Dirty Politics: Nicky Hager's New Book

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Dirty Politics: Nicky Hager's New Book

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1111502 19-Aug-2014 18:47

BarTender:
Glassboy:
BarTender:

Really?? I've seen people fired from violating the COBE. Bring your employer into disrepute and your gone.

Let's be clear, you're suggesting he be fired for doing his job. That it's a douchy job is irrelevant.

So his job is to poke around the oppositions website and dig up dirt rather than reporting it to them about the issue.

I really hope you don't work in IT or have anything to do with security since anyone you disageed with would be buggered.

Actually I do a lot of both which is why I'm not just talking out of a hole in my head.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111506 19-Aug-2014 18:52

networkn:
BarTender:
Glassboy:
BarTender:

Kick Collins and Ede to the curb today would be a pretty good start. I'm still of the belief that Collins has something pretty major on Key as she has had more than enough "last" chances. If that came out then National would implode.

That would be ........ ironic. Ede is an employee. One of the complaints of the left is that the right has weaken the protection of workers.

I would hope that he would have signed an employment contract with a code of business ethics. However considering how things have been going perhaps that his just a nonsense. I know with all my jobs I have had over the years there has been one.

Just wondering if you have any experience with dismissing staff? You think just because a clause like this exists you can just fire someone? It simply isn't that simple. There are processes to follow, investigations to occur etc, which all take time, I can't see
anyone (you included) patiently waiting while that process was followed. You are being disengenius to suggest he has no employment contract or that they don't have a morality or similar clause, as given he is a govt employee and entire dept's dedicated to it, in this day
and age it would have occurred.

I once caught a staff member with equipment in his car he had no reason to have in his car, it was essentially theft, but legally unless I had a VIDEO of him doing it, with audio amounting to an admission of guilt WHILE HE DID IT, it wasn't an option to sack him outright.

Thankfully when I started the process, he up and quit and spared us both the hassle. My employment lawyer told me outright at the outset, I would likely need to financially incentivise him to leave. That was a MUCH more clear cut case with far less complications and implications.

I've personally been involved when two staff were walked off the premises on separate occasions for different reasons. Given the written letter informing them of the serious breach of conduct they had done and that was it.

I have yet to see any comment from the PM about Ede apart from saying he was comfortable with it. No one stood down. Not a whisper that it is remotely unacceptable the number of times he has been asked about it.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111507 19-Aug-2014 18:55

Glassboy:
BarTender:
Glassboy:
BarTender:

Really?? I've seen people fired from violating the COBE. Bring your employer into disrepute and your gone.

Let's be clear, you're suggesting he be fired for doing his job. That it's a douchy job is irrelevant.

So his job is to poke around the oppositions website and dig up dirt rather than reporting it to them about the issue.

I really hope you don't work in IT or have anything to do with security since anyone you disageed with would be buggered.

Actually I do a lot of both which is why I'm not just talking out of a hole in my head.

That is even more disturbing. Everyone I know in infosec is appalled that the PM said he was comfortable with it and wouldn't even discuss it was unacceptable behaviour.

To quote from the other thread about some direct quotes from Slater and Ede.

The details of the plan were worked out between Slater and Ede in the final days before the launch. The computer logs show them both accessing the Labour site on 7 June, Ede (identifiable by his computer’s technical characteristics) arriving at 10.11 p.m. and Slater (who forgot to disguise his home IP address) two minutes later at 10.13 p.m. Then on 10 June, just two days before the attack was launched, they to-ed and fro-ed by e-mail, working out which bits of the Labour information Slater should emphasise.

But it had been a close shave. The next day, 14 June, Ede and Slater exchanged several e-mails expressing their relief that Labour had not discovered Ede’s role. Ede wrote: ‘An interesting sidebar in Pagani’s story is that they’re chasing us by matching IP neighbourhoods and the types of computer we use. You stand out like dogs balls because of your damn Mac!!!!!’ He continued, ‘In my case, I wish to offer a hearty sigh of relief and celebrate dynamic IP addresses.’ He meant his computer regularly changed its IP address, which ensured he could not be identified by its IP address. If Ede had had a static IP address like Slater, the Labour Party might have been able to prove he had been inside their computer system. He titled his e-mail, ‘Thank You for dynamic IP addresses.’

The above "job" is normally within the remit of a National Party staffer isn't it???

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1111510 19-Aug-2014 19:08

BarTender:
Glassboy:
BarTender:
Glassboy:
BarTender:

Really?? I've seen people fired from violating the COBE. Bring your employer into disrepute and your gone.

Let's be clear, you're suggesting he be fired for doing his job. That it's a douchy job is irrelevant.

So his job is to poke around the oppositions website and dig up dirt rather than reporting it to them about the issue.

I really hope you don't work in IT or have anything to do with security since anyone you disageed with would be buggered.

Actually I do a lot of both which is why I'm not just talking out of a hole in my head.

That is even more disturbing. Everyone I know in infosec is appalled that the PM said he was comfortable with it and wouldn't even discuss it was unacceptable behaviour.

To quote from the other thread about some direct quotes from Slater and Ede.

The details of the plan were worked out between Slater and Ede in the final days before the launch. The computer logs show them both accessing the Labour site on 7 June, Ede (identifiable by his computer’s technical characteristics) arriving at 10.11 p.m. and Slater (who forgot to disguise his home IP address) two minutes later at 10.13 p.m. Then on 10 June, just two days before the attack was launched, they to-ed and fro-ed by e-mail, working out which bits of the Labour information Slater should emphasise.

But it had been a close shave. The next day, 14 June, Ede and Slater exchanged several e-mails expressing their relief that Labour had not discovered Ede’s role. Ede wrote: ‘An interesting sidebar in Pagani’s story is that they’re chasing us by matching IP neighbourhoods and the types of computer we use. You stand out like dogs balls because of your damn Mac!!!!!’ He continued, ‘In my case, I wish to offer a hearty sigh of relief and celebrate dynamic IP addresses.’ He meant his computer regularly changed its IP address, which ensured he could not be identified by its IP address. If Ede had had a static IP address like Slater, the Labour Party might have been able to prove he had been inside their computer system. He titled his e-mail, ‘Thank You for dynamic IP addresses.’

The above "job" is normally within the remit of a National Party staffer isn't it???

So you and these people are fully aware of all the facts

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111511 19-Aug-2014 19:16

KiwiNZ: So you and these people are fully aware of all the facts

No one has yet to deny the allegations, not Key or Ede, not Slater.

Key wouldn't answer a straight question the numerous times he has been asked.

So on the balance of anyone refuting them I'm prepared to take Hager on his word since most of the time he has been right. I suspect Whaledump will have more to say on the matter.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1111514 19-Aug-2014 19:19

BarTender:
KiwiNZ: So you and these people are fully aware of all the facts

No one has yet to deny the allegations, not Key or Ede, not Slater.

Key wouldn't answer a straight question the numerous times he has been asked.

So on the balance of anyone refuting them I'm prepared to take Hager on his word since most of the time he has been right. I suspect Whaledump will have more to say on the matter.

So no then.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111515 19-Aug-2014 19:28

KiwiNZ:
BarTender:
KiwiNZ: So you and these people are fully aware of all the facts

No one has yet to deny the allegations, not Key or Ede, not Slater.

Key wouldn't answer a straight question the numerous times he has been asked.

So on the balance of anyone refuting them I'm prepared to take Hager on his word since most of the time he has been right. I suspect Whaledump will have more to say on the matter.

So no then.

So obviously you have read the book with an open objective mind then right?? Or have the proof to disprove everything hager has said right???? Because I know a lot of journalists that would love to hear from you.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1111518 19-Aug-2014 19:30

Because I don't have all the facts I have made no decisions.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111525 19-Aug-2014 19:37

KiwiNZ: Because I don't have all the facts I have made no decisions.

So that's a no to reading the book and a no to disproving what is out there and Key have accepted they were hacked emails.

Way to stay informed.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1111528 19-Aug-2014 19:39

BarTender:
KiwiNZ: Because I don't have all the facts I have made no decisions.

So that's a no to reading the book and a no to disproving what is out there and Key have accepted they were hacked emails.

Way to stay informed.

What's that saying about assumptions?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111571 19-Aug-2014 20:13

KiwiNZ:
BarTender:
KiwiNZ: Because I don't have all the facts I have made no decisions.

So that's a no to reading the book and a no to disproving what is out there and Key have accepted they were hacked emails.

Way to stay informed.

What's that saying about assumptions?

So you have read the book then?

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

gzt

18753 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7883

Lifetime subscriber

#1111602 19-Aug-2014 20:46

networkn: Thankfully when I started the process, he up and quit and spared us both the hassle. My employment lawyer told me outright at the outset, I would likely need to financially incentivise him to leave. That was a MUCH more clear cut case with far less complications and implications.

In this case employment law is likely to be the least of worries. I would be surprised if it was even on the radar. He would be well taken care of and into an external lobbying type job as soon as he wants one, and probably more money as well. If the prime minister thought it was an advantage to have him gone, he'd be off and out of there.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1111607 19-Aug-2014 21:02

gzt:
networkn: Thankfully when I started the process, he up and quit and spared us both the hassle. My employment lawyer told me outright at the outset, I would likely need to financially incentivise him to leave. That was a MUCH more clear cut case with far less complications and implications.

In this case employment law is likely to be the least of worries. I would be surprised if it was even on the radar. He would be well taken care of and into an external lobbying type job as soon as he wants one, and probably more money as well. If the prime minister thought it was an advantage to have him gone, he'd be off and out of there.

Plus of course we have no idea the level of knowledge and/or involvement of others in the office (including providing direction) that may come out in any employment dispute; this may act as a brake on removing Ede. Plus don't these emails relate to his previous not current role? If so, the link is more tenuous.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1111641 19-Aug-2014 21:49

Good links posted by heapsort - hopefully those who are hellbent on commenting on the book without reading it have read these links (they're not long, honest) to gain some context of the book itself.

Here's another interesting link - a critique of Hager from someone who's been on the receiving end of Hagers displeasure. Feel free to search the name and see exactly what makes what he writes so interesting.

Edit: poor grammar, no guarantees of post edit improvement though.

Bung

6736 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2929

Subscriber

#1111684 19-Aug-2014 23:11

jonathan18: Plus don't these emails relate to his previous not current role? If so, the link is more tenuous.

I'm sure this has been anticipated for some time. Ede has moved out of the publicly funded PM's office (then) into a National Party job (now).

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18