By Bernard Hickey
With 4 days to go until the September 20 election, here's my daily round-up of political news on Tuesday September 16, with news Kim Dotcom bombed his 'Moment of Truth" about John Key's connections with Hollywood. The allegations about the GCSB are more substantial, but more on that below.
Firstly, an agitated and combative Dotcom simply failed to deliver convincing proof that Key lied about knowing about Dotcom before his arrest or had conspired with Hollywood executives on the arrest. His news conference on Monday night at the Auckland Town ended in farce with a rant at journalists for not doing their job properly.
Earlier David Fisher at the New Zealand Herald published an email purporting to have been sent in 2010 from Warner Brothers chairman and chief executive Kevin Tsujihara to a senior executive at the Motion Picture Association of America.
"John Key told me in private that they are granting Dotcom residency despite pushback from officials about his criminal past. His AG will do everything in his power to assist us with our case. VIP treatment and then a one-way ticket to Virginia," Tsujihara was cited as saying.
Almost immediately, Warner Bros said the email was a fake and John Key denied ever having had the purported conversation with Tsujihara.
Fisher said the NZ Herald published the email after confirming it was the evidence Dotcom planned to present at the 'Moment of Truth' event, but in the end Dotcom failed to present it on the night.
Laila Harre said at the news conference the Internet Party could not release the email because it was subject to a judicial process of a Parliamentary Inquiry. That was derided by journalists present at the news conference, given no Parliamentary Inquiry has yet been launched.
Snowden vs Key
However, the more substantial issues raised on the night came from Edward Snowden by video link from Russia and Glenn Greenwald on the stage.
Following on from Greenwald's claims of mass surveillance on Saturday, denied by Key over the weekend, Snowden said that, while an NSA analyst, he had seen evidence of private emails and other communications from New Zealanders.
Snowden said the GCSB had access to XKEYSCORE, the mass data harvesting system run by the NSA. He also cited evidence of a 'Project Speargun', a GSCB plan for mass surveillance, and that the NSA had two facilities in the north of New Zealand, including one in Auckland.
"Let me be clear: any statement that mass surveillance is not performed in New Zealand, or that the internet communications are not comprehensively intercepted and monitored, or that this is not intentionally and actively abetted by the [GCSB], is categorically false," Snowden told the audience.
"If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched," he said.
Greenwald published an article on The Intercept shortly before the 'Moment of Truth' that detailed phases 1 and 2 of Operation Speargun, including the insertion of meta-data probes into the Southern Cross Cable.
Fairfax's Andrea Vance, who has been the following the GSCB most closely, wrote the Snowden revelations raised two important questions.
"Firstly, why did Key not make details of Project Speargun public during the public debate about the new spying laws? That trashes Key's claims about enhanced transparency on intelligence and security issues," Vance wrote.
"Secondly - and this is the point which demolishes Key's counter attacks this week - why was the GCSB planning (and partly implementing) a programme of mass surveillance when it would have been illegal? For the GCSB/NSA proposals to get off the ground, the agencies needed that law reform."
"The Government painted the legislative changes as necessary to close the loopholes exposed by the illegal spying scandal. But it is now clear, thanks to Snowden, that they were on the cards from well before the unlawful snooping on Dotcom and a further 88 Kiwis came to light."
The denials
John Key released his own detailed statement responding to what he said were incorrect claims based on incomplete information.
"There is not, and never has been, a cable access surveillance programme operating in New Zealand. There is not, and never has been, mass surveillance of New Zealanders undertaken by the GCSB," Key said.
"Regarding XKEYSCORE, we don’t discuss the specific programmes the GCSB may, or may not use, but the GCSB does not collect mass metadata on New Zealanders, therefore it is clearly not contributing such data to anything or anyone."
Key published documents referring to an initial wider GCSB plan for cyber-protection for public and private organisations, but that was later revoked in favour of a more limited version called 'Cortex'.
"The business case for the highest form of protection was never completed or presented to Cabinet and never approved. Put simply, it never happened."
Southern Cross Cable CEO Anthony Briscoe described the claims that the cable had been tapped into as "total nonsense."
"I can tell you quite categorically there is no facility by the NSA, the GCSB or anyone else on the Southern Cross cable network," Briscoe said.
"Let’s be quite blunt. To do this, we would have to take the cable out of service and I can assure you there’s no way we are going to do that. It is a physical impossibility to do it without us knowing," he said.
Green Co-Leader Russel Norman said Key had to explain exactly what the GCSB was doing with XKEYSCORE and the nature of the Five Eyes relationship.
"John Key’s document dump and obfuscations over the past 48 hours have been a red herring. Snowden’s allegations around X-Keyscore have nothing to do with Cortex or cyber protection," Norman said.
“John Key is trying to purposefully mislead people by focusing on Cortex and cyber protection. What he must come clean on is X-Keyscore and declassify all information relating to it," he said, calling for a wide-ranging independent Inquiry.
Labour Leader David Cunliffe called for Wednesday's Leaders Debate on TVNZ to be extended by half an hour to an hour to discuss the issue.
Another denial
John Key spoke to reporters in Dunedin on Tuesday morning.
He again denied mass surveillance or that the NSA had a base in New Zealand.
Reporters tweeted from the stand-up news conference, including that Key would not comment on whether the GCSB used XKEYSCORE.
"Absolutely without doubt, New Zealanders are not subject to mass surveillance," Key was quoted as saying.
Harawira in close race with Davis
After all the fuss and Dotcom's multi millions on campaigning, Internet-Mana may struggle to make it into Parliament. A Maori TV Reid Research poll of Hone Harawira's Te Tai Tokerau electorate found Harawira on 38% and only just leading Labour's Kelvin Davis on 37%.
Given Internet-Mana remains well below the 5% threshold, any failure by Hone Harawira to win the electorate would wipe out the party's chances of winning the expected one or two extra list seats under the coat-tailing rule. That would in turn reduce the chances of a cobbled together Labour-Green-New Zealand First-Internet Mana alliance winning Government, although Labour has previously ruled out formally working with Interent-Mana.
Some had thought Labour would quietly gift Te Tai Tokerau to Harawira to ensure the extra one or two MPs under the coat-tailing rule, but Davis has been an active campaigner and aggressively supported by many in the Party opposed to working with Dotcom in particular.
(Updated with Cunliffe's call for a longer debate, Key's repeated denials)
See all my previous election diaries here.
See the index for Interest.co.nz's special election policy comparison pages here.
98 Comments
https://www.ted.com/talks/malte_spitz_your_phone_company_is_watching
you are being watched 24/7 so what if the NSA dont monitor the cable at the NZ end ... they are at the US end... so foolish to think that you are not being watched.
"To do this, we would have to take the cable out of service"
The Cable was unexpectedly out of service in 2012.
But let's be clear the US have a submarine expressly for tapping undersea cables, the Jimmy Carter.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/the-creepy-lon…
Key's denail was fairly specific "the GCSB does not collect mass metadata on New Zealanders"
whereas what is alleged is that the GCSB have been involved in setting up the automated systems for passing data to xkeyscore (mass surveillence is automatic) which is not contradicted by Key's statement that the GCSB does not, itself, collect it.
My thoughts this morning have been to look very closely at Mr Keys words, what they are saying, and more importantly what they are not saying. You can fully expect his answers to be carefully constructed so that he isn't technically lying but is still being deceitful.
I am perplexed by Bruce Ferguson making a statement on this, I thought he would stay out of it. A man of high standing you would think you could rely on, although Bruce has qualified his comments and diluted their relevance. His is also ex military and intelligence is close to his heart.
Bit of an evasive non-sequitur from Ferguson there.
Whistleblowing isn't necessarily treason. And even if he was convicted of treason, that wouldn't make the information incorrect.
Ferguson knows how evaluation of sources works, and how to use the Admiralty Code. So why's he playing ignorant and conflating the reliability of the source with the truthfulness of the information? Because with his background he definitely knows better.
You bring up particularly important point.
When an intelligence analyst grades a piece of intelligence it is two ratings, one for the quality or certainty of the information and one for the reliability or reputation of the informant.
For instance if a drug user and street lagg informs of a bank robbery that might be planned then the question become how do you rate that. The seriousness of the information becomes another factor. If the street lagg has given good information before then his ranking goes up, if his current intelligence proves correct he starts to become quite valuable. The analyist has to gauge the depth and breadth of information provided in ranking it.
So how do you rank a person such as Snowden that IS an analyst, turned informant?
Why would you ignore correct data if it comes from a traitor?????
If anything that makes the data MORE important.
As in, if it takes traitor to reveal the truth, what are the officals (and people trying to hide it, like Bruce) up to??
If the officals told the truth, why would a traitor be someone who reveals the truth?
And if it's not true, shouldn't we ignore it because it's not true, regards of source??
I wonder where the alleged NSA facility in Auckland might be , if it exsits at all ?
I am very familiar with Auckland , which is a very open and accessible place , and can only assume it would be at the Devonport Naval base , or Whenuapai airforce base .
Given both of these are low security complexes which are accessible to the public at times ( open days) , it seems unlikely . Hell the airforce did not even have a fence around its base until a year or so ago
Underground facillities ?
We would know about them
Somewhere within the Airport complex ?
We would know about it
The satelite dishes near Warkworth?
Nah too exposed
For the one in Northland...try the old money printing factory in Whangarei (yes, at one time NZ printed its own currency), its just out of town on the way to Onerahi on the left on a hill. Security was tight when they built it, and when they closed down scuttlebut was that a tech firm had bought it.
Once traditional intelligence has picked up on something then mass surveillance of that persons friends'former friends,bank accounts,telephones,etcetc begins.Far ranging survelliance which also catches other people as well.As far as testifing in Congress even the Yanks don't trumpet all their victories as open as they are.Somethings are better left unsaid.
That is not mass survellence, that is police gathering evidence in an active investigation. Mass survelliance is all you emails, web activity, and text messages, and records of who you called being collected when you aren't suspected of any crimes (because everyones records are being gathered up).
Let me clarify, are you arguing that mass survellance is "working" because you have no evidence that it is working?
Then when someone else in your circle of friends has been talking to you more than their photo lists show, you have to defend yourself - police investigations don't care if they get the person doing the crime, they only care that there is enough evidence to prosecute.
Are then any people who who call themselves Libertarians who are actually strongly against being spied on by the Government (rather than just getting in a knot about how much tax you pay and quitely ignoring the being monitored in all your communications thing). Because while in theory someone like me, with a primary interest in governement transparency and accountability, would seem to sympathise with the libertarian ideals, the whole "I for one welcome the governing Party spying on me" attitude from many on the right is creeping me out.
As a non-really libertarian but with similar ideas, I has issues with being spied on.
(a)If I close my door/encrypt/send a private email/pm/phone I expect that privacy - doesn't matter if you're a pervy kid gawking at his friends sister, or a multibillion dollar bunch of snoops. That closed door means keep out.
(b)On the other hand, if the door is open, as it is on the board there is nothing hidden.
You can spot the crooks they do (a) more than they do (b)...and so when we talk government....
It all boils down to who you believe is telling the truth, Key or Snowden. Everything Snowden has said has never been denied by the USA Government. John Key has a long history of forgeting, lying and slithering. He has been caught that many times he has no credibility left.
And that is why he is our most popular politician and he is going to be voted back in as PM again this coming Saturday. You are talking nonsense Chris when you say he has no credibility left.
The left have thrown all the dirt they could and more at him and still the populace love him and want to be selfied with him. David and the others have to beg people to talk to them. Even Cam Slater is getting more requests for selfies than the lefties and he is no angel. The throwing of the dirt at Key and Co has back fired and only galvanised the middle to vote National. Key might not even need any other party to get over the line. If Judith had been pushed away earlier that would have been the case.
He is simply the best of a bad bunch. The vast majority of the population accept that. We all know the politicians all over the world are just about as low as car salesmen and real estate agents reputation wise. The problem for the rest of the parties is that JK is the only politician people would have a drink and or selfie with notwithstanding his foibles. And as Tau Henare said on tv very recently it will be the day that hell freezes over when there is no dirt in politics. You have to be thick skinned to get into that game. This morning I spoke personally with an ex politician from the mid nineties. He was a successful businessmen before he was elected. He said it was like going from the rational world to the irrational. During his term he sold all the businesses as he told his wife he got sick of coming home from an irrational world in politics to a rational world of business. Too many teachers, union members and alike in politics. Not enough people with their feet on the ground who live in the real world. Recently confirmed by the leader of Act who said his children were too good to work in McDonalds. I pity them as all children need that kind of grounding to succeed in real life.
For most politicians, all accepted and I am sure true. Entering politics must strain just about everything that keeps your life in any sort of sane balance. My hat goes off to every person who takes it on and tries to his/her best to honestly serve the electorate. However in John Key the evidence indicates that he does not come any where close to being this sort of person. There have been far to many lies, evasions, half truths, and "memory lapses" for him to be somebody who has done his best to be honest and just made an occassional slip. He has an established pattern of behaviour and it is far from open and honest. (What makes him all the more dispicable is that the image that he cultivates is totaly at odds with his behaviour)
I am sure that National could come up with a more suitable PM. I suspect that Simon Powell would have been such a person but he had to much honesty and integrity to remain tied to his senior colleagues. I am sure that there are other better National people also.
FYI updated with latest Key denials:
John Key spoke to reporters in Dunedin on Tuesday morning.
He again denied mass surveillance or that the NSA had a base in New Zealand.
Reporters tweeted from the stand-up news conference, including that Key would not comment on whether the GCSB used XKEYSCORE.
"Absolutely without doubt, New Zalanders are not subject to mass surveillance," Key was quoted as saying.
Fisher said the NZ Herald published the email after confirming it was the evidence Dotcom planned to present at the 'Moment of Truth' event,
Isn't the real question, where did Fisher get this email from? The copy of it printed by the Herald is really, really small print - very odd. And Dotcom isn't quoted to be the source of the leak - rather that the Herald confirmed (we can only assume with Dotcom, and even that I'm not so sure about) that it was what was to be presented at the MoT. But, was it? Given it's pre-release in the Herald seemed to blindside both Robert Amsterdam and Dotcom - I think there is more to this story about where the leak came from. And I'm guessing that is why the matter has been referred to the Speaker/Parliament.
It also went a bit unnoticed that yesterday Paul Davison was back in court arguing that all the information the government holds on his residency bid should be released to him and his legal team. Davison points out that an OIA request by them and the subsequent release of documents did not include certain documents that were later released to the Herald. And in particular, the Herald got the document that talked about "political pressure" - but Dotcom's legal team didn't get that one. One would have to ask why?
So to me, this Herald leak is equally as intriguing. More Dirty Politics? That's where my money is.
Here's Fisher's latest article which states;
The "email" which emerged, derided as a fake, may turn out to be the smoking gun Dotcom says with the production of more evidence.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11…
(Bold is mine). Here's my wild guess / conspiracy theory.
Fisher's copy of the email says the same thing word-for-word as Dotcom's copy, but Fisher's is a reproduction (a fake) - provided by some source other than Dotcom. That source is the Hollywood execs themselves, as they know what they said, and they amended the date format as a means to "prove" it was a fake.
When Dotcom and team were contacted by The Herald, they suspected the email which had "emerged" might indeed be a reproduction (a fake) and hence came up with the referral to the privileges committee as a means to get themselves some time to investigate. If Hollywood has indeed reproduced its own email as a fake - this is bigger than Ben Hur :-).
As I say, a totally wild, wild, wild guess (might as well have come straight from a Hollywood script)! It's just that this is the second time Fisher has used odd wording - which doesn't directly refer to the source of the email. "Emerged" from where is the question.
Okay - so now another reporter (Russell Brown at Public Address) has confirmed - it was not Dotcom who gave the email to The Herald;
Dotcom impulsively passed the email to the Herald yesterday [NB: I am now told it was not Dotcom who supplied the email to the Herald], it was immediately denied as a fake and there was no way to prove its provenance.
See his imbedded NB - so it was after he first posted the article that he had to make the correction.
So, if Dotcom did not release the email in advance of the big reveal - where did David Fisher get it from?
.
You have to assume from Key's non comments and denials that the GCSB are using or benefitting from XKeyscore. XKeyscore on Wikipedia.
It includes the following:
On January 26, 2014, the German broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk asked Edward Snowden in its TV interview: "What could you do if you would use XKeyscore?" and he answered:[1]
"You could read anyone’s email in the world, anybody you’ve got an email address for. Any website: You can watch traffic to and from it. Any computer that an individual sits at: You can watch it. Any laptop that you’re tracking: you can follow it as it moves from place to place throughout the world. It’s a one-stop-shop for access to the NSA’s information." “…You can tag individuals… Let’s say you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and I can build what’s called a fingerprint, which is network activity unique to you, which means anywhere you go in the world, anywhere you try to sort of hide your online presence, your identity.” By the by, that means they will know the names of everyone posting on interest.co.nz. Given the National government seem to have used the security services as their own plaything, they will know who we all are. All good fun. Do you call that mass surveillance? I would have thought so.JOURNALISTS HIT BACK WITH ANTI-SPYING LEGAL CHALLENGE
http://www.icij.org/blog/2014/09/journalists-hit-back-anti-spying-legal…
This is what is happening in the UK..Hope it spreads to the other Five Eyes countries too.
EU court hearing a Five Eyes case at the moment as well;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/five-eyes-surveillance-pac…
SMH covered it better than it has been locally I believe.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/10502898/Moment-of-tru…
The Herald's: Who do you believe - Key or Dotcom?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11…
Score as at last update: 153 to John Key and 332 to Kim Dotcom
But it's WAY behind in terms of updating - and I suspect they may not be updating it anymore - I voted last night about 15 minutes after the MoT presentation and still not recorded there.
Worth checking in again in a few days time.
The weight of evidence obviously wouldn't come into it.
Key's problem is that once he started lying he had to keep lying, and also have others lie for him, to cover his original lies.
When people believe a 'convicted fraudster' 2:1 over a prime minister the latter has a credibility problem. Especially 4 days out from an election.
While Key may briefly return as our next PM he is soon to be history.
Most people forgot that all that techno stuffs that we are taking advantage of right now have been derived from past military development and released for public usage; internet, GPS, VOIP, mobile etc.. so it would be a bit naïve to think that they can’t monitor it in some ways
Smarter folk that I have been looking at the declassified Cortex papers.
This system was going to provide real-time threat monitoring and intelligent for the entire New Zealand internet. The Capex was to come from an existing tagged fund and the operating costs were going to be met out of baseline funding.
A likely explanation for this remarkably cheap system (just look at any big IT Project. This would be bigger) is that it is being built on top of existing infrastructure so costs nothing exceptional to implement (including equipment) and nothing to keep running. I would like very much to know if the GCSB have access to another, already in place, system that is doing real-time analysis of the New Zealand internet. Oh, say, like the system described in the NSA documents.
One thing I hope that people don't let go of is the accusation last night that Key undermined our sovereignty by scheming to have Dotcom extradited to the USA for an offence that would be a civil matter in New Zealand.
If you recall I told you all the Warrant would be thrown out, and it was, because the FBI were assuming the powers of the New Zealand court. That is the basis of their warrant application was that Dotcom was part of a criminal conspiracy, well it is the courts place to determine that.
So the pieces are in place to further show that a judge was also lent on to sign the warrant, indicating some high level interference. We also have the dubious circumstances around the acceptance of his residency, clearly something was amiss.
The issue isn't whether you like Dotcom or not, I mean I can't say I warm to the guy, but that it is highly likely John Key sold our sovereignty and independence to the yanks. Right wing or left wing, the question for you is what part of New Zealand do you want to hand over next?
