Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 14:35:23 UTC+12, george wrote:I hate this sort of politics, I concede that National are not entirely open and above board, but they are no worse than any other party. What really concerns me is how many people actually believe idiots like that!
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7
years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
Yep Chippie Hipkins had a big whinge about his email getting blocked and said >it was National's fault - even going so far as to compare Key to Bainimarama.
Chippie is an idiot. The email system not operated by National, it is operated >by the expressly impartial Parliamentary Service. Worse still, that email >system has been running since the 2007 Clark era.
Nice own goal there, Chippie!
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in >Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now >have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain >their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 >years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
I saw this article http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to
any opposition MP through email!
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in >Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 >years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:37:18 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:they've got no right to monitor my emails in the first place."
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7
years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84212899/Parliamentary-Service-blocked-email-between-MP-and-Fairfax-journalist
QUOTE
Hipkins says this is a "clear breach of parliamentary privilege".
"That's outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being sent by Members of Parliament. It shouldn't matter where I got the information from,
"I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank Bainimarama, but that doesn't mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand," he said.
UNQUOTE
Stupid Chippie blaming National for something operated by Parliamentary Services and setup under Clark's government.
I saw this article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot
contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security
classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to
any opposition MP through email!
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 14:35:23 UTC+12, george wrote:it was National's fault - even going so far as to compare Key to Bainimarama.
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7
years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
Yep Chippie Hipkins had a big whinge about his email getting blocked and said
Chippie is an idiot. The email system not operated by National, it isoperated by the expressly impartial Parliamentary Service. Worse still, that email system has been running since the 2007 Clark era.
Nice own goal there, Chippie!
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>by Members of Parliament. It shouldn't matter where I got the information from,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:37:18 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now >> >have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain >> >their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 >> >years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84212899/Parliamentary-Service-blocked-email-between-MP-and-Fairfax-journalist
QUOTE
Hipkins says this is a "clear breach of parliamentary privilege".
"That's outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being sent
Bainimarama, but that doesn't mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand," he said."I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank
Services and setup under Clark's government.UNQUOTE
So where is the twit that doesn't know about editing pdf files?
Do Parliamentary Services have a right to monitor emails?
Do you think they should?
If an email is stopped because its content triggers a search, who
looks at it?
Stupid Chippie blaming National for something operated by Parliamentary
How do you know it hasn't changed?
Apparently when Labour were in
government emails were not being stopped by their content being
searched. A lot of changes have been made to security matters over the
last 8 years - and National have been very keen to find out who leaks material that embarrasses them . . .
The Speaker has said he will investigate - so he doesn't think its a
stupid question to be asked.
I saw this article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot
contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security
classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to
any opposition MP through email!
Did you even read what I had said, JohnO? Would you be happy with a
system that allowed emails to anmd from MPs to be read by a government department?
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now
have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain
their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7
years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
I saw this article http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to
any opposition MP through email!
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 17:51:52 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:to explain it to him.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:37:18 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >>>>
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in >>>>> Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now >>>>> have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain >>>>> their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 >>>>> years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84212899/Parliamentary-Service-blocked-email-between-MP-and-Fairfax-journalist
QUOTE
Hipkins says this is a "clear breach of parliamentary privilege".
"That's outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being sent by Members of Parliament. It shouldn't matter where I got the information from, they've got no right to monitor my emails in the first place."
"I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank Bainimarama, but that doesn't mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand," he said.
UNQUOTE
So where is the twit that doesn't know about editing pdf files?
Do Parliamentary Services have a right to monitor emails?
Do you think they should?
If an email is stopped because its content triggers a search, who
looks at it?
Stupid Chippie blaming National for something operated by Parliamentary Services and setup under Clark's government.
How do you know it hasn't changed?
Asking to prove a negative Dickbot? Idiot.
Apparently when Labour were in
government emails were not being stopped by their content being
searched. A lot of changes have been made to security matters over the
last 8 years - and National have been very keen to find out who leaks
material that embarrasses them . . .
The Speaker has said he will investigate - so he doesn't think its a
stupid question to be asked.
He's not investigating anything. He has simply asked Parliamentary Services
government censor reading them and deciding what to block.
I saw this article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot >>>> contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security
classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to >>>> any opposition MP through email!
Did you even read what I had said, JohnO? Would you be happy with a
system that allowed emails to anmd from MPs to be read by a government
department?
It's an automated secure email system (Seemail) you fuckwit. There isn't some
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 17:51:52 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:37:18 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in
Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to now >> >> >have never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to explain >> >> >their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least 7 >> >> >years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84212899/Parliamentary-Service-blocked-email-between-MP-and-Fairfax-journalist
QUOTE
Hipkins says this is a "clear breach of parliamentary privilege".
"That's outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being sent by Members of Parliament. It shouldn't matter where I got the information from, they've got no right to monitor my emails in the first place."
"I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank Bainimarama, but that doesn't mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand," he said.
UNQUOTE
So where is the twit that doesn't know about editing pdf files?
No answer to that one either?
Do Parliamentary Services have a right to monitor emails?
Do you think they should?
No answer to that one . . . getting to be a pattern . . .If an email is stopped because its content triggers a search, who
looks at it?
No, but you are implying that it has not changed - do you have proof
Stupid Chippie blaming National for something operated by Parliamentary Services and setup under Clark's government.
How do you know it hasn't changed?
Asking to prove a negative Dickbot? Idiot.
explain it to him.Apparently when Labour were in
government emails were not being stopped by their content being
searched. A lot of changes have been made to security matters over the
last 8 years - and National have been very keen to find out who leaks
material that embarrasses them . . .
The Speaker has said he will investigate - so he doesn't think its a
stupid question to be asked.
He's not investigating anything. He has simply asked Parliamentary Services to
I saw this article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should
(and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot
contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security
classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to
any opposition MP through email!
Did you even read what I had said, JohnO? Would you be happy with a
system that allowed emails to anmd from MPs to be read by a government
department?
It's an automated secure email system (Seemail) you fuckwit. There isn't some government censor reading them and deciding what to block.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:55:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>now
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 17:51:52 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 16:37:18 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:17 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> >>
Liebor have been using the same emailing system as every-one else in >> >> >Parliament for something like (we'll be kind) seven years and up to
explainhave never known how filters work....
REALLY ????????
And one twit doesn't know that you can edit .PDF files...
The Speaker is being treated as an idiot by Liebor but tries to
7their deliberate ignorance of a system they've been using for at least
sent by Members of Parliament. It shouldn't matter where I got the information from, they've got no right to monitor my emails in the first place."years...
So rich isn't the only thickwit they have
What are you on about, george? Do you have a cite?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84212899/Parliamentary-Service-blocked-email-between-MP-and-Fairfax-journalist
QUOTE
Hipkins says this is a "clear breach of parliamentary privilege".
"That's outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being
Bainimarama, but that doesn't mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand," he said.
"I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank
Services and setup under Clark's government.UNQUOTE
So where is the twit that doesn't know about editing pdf files?
Do you have a cite, or were you interviewing your imaginaton?
No answer to that one either?
Do Parliamentary Services have a right to monitor emails?
Do you think they should?
No answer to that one . . . getting to be a pattern . . .If an email is stopped because its content triggers a search, who
looks at it?
Stupid Chippie blaming National for something operated by Parliamentary
How do you know it hasn't changed?
Asking to prove a negative Dickbot? Idiot.No, but you are implying that it has not changed - do you have proof
of that assertion?
to explain it to him.Apparently when Labour were in
government emails were not being stopped by their content being
searched. A lot of changes have been made to security matters over the
last 8 years - and National have been very keen to find out who leaks
material that embarrasses them . . .
The Speaker has said he will investigate - so he doesn't think its a
stupid question to be asked.
He's not investigating anything. He has simply asked Parliamentary Services
So is he the idiot that doesn;t know about pdfs? Why would he need
something explained that you claim doesn't need explanation?
some government censor reading them and deciding what to block.
I saw this article
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/313230/speaker-to-investigate-whether-mps'-emails-are-monitored
but it doesn't have the weird stuff you are talking about.
It seems quite simple. If an MP sends or receives an email it should >> >> (and probably does) go through some system that checks that it does ot >> >> contain a virus or other malware.
Hipkins has been told his email was stopped because of security
classifications - which implies that the content is being
elctronically searched to see if it contans certain words.
Hipkins has asked the Speaker to investigate.
Seems fair to me - what is the problem with that?
In the meantime, I suggest that any whistleblower not send material to >> >> any opposition MP through email!
Did you even read what I had said, JohnO? Would you be happy with a
system that allowed emails to anmd from MPs to be read by a government
department?
It's an automated secure email system (Seemail) you fuckwit. There isn't
Can you guarantee that no-one looks at an email that is rejected due
to "security concerns'?
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on -
that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is
restricting their access to contacts.
Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
It was being blocked automatically by the system because it containedclassification tag words and was being sent to a destination outside the Seemail encryption framework. All Chippie needs to do is remove the tags and it
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at windmills.
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 11:13:13 UTC+12, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is
restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at
windmills.
The speaker has passed on Parliamentary Services' explanation of why an email can (and should) be blocked automatically and without any person inspecting it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11709851
But thickos like Dickbot, Winston, Dunne and Chippie will no doubt struggle with these 'advanced technical concepts'.
Oh, and Dickbot take note:
"Members are free to send and receive information as they choose and that has not changed."
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>email can (and should) be blocked automatically and without any person inspecting it:
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 11:13:13 UTC+12, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is
restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at
windmills.
The speaker has passed on Parliamentary Services' explanation of why an
with these 'advanced technical concepts'.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11709851
But thickos like Dickbot, Winston, Dunne and Chippie will no doubt struggle
has not changed."Oh, and Dickbot take note:
"Members are free to send and receive information as they choose and that
and it seems Peter dunne and others are still not happy; the system
will still potentially identify whistleblowers:
"Hipkins said Carter's solutions did not resolve the problem.
"I was disappointed. The ruling means the firewall basically stays in
place and the Speaker's suggestion we edit our emails to remove
sensitive information isn't acceptable."
He said the system was designed to protect the Government and should
not prevent Opposition or backbench MPs being able to send and receive information which could be damaging to the Government, such as
information from whistleblowers.
Hipkins' concerns were echoed by other MPs, including United Future
leader Peter Dunne whose email and phone data were provided to a 2013
inquiry into an information leak, prompting a Privileges Committee
censure of Parliamentary Services' handling of information.
NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an "outrage" such a system
was being used across all MPs and showed little recognition of the
role of MPs."
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 11:13:13 UTC+12, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the
email was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a
system is restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy
with such a system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at
windmills.
The speaker has passed on Parliamentary Services' explanation of why an >>email can (and should) be blocked automatically and without any person >>inspecting it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm? c_id=280&objectid=11709851
But thickos like Dickbot, Winston, Dunne and Chippie will no doubt
struggle with these 'advanced technical concepts'.
Oh, and Dickbot take note:
"Members are free to send and receive information as they choose and
that has not changed."
and it seems Peter dunne and others are still not happy; the system will still potentially identify whistleblowers:
"Hipkins said Carter's solutions did not resolve the problem.
"I was disappointed. The ruling means the firewall basically stays in
place and the Speaker's suggestion we edit our emails to remove
sensitive information isn't acceptable."
He said the system was designed to protect the Government and should not prevent Opposition or backbench MPs being able to send and receive information which could be damaging to the Government, such as
information from whistleblowers.
Hipkins' concerns were echoed by other MPs, including United Future
leader Peter Dunne whose email and phone data were provided to a 2013
inquiry into an information leak, prompting a Privileges Committee
censure of Parliamentary Services' handling of information.
NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an "outrage" such a system
was being used across all MPs and showed little recognition of the role
of MPs."
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 11:13:13 UTC+12, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is
restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at
windmills.
The speaker has passed on Parliamentary Services' explanation of why an email can (and should) be blocked automatically and without any person inspecting it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11709851
But thickos like Dickbot, Winston, Dunne and Chippie will no doubt struggle with these 'advanced technical concepts'.
Oh, and Dickbot take note:
"Members are free to send and receive information as they choose and that has not changed."
and it seems Peter dunne and others are still not happy; the system
will still potentially identify whistleblowers:
"Hipkins said Carter's solutions did not resolve the problem.
"I was disappointed. The ruling means the firewall basically stays in
place and the Speaker's suggestion we edit our emails to remove
sensitive information isn't acceptable."
He said the system was designed to protect the Government and should
not prevent Opposition or backbench MPs being able to send and receive information which could be damaging to the Government, such as
information from whistleblowers.
Hipkins' concerns were echoed by other MPs, including United Future
leader Peter Dunne whose email and phone data were provided to a 2013
inquiry into an information leak, prompting a Privileges Committee
censure of Parliamentary Services' handling of information.
NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an "outrage" such a system
was being used across all MPs and showed little recognition of the
role of MPs."
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>The basis of this system was put in place during the time that David Lange was Prime Minister. He was provided with a laptop and personal training (which he had no problem understanding. The computer system that is used today is not the same one, but the protocols for security are no different. That was nearly 30 years ago (the first distributed computer system that the NZ parliament ever had).
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 11:13:13 UTC+12, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
There is still the issue that in this case we are told that the email
was not passed on - that has to be a concern to MPs that a system is
restricting their access to contacts. Would you be happy with such a
system if National were in opposition?
Irrelevant. I'd have thought that any MP who wanted to promulgate
sensitive information with the intention of scoring points would have
more sense than to use official servers or systems for the purpose and
leave a clear audit trail thereby. There are alternative and better
channels available to them for that purpose. Hipkins is tilting at
windmills.
The speaker has passed on Parliamentary Services' explanation of why an email >>can (and should) be blocked automatically and without any person inspecting it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11709851
But thickos like Dickbot, Winston, Dunne and Chippie will no doubt struggle >>with these 'advanced technical concepts'.
Oh, and Dickbot take note:
"Members are free to send and receive information as they choose and that has >>not changed."
and it seems Peter dunne and others are still not happy; the system
will still potentially identify whistleblowers:
"Hipkins said Carter's solutions did not resolve the problem.
"I was disappointed. The ruling means the firewall basically stays in
place and the Speaker's suggestion we edit our emails to remove
sensitive information isn't acceptable."
He said the system was designed to protect the Government and should
not prevent Opposition or backbench MPs being able to send and receive >information which could be damaging to the Government, such as
information from whistleblowers.
Hipkins' concerns were echoed by other MPs, including United Future
leader Peter Dunne whose email and phone data were provided to a 2013
inquiry into an information leak, prompting a Privileges Committee
censure of Parliamentary Services' handling of information.
NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an "outrage" such a system
was being used across all MPs and showed little recognition of the
role of MPs."
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:29:37 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |