Who had a book called 'Dirty Politics' written predominantly about them? Oh, that's right. Not Labour.

  13. Muttonbird 13

    Budget information at Treasury came under attack 2000 times over 48 hours, the Treasury Secretary says.

    Someone tried 2000 times over 48 hours to access Budget related information, he said.

    And succeeded at least a few of those times. Hard to know what's happening here but it's all high stakes stuff. Unfortunately taking away from the Budget itself…or is it?

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/390778/budget-info-from-treasury-under-multiple-and-persistent-attack

    • SHG 13.1

      and how many intrusion attempts does treasury experience on a normal day? Less than 2000? More than 2000? Hell I have boxes that get hit 2000 times a minute.

      • lprent 13.1.1

        I'd agree with that. Even this site probably gets a hundred every hour on the login (and we really don't have logins on this site). I get thousands of attempts to leave comments every hour. It is limited by the system forcing an hour block on an IP after failed logins and same for failures to get comments accepted.

        However if I read what the treasury head was saying – he was talking about particular URLs that were getting massive number of attempts from multiple sources.

        Don't be disingenuous.. You know that is a characteristic of a sustained coherent and distributed break-in attempt.

         

        • SHG 13.1.1.1

          Treasury has a Chief Information Officer, right? Dude seems strangely invisible today.

          • lprent 13.1.1.1.1

            She might actually have a job to do that is unrelated to being a media spokesperson – like actually helping locate and fix security breaches. 

            Don't most organisations have people whose job it is to talk to media?

            You seem to have a pretty piss-poor idea about how organisations should employ peoples skills.

            For instance – I'm a programmer – why in the hell would I want to waste my skilled time doing sales or contract work? There are people who can't program for that kind of work…

            BTW: Your proffered excuses for Simon are starting to sound quite pathetic…

             

             

            • SHG 13.1.1.1.1.1

              When I'm not getting drunk and playing videogames I fend off the banks that hold my crushing mortgages by being paid to advise various public and private enterprises on things including crisis-management strategy. My number one bit of advice every time to every client is that the person with the C in front of their job title has to get out in front of the cameras and the microphones as quickly as humanly possible and be 100% honest.

              Where's the Treasury CIO today?

    • infused 13.2

      This isn't complicated at all.

      A automated attack every 90 seconds is to ensure it goes unnoticed, which it did. Since the documents seem to have been online, this looks like a dictionary attack on http authorization.

      It's not stated anywhere that the information came from this, and if they were actually breached by this method.

      There's a lot of obfuscation going on here to try and trick those that don't have the IT knowledge.

      Infact, It’s just been confirmed I’m pretty much on the money.

      “Well that was a fairly telling exchange during Question One of Question Time, in Parliament today.

      Simon Bridges, beginning with the catch-all to the prime minister: “Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?”

      A variation on “yes,” is always the first response.

      Then over a series of follow up questions. We heard the prime minister significantly walk back the Government’s insinuations that National had been the recipient of “hacked” budget material.

      Developments on this are fast-paced, but the more time drags on the more it seems clear the Treasury grossly over-played the fears it was the victim of a malicious hack.”

  14. Gosman 14

    It seems to me it is going to be impossible to link the National Party directly with the hack. Simon Bridges is not at danger of being arrested over this.

    • Sanctuary 14.1

      LOL so we've already got to the "it wasn't me anyway you can't prove anything nah nah nah" defense.

      • James 14.1.1

        if national are correct- heads should roll at labour for making such serious accusations with zero evidence. 

         

        This is is going to be funny. 

      • Gosman 14.1.2

        Which is EXACTLY the defence Nicky Hager used in relation to Don Brash's e-mails.

        [lprent: Nope. Perhaps this would read better if you’d actually read my post?

        Please provide evidence that Simon Bridges or the National party are journalists. Or apologise to me for not reading it. ]

        • Robert Guyton 14.1.2.1

          Pre-release of Budget details are an economic threat to New Zealand, Brash's emails were not.

          Hager is a journalist, protected by the rules of journalism, Bridges is a politician, bound by the rules of Parliament..

          But in your mind, Gosman, exactly the same!

          • Gosman 14.1.2.1.1

            LOL!!!

            What is an economic threat to NZ? Is it a crime for carrying out such a threat? If so, can you name me the section of the crimes act which relates please?

            • Sam 14.1.2.1.1.1

              Trade and defence goes hand in hand. Meddling in defence procurement processes is literally treason. Simon and Bennett should just shut there mouths right now.

        • Muttonbird 14.1.2.2

          What a dark hole you are in, forced to equate Nicky Hager and Simon Bridges.

          • Wensleydale 14.1.2.2.1

            Gossie is essentially Gollum. And National and Bridges are 'the precious'. Picking on that nice Simon is just you being a nasty, tricksy hobbit, Mutton.

        • Gosman 14.1.2.3

          I apologise if I missed the part where you stated National could not use the defence of journalistic privlege.

          Why do you think Ardern is walking back Robertson's allegations of the National party being involved in the attempts to get the Treasury Budget data? 

    • Robert Guyton 14.2

      "It seems to me it is going to be impossible to link the National Party directly with the hack. "

      Why?

      • Gosman 14.2.1

        Because the Treasury official on the radio this morning stated it was an incredibly sophisticated attack and it would be extremely difficult to identify where it came from let alone who was responsible.

        • Robert Guyton 14.2.1.1

          So the official says, "extremely difficult" but you say "impossible".

          Yours is wishful thinking.

          • Gosman 14.2.1.1.1

            Quite possible but I would wager my view is going to be correct

            • Sam 14.2.1.1.1.1

              I think what the computationally challenged should be taking away from this is that Treasury uses "Google cache." 

        • SHG 14.2.1.2

          it would be extremely difficult to identify where it came from let alone who was responsible.

          Oh, undoubtedly, ensuring that no-one takes responsibility is going to be top on a lot of Treasury and Labour to-do lists today

    • It seems to me it is going to be impossible to link the National Party directly with the hack.

      Well, it would have been, if Simon Bridges hadn't spent much of yesterday waving the hacked data about and blathering about its contents.  But he did, so the link is pretty clearly established.

       

      • Gosman 14.3.1

        Except he wasn't waving the hacked data. Hew was waving data that he stated was leaked. Also the case against him isn't helped by members of the Government stating some of the information they presented was wrong. Care to explain how hacked information can be incorrect?

        • Psycho Milt 14.3.1.1

          Hew was waving data that he stated was leaked.

          He was waving data that he refused to say was leaked.  He's changed his tune this morning though, now that it's clear just how much shit he's in. 

          Care to explain how hacked information can be incorrect?

          The same way leaked information can be incorrect: if it involves draft versions of documents. 

          • Muttonbird 14.3.1.1.1

            Yep. Yesterday he refused to confirm it was leaked, now he's insisting it was leaked.

            I think he's started something he can't stop.

    • Dukeofurl 14.4

      Have you been listening – using information from a hack is a crime too.  if he cant show that he has done some checks to see that the person who gave it to him or his staff had the data legitimately  then hes done.

      • Gosman 14.4.1

        You will have to prove that the information he used was actually hacked. He does not have to prove that it was not hacked.

        • Psycho Milt 14.4.1.1

          I'm sure that once he and the various National Party staff involved have finished helping police with their enquiries, whether the information he used was hacked or not will be clear.  Of course, it could turn out that the people involved will apply the same meaning of "full cooperation" with police enquiries that Todd Barclay did, in which "full cooperation" means "You won't get nuthin' outa me, copper."

  15. Incognito 15

    Not so pretty legal.

  16. ianmac 16

    What if there is no connection between hacking and publishing?

    Bridges is adamant that it was not from a cyber attack. It could be a leak. If so what then?

  17. xanthe 17

    hmm we need more info

    2000 attempts in 48 hours

    firstly if the index page was visible and the links protected then 2000 unauthorised attempts to access is quite normal and to be expected

    also (having administered servers myself) i can say that 2000 access attempts in 48 hours is pretty much just usual machine noise from time to time.

    But I am not suggesting that either of these was the case here I just would like to be able to discount them .

     

    • ianmac 17.1

      If not a hack then what is left?

      • xanthe 17.1.1

        well this statement from Treasury would seem to rule out both the scenarios i suggested above.