There are grounds for criminal action in copyright infringement for parties under the Berne agreements; while the majority of requirement is copyright holder to pursue damages, there is scope should police be called to a person, if there is significant evidence that copyright infringement is occurring (or being prepared) then the police can prosecute it as a criminal act. Normally this is for bulk selling or manufacture - eg a Video store that sells illegal copies and makes/imports fakes. The weight of the case lies with the "mens rea" (intention), on top of the "actus reus"(ability) (ie having plenty of copies for distribution or copying equipment that is designed for commercial use).
Rather than each civil infringement having to push a personal case, which they can _sometimes_ still do, depending on which charges are laid and the judges ruling, the obvious intention to damage a large number of people, in a large way, counts as a criminal act. (Sorry too lazy to look up the two relevant acts, IIRC one relates to business fraud and misrepresentation, and the other is IIRC!! somewhere in the Trademarking acts. Sorry it's been a while.
The US DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is a different beast all together, and the US like to inflict it on countries outside their jurisdiction, and try to force other nations into reciprocation agreements (one reason I'm against TPPA, which would make huge numbers of NZers and the police and government liable if they don't pursue US civil copyright infringements to the level of US laws - laws dictated by the RIAA and similar).
Generally DMCA says everything belongs to us, your money belongs to us, you will do as we say, you are a criminal if we say so. It's the Monsanto of the IP world.
The warrant is a matter of fact Grant, as is the accelerated time in which the Dotcom application was pushed through immigration. The email is a fact, only the chain of evidence is yet to be proven. I believe the email is intended to be brought before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee for this reason, although I hope it finds it's way to a court room also. We need these processes to be engaged for the redneck and blinkered right wingers with a total lack of discernment. It is called a judicial system that is one of the founding principles which our Western Democracy is founded upon but you only want democracy when it suits you by the sound of it. Just hope you never become a victim of judicial or political abuse such as Dotcom has proven to be.
dh - you did note the IT expert on the news tonight who categorically stated that the "email" wasn't even an actual email? ...you did note the non-US style date on the email ? There is a complete stench of bias in your comments, and more than a hint of star struck "celebrities" must be right attitude that so befuddles some little country Kiwis, and that although they didn't display any, they will, they must have some evidence to show, sometime, somewhere, maybe?
Er, that wan't me you were replying to. As it happens I think that printed out bit of paper did look pretty dodgy as an email. I've never made any secret that I personally think KDC is pretty dodgy, and so were the Government actions in letting him in.
But that has nothing much to do with the surveillance state issues and open government that do worry me.
Sorry dh, definitely not you, it was for scarfie, so apologies. Two separate things I agree but in the end there is no mass surveillance proven either, and plenty of denials of people in the know, we believe what we want. However, to have no risk of it, we'd really need to withdraw from the decades old five eyes, and I have 100% confidence that if the public was asked the question of being in it and getting some intelligence, or being outside of it with no intelligence but no risk of surveillance, the overwhelming majority would stick to the status quo when fully understood. Frankly I've never seen what I did on the internet as secret to anyone, and being outside of Five Eyes will make zero difference to that.
No not a Slater type, some expert TV1 got to look at it. Maybe check out TV On demand and recheck the One News - there's a damn good reason why KDC did not raise it last night.
You keep losing your credibility with each post and it is catching up to your lack of perspective on this. I have made it pretty clear over time that I have no regard for Dotcom or for any politician. Short memory to perhaps. Your right wing bias just shows your immaturity. As for the celebrities, well the Canadian performed like a yank with his "let me tell you". Snowden and Assange, well maybe they are believable, seems they still have their credibility intact. Both make logical arguments that don't seem to have been refuted in any way except for the irrelevent statements that you and your right wing mates don't believe him. Righto, that is helpful.
The documents are only one piece of evidence, perhaps not even conclusive, but let us see them examined eh?
Give it a miss scarfie
Your case was concise and cogent - no question
GrantA is clearly not aware of your areas of expertise
GrantA usually dissembles on banking issues - presumably his area of expertise
Recently, on another matter, outside his area of expertise, distinct signs of serious pathology emerged, so much so, it now raises questions on his credibility on banking issues
p.s. If by IT Expert dud you mean Cameron Slater, who has been opining about it, and I don't think has been hugely correct.
For the record, I think it is an email, but it is useless without the full headers, So I would all it a bit dodgy, the output looks like something you would get from displaying a mail message on a command line *nix system! or at least a BSD one. But it is a long, long time since I read mail on the command line. Anyone actively curious could do an OCR analysis of the font and match it to various systems.
It actually takes serious forensics to determine validity of emails. It not well know however in the underworld there are number of eastern europen sites that generate emails to order. I let your imagination determine how they are typically used. You have to discount them as a possibility as well on a systematic review. Ask the police cyber crime unit...
"Forensic" yup, I think that's what TV described their IT expert as Scarfie - but then he's only an expert expert, not a celebrity fugitive expert. Try TV on On Demand from about 7.15mins and I'm sure you be able to find something to refute the expert with heresay.
On a good forgery it would take some considerable time looking for a trip/mistake in the headers. Lots of info in the headers like unique IDs, time stamps and servers identifing themselves. Even then you would need the logs off those email servers or some of them in that delivery chain to have a high degree of confidence it is real. If that expert can do that with a quick look its either a very bad forgery or he's guessing as I think it would take quite a few hours of work.
regards
Was it Whaleoil's mate? he couldnt even get the difference between a dynamically allocated and static IP right.
Not having seen the TV piece but frankly just to look at a printed out? email and say it was not an email is dubious to say the least.
I mean Ive looked at thousands and their full headers and the logs that go with them while fault finding emails systems over the years so for someone to say its a forgery, hmmm. Frankly it wouldnt be hard for me to make a good enough forgery to fool most ppl and somepne of Dotcom's capabilty could do an even better job. So unless there is an important context here Im not aware of that expert isnt I suspect.
regards
And in continuing crazy-pants election news, Eminem's pulbisher is suing the National Party for copyright infringment for ripping off the music to "Lose Yourself".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10504690/Eminem-sues-National-…
I wonder if there will be an armed police raid on National Party headquarters. Isn't that what happens in copyright infringment cases?
And here's what the Nats have to say about this development;
Statement REGARDING ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED USE OF MUsic
The National Party completely rejects the allegation that the library music used in its early campaign advertisements is a copyright infringement of any artist’s work.
The National Party purchased the music in question from recognised production music supplier “Beatbox”, based in Australia and Singapore. The music was originally published by Spider Cues Music, a well-established Los Angeles-based provider of music to the film and entertainment industry.
As with all works licensed by the Beatbox library music service, the National Party was assured the music in question did not infringe any copyright and was an original work.
Furthermore, the music license and fee were arranged through the Australasian Performing Rights Association and Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (APRA/AMCOS), who act as agents for Beatbox in Australia and New Zealand. These organisations exist to protect the rights of artists.
Regardless, as our advertising was moving on to different material at the time of the complaint, over two weeks ago, we were able to accommodate the complaining artist and undertake not to continue using the track. However, this has not satisfied the complainant.
We note that the work in question has been licensed multiple times both in Australia and New Zealand without issue or complaint, for example Australia’s Got Talent (Australia 2011), Unsung Heroes (TVNZ 2012) and A Current Affair (Australia 2013).
It appears though that the National Party is the only organisation that has used this material that is being legally targeted.
We also note that up until now the music has continued to be freely available for licensing on the Spider Cues website.
The National Party will be defending this action vigorously. As the matter is now before the courts we will not be making any further public comment.
The National Party might not be making further comment, but Steven Joyce thinks Eminem's lawsuit is "politically motivated"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&o…
and according to Joyce, the reason the track was changed was that the original was "too upbeat"
Did the license include the right for that kind of distribution?
the examples given are broadcast on popular TV shows.
Nat Party was assured it was an original work... of whom?
the complaining artist, was whom? And was it the artist or publicist complaining?
It is possible that either party may object to their material being used with this association, where things like "Got Talent", "Unsung Hero", "Current Affair" may not have this association - such associations can be important to an artists brand and to their standing with their fans.
There is no reason the music should not be freely available for licensing anywhere - this is not material to the possible infringement.
Note that if it's an orginal work, and they didn't suspect the complaining artist was the artist...why did they license from the complainant?
If they did license from the complainant, then why is the complainant complaining?
did Beatbox not have the legal right to distribute for that purpose in New Zealand??
Right or wrong you should assume everything you do online is public (to someone) and respond accordingly.
Either by refusing to engage, almost impossible in the age we live in or by employing suitable counter measures.
E.g.
Web browsing: Tor https://www.torproject.org/
Mobile: Silent Circle https://silentcircle.com/
Email: ProtonMail https://protonmail.ch/
There are many other services that provide security and anonymity but like everything nothing is invulnerable. At the end of the day though such services would be redundant if my right to privacy was absolute and enshrined. Mass surveillance is like treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent.
There are also the Lavabit projects, but the US is busy trying to make privacy illegal* (more illegal?) which is causing issues.
Network security is an oxymoron.
That's why, when I hear of someones' email or phone being hacked, I just roll my eyes.
same old story if you needs have a secret, tell no-one, and do not write it down.
* for the curious the war against privacy is pretty much along these lines. You have a right to privacy. Criminals often act privately. to catch criminals and gain evidence we must monitor tings the the criminals do that are private. BUT if the criminals find out they are being monitored they will discontinue their actions and move to somewhere more private. THUS it is necessary to monitor criminals calls without giving notice. HAVING secure lines that can't be monitored without notice defeats the ability of the criminal monitorers to act. Since the criminal monitorers are empowered by legislation and judicary defeating the ability of them to act is tantamount to "interferring with the course of justice/ongoing investigation".
The foil to this is however, that the criminal monitorers only actually have the right to monitor (suspect) criminals for evidence. People not committing a crime have no reason to surrender their natural right of privacy, so the criminal monitorers cant demand silent access to catch crimes, if no crime actually exists in the first place... no crime...not "course of justice".
that's why the authorities and RIAA(etc) are trying to strongarm their way through the legislation to make mass surveillance work. If the government can establish a right to monitor, they can insist anyone who does not comply is therefore committing a crime. And having commit that crime, ALL their data and communications are legally seized.
You’re right about lavabit, I found it incredible that because they were unable to break into a system technically, they used the legal system to go after it instead. I wonder faced with similar circumstances here how our current government would act?
Also why is it that the public never get to vote on such matters? The choice is instead made for us by those who presume to know best in the name of the greater good under the mantra of “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”?
I think the response to “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is Cardinal Richelieu's quote "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Though in a Prime Minister/ Prime Minister's Office situation it is disputed if the quote comes from him or his agents.
Key is a proven liar. The others are not.
I watched the entire dotcom show, and I think it was more credible than anything key has said. Yes cringeworthy in places, but hey so's Key.
The proof will indeed be found, but sadly after NZers have voted.
I suspect Key is just making sure National gets back in before he's kicked to the kerb, and replaced with another National dropkick.
I won't be voting for National, but I won't be voting for the internet party either. I wonder if Winnie will be the benifactor. Not all bad, at least he my slow NZers becoming renters in our own land.
There does seem a direct contradiction between what Key said in Feb 2013 "there have not and will not be any plans to access the cable"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/david-fisher/news/article.cfm?a_id=191&object…
and the statement from the past couple of days "we accessed the cable as part of a program we decided not to go ahead with in March of 2013"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11325069
There are two points that seem, for lack of a nicer word, a lie
1) at the time of the first statement a cable had been tapped, making the statement about the past false
2) even if Cortex was the only plan to tap the cables (and cortex doesn't seem to have much to do with what Greenwald outlined) it was an active plan in February of 2013 when the first statement was made.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.