National's Budget leak documents 2019

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

Forums › Politics › National's Budget leak documents 2019

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247653 29-May-2019 11:37

I would seperate him from the National party as regards trust. Whatever your poison, most MP's want to do a good job. IMHO SB has failed as a leader and as a trusted lawmaker. I personally dont need any more examples. Judith any day, or another waiting in the wings.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2247664 29-May-2019 11:56

tdgeek:

I would seperate him from the National party as regards trust. Whatever your poison, most MP's want to do a good job. IMHO SB has failed as a leader and as a trusted lawmaker. I personally dont need any more examples. Judith any day, or another waiting in the wings.

The state of it when you're defaulting to JuCo for the sake of a moral compass...😆

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247668 29-May-2019 12:05

GV27:

tdgeek:

I would seperate him from the National party as regards trust. Whatever your poison, most MP's want to do a good job. IMHO SB has failed as a leader and as a trusted lawmaker. I personally dont need any more examples. Judith any day, or another waiting in the wings.

The state of it when you're defaulting to JuCo for the sake of a moral compass...😆

Yes, I don't like her, she can be toxic. But I'd rather have a hardarse, tough PM that what Simon has shown he actually is. I don't like his morals, I don't like his decision making choices, his quick reactionary behavior, and he is not a leader. I'm not sure National can manage a another new face so soon. She would make more sense right now.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2247678 29-May-2019 12:24

I somewhat get the feeling everyone is stepping back from the brink with this. The coverage has just stopped abruptly.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2247837 29-May-2019 16:28

Ardern is putting some distance between herself and Treasury as it's apparently a Treasury matter.

Bridges is sticking to his guns and denying the National party has done anything illegal.

Winston is rarking everything up by saying he knows what happened and it's "very bad for National" which is a pretty solid attempt to tie them to the hack.

If you adjust for the "Winston being Winston" factor, it sounds like people are stepping back because they can't prove themselves right, but also I suspect because they may be starting to think they don't have the full picture, or there won't be a moment where they are proved right and get to be all smart alec-ish about things any time soon.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2247886 29-May-2019 18:22

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235454

I mean it's pretty petty of Robertson, but not really sure what National were expecting after this week.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247942 29-May-2019 19:33

GV27:

Ardern is putting some distance between herself and Treasury as it's apparently a Treasury matter.

Bridges is sticking to his guns and denying the National party has done anything illegal.

Winston is rarking everything up by saying he knows what happened and it's "very bad for National" which is a pretty solid attempt to tie them to the hack.

If you adjust for the "Winston being Winston" factor, it sounds like people are stepping back because they can't prove themselves right, but also I suspect because they may be starting to think they don't have the full picture, or there won't be a moment where they are proved right and get to be all smart alec-ish about things any time soon.

Yep

W being W. Its coverage. She has stepped back as there is no FACT. Yet. Simon says he is legal. Cannot deny that. Yet.

Once, and if this is proved there will be a bad person. Or more likely "not sure" so that no one is bad. Simon should have stepped back as there is no fact, be calm, be confident, but he got angry. That means (IMHO) he is guilty , or he is not a leader. So, go Judith.

This has, according to media been HUGE. Its actually stupid. Its not huge. Its a story. It makes no difference to how good the budget is, or how poor it is.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2247944 29-May-2019 19:37

GV27:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235454

I mean it's pretty petty of Robertson, but not really sure what National were expecting after this week.

Its out tomorrow. Then its public domain. After this debacle (blame Labour or National or Treasury or Tamaki) I don't see it as petty. Its more a calming period after 2 days of rubbish. Next year I would type it out! :-)

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2248130 30-May-2019 06:51

"Dictated but not read" on the Budget. I like it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235615

This is bad for Treasury. It's bad for Peters who strongly implied National had breached some sort of security. Robertson less so but Peters went broke Tropic Thunder's number one rule on this one.

This is so laughably bad. And yet people fell over themselves to suggest National had done some Operation Swordfish style glamour-hacking because that's what they wanted National to have done.

Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf had earlier claimed the website had been hacked.

However, police said today the person or persons were able to "exploit" the system because Treasury staff had been preparing a clone website in the background that they intended to swap over with the live website on Budget day.

To do this Treasury staff had begun uploading some Budget information onto the clone site.

Although not publicly accessible, some information could be seen when a search was made on the website.

Investigations into what happened showed about 2000 searches were made for Budget details.

"The evidence shows deliberate, systematic and persistent searching of a website that was clearly not intended to be public," Treasury said.

Searching a website is not hacking it.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248134 30-May-2019 07:21

Does this apply?

noun

noun: hacking

the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer.

Hacking or not, someone has intentionally accessed data for, or to give to, the National party, that they were not authorised to. Whether that definition applies or not, nothing in the story has changed, part from the definition.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2248136 30-May-2019 07:30

tdgeek:

Does this apply?

noun noun: hacking

the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer. Hacking or not, someone has intentionally accessed data for, or to give to, the National party, that they were not authorised to. Whether that definition applies or not, nothing in the story has changed, part from the definition.

If you populate results in a search engine that you provide on your own website... The police don't seem to think anything criminal happened. So will we see a bevy of resignations and apologies today?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248137 30-May-2019 07:38

GV27:

tdgeek:

Does this apply?

noun noun: hacking

the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer. Hacking or not, someone has intentionally accessed data for, or to give to, the National party, that they were not authorised to. Whether that definition applies or not, nothing in the story has changed, part from the definition.

If you populate results in a search engine that you provide on your own website... The police don't seem to think anything criminal happened. So will we see a bevy of resignations and apologies today?

A good summary how this happened. I don't imagine anyone from Treasury will resign due to an exploit existing in their system, or labelling the event as hacking if that is what early investigations showed. Government responded to Treasury's comments, no issue there. Perhaps anyone from Treasury, Labour, or National that is not able to act in a trustworthy manner on embargoed information should consider resigning

Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf earlier this week said Treasury had found evidence it had been "deliberately and systematically hacked." On Thursday morning he said that while the action may not have been illegal, it was clearly "unacceptable behaviour" and a breach of conventions around Budget confidentiality.

"Our systems were clearly susceptible to such unacceptable behaviour, in breach of the long-standing convention around Budget confidentiality, and we will undertake a review to make them more robust," Makhlouf said.

"In my view, there were deliberate, exhaustive and sustained attempts to gain unauthorised access to embargoed data.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113109311/no-further-police-action-on-budget-leaks

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2248140 30-May-2019 07:48

tdgeek:

A good summary how this happened. I don't imagine anyone from Treasury will resign due to an exploit existing in their system, or labelling the event as hacking if that is what early investigations showed. Government responded to Treasury's comments, no issue there. Perhaps anyone from Treasury, Labour, or National that is not able to act in a trustworthy manner on embargoed information should consider resigning

That depends on who you think published it. If Treasury have effectively published it, then they're the ones who broke the embargo.

Winston Peters' comments tho:

But Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was not holding back when he spoke to media this afternoon.

He said the information obtained by National had been acquired illegally.

Asked if he had seen evidence which proved this, Peters said: "Of course".

When pressed on how he knew, Peters said it was "my job to know".

"Information came to them [National] in circumstances where the behaviour was totally illegal and they should have known it," Peters, said.

"All I can tell you, whilst I'm not prepared to go public with it, is … the facts look very, very bad for the National Party."

He said Bridges had "made a right fool of himself" and, although he has predicted Bridges downfall numerous times, Peters said he expected the National leader to be "gone-burger" as a result of the saga.

This has not aged well.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248142 30-May-2019 08:01

GV27:

tdgeek:

A good summary how this happened. I don't imagine anyone from Treasury will resign due to an exploit existing in their system, or labelling the event as hacking if that is what early investigations showed. Government responded to Treasury's comments, no issue there. Perhaps anyone from Treasury, Labour, or National that is not able to act in a trustworthy manner on embargoed information should consider resigning

That depends on who you think published it. If Treasury have effectively published it, then they're the ones who broke the embargo.

Winston Peters' comments tho:

But Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was not holding back when he spoke to media this afternoon.

He said the information obtained by National had been acquired illegally.

Asked if he had seen evidence which proved this, Peters said: "Of course".

When pressed on how he knew, Peters said it was "my job to know".

"Information came to them [National] in circumstances where the behaviour was totally illegal and they should have known it," Peters, said.

"All I can tell you, whilst I'm not prepared to go public with it, is … the facts look very, very bad for the National Party."

He said Bridges had "made a right fool of himself" and, although he has predicted Bridges downfall numerous times, Peters said he expected the National leader to be "gone-burger" as a result of the saga.

This has not aged well.

Treasury didnt break the embargo. An unknown exploit broke it, you make it sound like they went ahead and broke it. An unknown issue broke it, Treasury are responsible.

Peters is now wrong to label it as illegal. It is just illicit and breaks all conventions for embargoed information in Parliament, let alone trust and acceptable behaviour. I don't see anything wrong with the rest that Peters stated, unless obtaining unauthorised data is now seen as a great idea.

You seem to feel that now it isn't labelled as illegal, or hacking, that its all fair game, or as Mr B says, a good job, and shrewd?

My position is, we now know the cause. There was a hole in Treasury's practices. Nothing else changes. I would hate to read the posts should the reverse had been the case.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2248145 30-May-2019 08:03

Budget day today. On a lighter note, there was an article on Stuff yesterday about the budget, what everyone wants, they got a cross section of society. Like every budget, everyone wants everything! I guess it grows on trees still

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11