         

        "Treasury has referred the apparent leaking of Budget information to police, saying it has sufficient evidence to indicate that its systems have been "deliberately and systematically hacked"."

        • ianmac 17.1.1.1

          Is it possible that Bridges was leaked the documents?

          Is it possible from Sunday some other identity altogether was hacking Treasury?

          Is it possible that Bridges is safe because the two events are not connected?

          (Bridges seems to be too smug and too confident for my liking.)

          • Gosman 17.1.1.1.1

            If he is wrong then he is spectacularly incompetent (a possibility I admit). In which case he will be forced to resign. I suspect National are too sure of themselves to allow this to happen though. You would see some Nats distance themselves from the situation if this wasn't the case.

          • Robert Guyton 17.1.1.1.2

            I suspect the material Bridges received was obtained by means other than the hackers tracked by Treasury, hence the smugness. Bridge's irresponsible behaviour in broadcasting the contents of the "packet" he received remains the issue and it's that action that has the public wrinkling their collective nose.

  18. Muttonbird 18

    I wonder what John Key's bill for this will be.

    😂

  19. tsmithfield 19

    From what I've been reading at other sites, it looks like a possible explanation is something similar to when Slater got details from the Labour Party Website. 

    That is, the stuff may have been publicly available online, although not obvious. But all one had to do was a bit of Google searching, and there it was!

    If that is true, then I imagine heads will roll at Treasury over it. 

     

     

     

    • Treasury have rejected that explanation, saying that the relevant documents weren't mistakenly published online. 

      • tsmithfield 19.1.1

        Maybe. But maybe they haven't got a clue. See below from the Kiwiblog article:

         

        My guess is looking good based on this tweet by No Right Turn:

        Idiot/Savant@norightturnnz

         · 12h

        It wasn't a hack. Google "estimates of appropriation 2019/2020". what shows up?

        View image on Twitter

        Idiot/Savant@norightturnnz

        If you click the link, you'll only see what you're meant to. But if you hit "cached": pic.twitter.com/NBWe7113RA

        21

        9:35 PM – May 28, 2019

        Twitter Ads info and privacy

        View image on Twitter

        • Macro 19.1.1.1

          The people who are following the line you suggest above haven't got a clue. Those are simply urls (place holders if you like) the details would be on the server but not publicly available, until the budget is released.

          Treasury have been doing this sort of operation for years. They are not going to be slipping up on that sort of detail. We know that the site was hacked *- they have evidence to that effect which they have handed to the police. When the budget is released – people want to know what is in it so they will immediately go to the website, and there it all is! 

          In the past when it was solely in printed format the budget was printed days in advance. No system is entirely secure to someone who is determined to break into it. Not even in the Pentagon.

          https://www.businessinsider.com.au/pentagon-admits-24000-files-were-hacked-declares-cyberspace-a-theater-of-war-2011-7?r=US&IR=T

          *There would be no need to hack into the server if the information was publicly available!

          • tsmithfield 19.1.1.1.1

            Fair enough. What you say makes sense.

          • infused 19.1.1.1.2

            They forgot to secure it. Do you not remember a similar incident here with backups?

            Anyway, we will never know until someone makes this public. To me, it just looks like sloppy work. If someone hacked Treasury, there would be a ton of information coming out.

            • Macro 19.1.1.1.2.1

              Whether or not it was securely fastened (I suspect it was, but not as secure as Treasury thought it was) it is still theft.

              The analogy is, I go out leaving my wallet in a drawer.  I lock the door, but forget to fasten the toilet window. Someone climbs in, looks around, and eventually finds my wallet, removes the cash, and exits. That is still theft, even if my place wasn't as secure as I had thought it to be.

              The Treasury server allows public access – but the information was not stored in a public place, It certainly wasn't available to the normal user, It required at least 2000 pokes and searches to find the information. Like my wallet in the drawer it wasn't out for everyone to see. According to the Secretary of the Treasury there were even locks on the drawer in which the info was stored, and the intruder had to break those cyber locks. So I don't regard this as an opportunistic crime, like someone walking into my house though an open door and taking the cash sitting on the dinning table. This was a deliberate intrusion by a cyber criminal.

              Yes I remember that incident.

              • infused

                How would anyone know they shouldn't be there if they are publically available on the website, and indexed by google. No one would have any idea. This would never go through the court system.

                • McFlock

                  How would anyone who knows enough about the NZ budget to guess a web address (if that's what happened) not know that the 2019 budget should not be publicly available before it's announced?

                • Macro

                  How would anyone know they shouldn't be there if they are publically (sic) available on the website, and indexed by google.

                  LOL

                  But they weren't were they! The person committing this crime had to break into the folders in which they were stored.

                  Electronic Storage ·

                  Electronic files (including databases) should be protected against illicit internal use or intrusion by external parties through two or more of the following mechanisms: – user challenge and authentication (username/password or digital ID/Certificate) – logging use at level of individual – firewalls and intrusion-detection systems and procedures; – server authentication – OS-specific/application-specific security measures.

                  https://www.gcsb.govt.nz/assets/GCSB-Documents/Guidelines-for-Protection-of-Official-Information-Wallchart.pdf

                  The indexing by google was simply the headings to which they would eventually be placed under (The contents page of the final document). They knew they were committing a crime . When did they first visit the website? Midnight Sunday! I mean that's not the normal activity of someone just popping over to see what Treasury had to offer on the current state of the country's finances.

                   

    • SHG 19.2

      Can anyone definitely prove that this is NOT Clare Curran's fault?

    • lprent 19.3

      It doesn't appear to be very likely. Because they're not looking at data – they're looking at titles.

      What they are relying upon is a google cache that exposes some titles of documents.

      To date no-one has pointed to the cache showing contents of those document or any ability to download them. Which is what happened in the Labour party site.

      Moreover, just the act of downloading data from a site even if it is ‘public’ is still illegal under the crimes act if you have to go through hoops finding unpublished links to get to it.

      I suspect that you’re either hair splitting or not willing to look at the actual laws rather than a fantasy law that doesn’t exist.

      • SHG 19.3.1

        I wonder how diligently Treasury audits its sitemap.xml…?

        • lprent 19.3.1.1

          Beats me. Like me they probably just generate it based on a criteria. The days of doing are long gone. Almost every site is too big.

          However even if it was incorrectly generated, then knowing what is present seldom relates that closely to what has permission to actually access files.

          Which is in a whole different permission level 

           

          • SHG 19.3.1.1.1

            I'm picturing something like

            John Doe at Treasury: "I'll upload these pre-release Budget documents into the CMS, but I won't link them anywhere so nobody will be able to access them"

            CMS automatically adds links to the documents to sitemap.xml

            Search engines notice the new URLs in the sitemap, scrape and index the new content

            Jane Smith Googles for Budget 2019 numbers, sees documents under treasury.govt.nz in the SERPs, sorts by date, sees some of them are REALLY fresh, and downloads them

            John Doe frantically removes read permission on the docs meaning that subsequent clicks on the SERPs links return 403

            Jane Smith gives the numbers to the National Party comms unit

            Treasury: "oh shit"

            hilarity ensues

  20. Peter 20

    I just heard the man-child  at Parliament distraught that the integrity of the National Party had been called into question and that they had been so so slurred. Hearing a man-child so adamant and certain about their honour was heart-warming.

    How far away from the spot of the various Jami-Lee Ross revelation hotspots was he when he spoke? Near the tosspot spots traversed by the others of integrity like Todd I won't talk to the Police Barclay and integrity driven Bill '400 texts I didn't know anything about what was going on' English?

    Because I didn't have visuals I couldn't tell if Simon had a team to support him in his most vehement display of umbrage about challenges to their honour and rectitude – you know a stack of junior staffers.                                                                                                                   

  21. Lucy 21

    Think someone should ask – if National has been given access to budget 3 days early can they confirm that they have not given it to their buddies. One of the reason for all the security is the possibility that people can use that information on the share market etc. that was why the leak in 1986 was such an issue. NZ lost vast amounts of money thanks to that leak – surely we need to watch what the share market has done since Monday.

  22. MickeyBoyle 22

    The more reporting I read on this, the more it looks like a stuff up by treasury, and they are trying to blame it on a hack. They very well may have beeen hacked, but National appear to have got this information via a online leak. Robertson is digging a hole here, one that I dont think he will climb out of.

