Daily review 29/05/2019

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 57 comments
Categories: Daily review

Cyber attack

 

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

57 comments on “Daily review 29/05/2019”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 1.1

      No idea. Sometimes the machine does things off its own bat. I suspect its inbuilt bullshit detector objected to you saying Robertson accused National of hacking the Treasury server.

    3. 1.3

      Probably for sheer volume of comments. Nearly 80 from you today on a topic you claim not to give a shit about.

  2. 2

    From the Stuff ‘live’ news site.

    Winston Peters’ take on the hacking scandal. Reckon he’s right on the money:

    Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, is claiming he knows how National got the ‘leaked’ documents but not revealing details.

    He told reporters what they were saying was wrong – the facts were different.

    “Are you saying the cleaner got hold of stuff, I don’t think so … the facts are different to that. The facts are very, very bad for the National party.”

    “The information came to them in circumstances where the behaviour was totally illegal and they should have known it. That’s all I can say right now … it’s my job to know.”

    He said Bridges was being “thoroughly unethical” and cashed in on the material.

    “He has been found out and made a right fool of himself.”

    Bridges should have called up Minister of Finance Grant Robertson to warn him about the documents and tell him something untoward was going on, Peters said.

    “He’s [Bridges] gone-burger now because of this. He had a chance to show that he had ethical views, that he was fit to be a leader …”

    He had no doubt the police would investigate.

    1. 2.1

      Another statement from Winston about what he claims to know. They are as regular, and about as useful, as the driven slush. Can you remember a single occasion when he has ever explained what it is that he is blathering on about?

      Surely you don't believe anything this doddery old charlatan says? After all, even the Daily Blog gave up on him.

      https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/12/12/guest-blog-ben-peterson-the-truth-about-winston-peters

      When anyone asks you whether you believe anything he says you are wise to just say NO

      1. 2.1.1

        Winston Peters had his failures, but he also had some resounding successes. The Winebox scandal was one that comes to mind. He was loudly denounced by his opponents for years and guess what… he proved to be have been right all along. I predict this new scandal will be another success story.

        Not only does he know something but the confident manner both Robertson and Ardern displayed in the debating chamber today suggests they know it too.

        Not only that, the over-the-top media performance by Bridges this morning (he must have mentioned the words 'smear' and 'Robertson' in the same sentence at least ten times) – together with the frantic nodding of his support cast – tells me National has definitely got something to hide. 🙂

        1. 2.1.1.1

          I.m glad you put a smiley emotion at the end of this comment.

          For a moment I thought your comment was a serious view and I really didn't think you could possibly take anything that man says as being factual. Thank God you really see him as being as corrupt as he really is. Truth and Winston have absolutely nothing in common.

      2. 2.1.2

        It's what Bridges did with the information that incriminates him. What Winston knows, or doesn't know, about the source doesn't matter, he's right in saying that Bridges should have alerted Robertson rather than just go public with that information.

      3. 2.1.3

        It's what Bridges did with the information that incriminates him. What Winston knows, or doesn't know, about the source doesn't matter, he's right in saying that Bridges should have alerted Robertson rather than just go public with that information.

  5. 5

    & tonight on "Worlds Dumbest Criminals", some bozo who was given dodgy goods and then boasted about it…

      1. 6.1.1

        Except if it's an in-joke, then it serves the same purpose as a "genuine" secret sign: encourage feelings of elitism and bonding.

        It actually doesn't matter if they're doing it as a secret laugh or as a secret appeal to nazis and their mates. Many of them might see it as a victory in making others look silly (either by outrage or non-reaction, respectively), but using them more than any background level of use still identifies them for what they are.

  7. 7

    This is despicable. What is wrong with sections of the the NZ Establishment… continuing to hound and harass an individual who was destroyed by Slater's and his cohorts' lies and innuendo:

    1. 8.1

      Perhaps the content was sensitive because they had special underpants printed up with the symbol. Now that we be a bonding thing with guys who like to go high.

  9. 9

    "Just how National got its hand on Budget documents before the Government's announcement could soon become clear.

    The Herald understands National intends to reveal how it acquired the documents tomorrow – on Budget Day."
    If Simon changes his mind about exposing source it would be because he realises that if it was acquired illegally, he would condemn himself.
    If he goes ahead and explains how he got it legally he will “win” against the Government.

    2. 9.2

      A sanatised version of the truth to be sure.

      Another puerile attempt to distract from the budget. It must be a dammed good budget then.

    3. 9.3

      The big reveal on Budget day. I expected that would be the case.

      Wonder if it will to the damage and force Robertson to resign?

  10. 10

    Most people with a healthy active working brain are sick of it and just want this 'sand in the togs' irritant called Simon Bridges to call it a day, disapear like.

  11. 11

    UK Labour has been placed under formal investigation by the equalities watchdog over whether the party has unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it was launching an official inquiry under section 20 of the Equality Act 2006 after carrying out preliminary investigations since March. It will seek to determine whether the party and its employees have committed unlawful acts of discrimination or failed to respond to complaints of unlawful acts in an efficient and effective manner.

    The regulator’s announcement followed legal complaints made last year by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and the Jewish Labour Movement, which both argued the party was not compliant with equalities law.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/equality-body-launches-investigation-of-labour-antisemitism-claims

    Phase two of the Zionists campaign to prevent anyone critical of their Israel having a place in politics. Phase one having the Labour Party expel MP's seen as anti-semitic and defining being anti-Zionist as anti-semitic was not successful enough (the target was Corbyn himself).

    Phase three declaring criticism of Zionism (now that it has self declared as a Jewish state) anti-semitism and thus banned under their hate speech law.

        1. 12.1.1.1

          Don't be so paranoid. Treasury obviously believe a crime may have been committed and the proper course of action is to refer it to the Police.

          1. 12.1.1.1.1

            I said National thinks it was to shut them up. Thus, it's not me that is being paranoid.

            Nevertheless, hacking is a crime and if 2000 attempts in 48 hours is nothing out of the ordinary, why did Treasury feel the need to call in the police on this particular occasion?

          2. 12.1.1.1.2

            Their earliest statements said Treasury were *advised* to bring in the Police.

            Its IT management is shared with DPMC so is hardly unsophisticated. I trust that they know the difference between background noise and an organised attack.

    3. 12.3

      Not entirely sure they're all on the same page.

      "Yesterday afternoon, we discovered multiple and persistent attempts to gain unauthorised access to Budget information," Makhlouf told The AM Show on Wednesday.

      vs the total number of attacks on the system. I suspect they identified a spike in attacks targetting budget 2019 specifically, rising from zero last week to 1000 a day. And maybe identified commonalities to connect the attacks (e.g. sequential field entries in different attacks, whatever).

      1. 12.3.1

        From the link above

        Darkscope conducted a scan of cyber-attack activity in the New Zealand Government sector and found that agencies were "always under attack, by mainly foreign attackers" An attack rate of 1000 attempts in a day is at the very light end of the spectrum. While there are different types of attacks, of varying complexity, Newshub found last year that the Bay of Plenty District Health Board fielded up to 864,000 potential cyber attacks every day

        1. 12.3.1.1

          You know it is possible to identify if the attacks are from the same source. On the small site I run, I have visits from around the globe including several each week from St Petersburg. Why they would want to visit the website of an Historic Church in the Coromandel I have no idea. Maybe they want to visit and admire the Gothic Architecture, ,but if they are carrying any perfume I shall steer a wide course. Or maybe they are just confused because James Cook named the stretch of water after a the Firth of Thames in England.

        2. 12.3.1.2

          Yes.

          That's why I think they might not be on the same page talking about total attacks vs specific attacks on the budget.

          2,000 as the total number of attacks on the Treasury system is almost farcical, especially if one thinks about the value to other governments and also the private sector as opposed to the benefit to those groups of getting data from BoPDHB.

          But if there were 50k attacks in that period (still light with a budget coming up) and the docs released by the nats showed cyber security that a couple of thousand of those attacks were part of a single coordinated effort against that particular material, given that it ended up in the hands of the nats someone in NZ might have a plausible case to answer regarding that coordinated effort. Not just Bridges, I mean.

    1. 15.1

      The acceptability or not will be based on tribal affiliations…..however Bridges appears a liability regardless…..and the Kiwi public are likely largely disinterested except for what the media narrative is and their take will be informed by that….and currently they are hedging their bets

  16. 16

    Labour need to wake up and smell the coffee, the teacher's resolve is strong and the public are largely behind them.

  18. 18

    This may be an unintended consequence of the pro-choice argument where women are encouraged to believe that only they have any say in what happens to the results of a pregnancy.

    1. 18.1

      What happens to their bodies you mean. I'm a solo father, I have as much rights as the mother of my child, so piss off back to whatever MRA blog you came from.

Comments are closed.