  23. woodart 23

    whether the budget details were hacked, or leaked is immaterial to the appalling lack of judgement by bridges. handed state secrets(they are ,no question) he should have had the nouce to alert the authorities to the breach. instead, like a little boy trying to look important, he spent the day shooting off his mouth. as the leader of the opposition, he sits in on ,and gets confidential briefings, and would be well aware that what happened over the last couple of days wasnt an accident. the SIS will now be wonderering if bridges is up to the task of keeping his mouth shut on other important matters….."ex police prosecuter in possesion of stolen information" isnt a good look.

    • Gosman 23.1

      LOL! 

      • RedLogix 23.1.1

        On the contrary Gosman it's my view that woodart is 100% correct. It's not a laughing matter.

        • Gosman 23.1.1.1

          I generally respect your views (even if I disagree with them). Are you seriously suggesting that Simon Bridge has gone completely rogue on this? Would you not think that at least some of the National party MP's would be distancing themselves from him if this was the case because the fallout could be incredibly bad if true.

          • RedLogix 23.1.1.1.1

            That's a reasonable question Gosman.

            The known facts at present are; Bridges had an unauthorised copy of the Budget and breached it's confidentiality. Unless there is more information we don't know at present … what other explanation is going to work?

            • Gosman 23.1.1.1.1.1

              That they managed to get the  unauthorised copy of the Budget via a source that is not illegal (i.e. a leak). 

          • woodart 23.1.1.1.2

            got nothing to do with bridges going rogue. try and keep up gosman…whats the biggest threat to New Zealand inc. computer malfeasance of one sort or another. what just happened?what would be one of the main breifing points when simon and jacinda have the spys in for coffee?computer malfeasance…. simon(and his inner circle(?) look fairly incompetent over this lack of forethought.

  24. mpledger 24

    A couple of people on stuff are saying "Labour would have done the same"  but when Labour had the chance they didn't do the same.   IIRC When Labour found a hole in the National Party website they told National confidentially and never made hay with it.  

    • Gosman 24.1

      Ummm… slightly different. It involved personal information not policy direction. I am sure if there were policy programmes the National party was going to promote there would have been a lot of publicity about them.

      • Peter 24.1.1

        National party people are very particular and would differentiate about using personal information.

        I know because Bill and Anne and Paula and Steven told me. Oh, and Winston backed them up.

  25. Puckish Rogue 25

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/05/my_guess_as_to_what_happened.html

     

    So, probably, not a hack, just sloppy practice from Treasury. To be fair I wouldn't be at all surprised if other government departments were like this, human nature being what it is.

    • Robert Guyton 25.1

      Based on a guess by a National Party prop, you think "probably"?

      Weakest effort ever, Pucky.

      • Muttonbird 25.1.1

        Based on a guess by a National Party prop who used the same method to hack information when he worked for the National Party.

        My guess is it's more than a just a guess by Farrar.

      • Puckish Rogue 25.1.2

        It sounds like it could be plausible. How many times have people entered information at work without a thought given to the security

         

        However someone will end with egg on their face, the only question is who

        • Gosman 25.1.2.1

          The trouble is it has escalated to the stage that either it was a Hack, in which case Bridges is goneburger, or it was sloppy data security, in which case the Treasury secretary AND Robertson are toast.

          • woodart 25.1.2.1.1

            bridges is still the guy who ended up with hot goods, and still the guy that should have done the responsible thing (s.i.s. breifings )and immediatley call the cops. hell, he WAS a police prosecuter!!!

    • So, probably, not a hack, just sloppy practice from Treasury.

      Treasury have explicitly ruled out DPF's speculation.  They've stated that the documents were not inadvertently made publicly accessible.

       

      • Puckish Rogue 25.2.1

        If true and that's a big if given that government departments aren't exactly known for being 100% truthful then the investigation should be interesting

      • SHG 25.2.2

        They've stated that the documents were not inadvertently made publicly accessible.

        So how did the links get crawled by Google? The only way that metadata ends up in SERPs is if the documents were made publicly accessible.

        Smells like arse-covering.

        • Psycho Milt 25.2.2.1

          Treasury said they often upload placeholders for upcoming documents, eg the cached page of document titles and links that was cached by Google, but the documents themselves were at no point publicly available. The journos who tried following the links weren't able to retrieve any documents, presumably because they don't become publicly available until the budget is released.

          • SHG 25.2.2.1.1

            Oh please, anyone who has ever had to manage document publication on the Internet knows that's bullshit.

            I also note that the indexed metadata didn't say "TEMP DOC REMEMBER TO REPLACE"

  26. Puckish Rogue 26

    Tony Stark: "It's not the 80s, nobody says "hack" anymore"

     

    Especially when it, most likely, looks like no "hacking" actually took place,

    • Pingau 26.1

      In the 80s hacking meant going for a casual ride on a horse or chopping up something with a large heavy blade or axe.

  27. adam 27

    So looking forward to what's in the code on this one. 

    The answer will be coming soon, my guess the fact that kiwiblog is rushing to frame the debate as 'reasonably', people inside national are worried. Sheesh the pattern from that dirty politics guy is sooo predictable – it's like he has no other play book…

    But like everyone else, just wild speculation whilst we wait for the truth.

  28. The Chairman 28

    If National really have the dirt on Roberston (as they expect it will result on him having to resign) then they are going to have to release something that directly or indirectly implicates him.

    So far, they've produced nothing.

    However, the prime time for doing so would be on budget day.

    Failure to produce after making such bold claims won't look good for them.

    • SPC 28.1

      It appears the National Party game play is to

      1. receive Treasury information (whomever, whatever)

      2. snoop around the Treasury site looking for the pages the 2019 budget figures will be uploaded to, and create the impression of a hack (and thus protect their real source)

      3. wait to be accused of receiving hacked informatiom (neither the head of Treasury of the Minister did this, but Bridges still accuses them of lying – the only way he can do this is if he knows the "hack" did not gather any information only appeared to – thus he knows who did the snooping and why)

      4. suggest the Minister is responsible for the security of the information, and thus uses the investigation against the Minister.  

      • The Chairman 28.1.1

        It could be a case of Robertson leaving his briefcase behind somewhere with a copy of the budget in it. It could have been found, copied and given to National before it was returned. And the timing of the hack just a coincident.

        • Sacha 28.1.1.1

          Accompanied by a pie, for good measure.

        • Anne 28.1.1.2

          Was their a pie in the briefcase?  All the police need to do is visit the nearest pie selling shop to the Beehive and Bob's your uncle.

          • Anne 28.1.1.2.1

            Oops, I didn't see Sacha was already there. 'They' will never live that episode down. Is Penthouse magazine still going?

      • SHG 28.1.2

        Budgets get printed, remember. Someone has to create a PDF and provide it to another someone at a printing company by some means.

  29. higherstandard 29

    Must admit to being far more interested in the actual substance of the budget rather than this sideshow.

    Will be interesting to see where the money goes tomorrow –  I suspect most will find it pretty indistinguishable from a budget by the last government apart from the partisan hacks on either side.

  30. peterlepaysan 30

    Bridges is clearly an idiot (long may he reign as nat leader).

    Bridges needs to see an urologist.
    How much of our money did he spend trying to find a damp spot in his underwear in past leaks?

    Who cares about this information?
    Is Simon dealing in stolen goods?

    The smell of desperation is prevalent.

    Blaming the victim is a Bennet code, perhaps he should listen to the Collins code.

  31. RRM 31

    Pretty legal after all 😎

    LULZ

    Left eagerness to condemn people as criminal, noted….

    • Legal?? 

      lol.

      In who's eyes?

      The information was govt information to be distributed several days later.

      No matter how he got it, he was never given any OK to announce it.

      Treason.

       

    • McFlock 31.2

      I think the definition from the Supreme Court is that "pretty legal" means "costing the nats $225k plus legal fees".

  32. Enough is Enough 32

    "Because given the events of today – it seems questionable if he understands the legal basis of our criminal laws"

    Are you still questioning that?

  33. Rob 33

    So , now we know this is a load of horse shit 

  34. Labour_voter 34

    I hope you take a print out of this post and eat it. Never write anything until you know the truth and the full truth.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago