When Bronwyn Pullar blew the whistle on ACC's massive privacy breaches, she was outed. We don't know who, but it was most likely someone within ACC who fed her name to the media. Or someone in the Minister's office.
When Natasha Fuller dared to criticise Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development published private information about how much money Fuller was receiving.
When Ira Bailey discovered the security problem at MSD and asked if there was a reward for finding a security vulnerability (as there is with many companies), someone within MSD gave his name to the media.
In the latter case, there was no justification for publishing Bailey's name. What exactly did he do wrong? The person he told (Keith Ng) behaved entirely properly in bringing the matter to the media's attention. Had Ng just told MSD on the quiet I suspect they would have done nothing. It seems they did next to nothing when they were told of security problems 12 months ago.
What this demonstrates is a pattern of bullying and intimidation by the government and its agencies when someone dares to criticise them, or to expose their incompetence. It also displays a complete lack of respect for the privacy of individuals, which goes a long way towards explaining how the ACC and MSD clusterf**ks could have happened in the first place.
And that's without mentioning the Kim Dotcom debacle (police and security agencies ignoring the law and proper process at the behest of another country's law enforcement authorities), Bradley Ambrose (our PM using the police to deal with a political problem), or the Urewera raids and subsequent court cases (perhaps the most extreme of all these abuses of power).
You don't have to like all of these people victimised by our officials and politicians, or to think they're all blameless (I certainly don't), to realise there is something rotten at the top. It's not corruption with a Capital C, but nor is it healthy.
Is this how we expect our institutions and politicians to behave? For how long will we remain a functioning democracy, where the rule of law is paramount?
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
18 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've been saying for a long time on my own blog, with proof, we don't have the rule of law, Scott. So why do you continue to push the barrow of those parties that mean even more government in our lives, invading our privacy and trampling over our property rights.
ReplyDeleteClassical liberalism: try that.
Do you actually know what the rule of law is?
DeleteUm, well, Mark Hotchin has had his life frozen for just about two years now, not only without trial, but without even a criminal charge laid. That's worse justice than Pussy Riot got.
DeleteIs that the rule of law?
Are any of the IRD's powers of snooping, search and seizure consistent with the rule of law, or are they actually representative of some of the worst abuses of an individual's rights at the hand of a state that is supposed to be that individual's champion?
Still think we have the rule of law?
Sorry, I didn't answer your question directly. A definition for the rule of law. In 1610 James I, King of England gave a definition, context notwithstanding, that's as succinct as any:
DeleteThe rule of law is "to be guided and governed by the certain rule of the law which giveth both to the head and members that which of right belongeth to them, and not by any uncertain or arbitrary form of government...."
My blog is about how many ways individuals in New Zealand are subject to the uncertainty, caprice and whim of arbitrary government. I'm quite happy to list them here if you like...
I agree that justice delayed is justice denied. Speedy access to justice is important. It's not quite the same principle as "rule of law" though.
DeleteWhile I can't find too many tears to shed for Mr Hotchin, given the harm he has caused, I agree that nobody should have to wait that long for justice.
As for arbitrary government, well we can argue about how arbitrary this government and its officials behave on a daily basis. I think it's fair to say that the rule of law faces serious challenges, though we might disagree on the areas where the most danger lies.
I agree mostly Scott, but query a couple of points.
ReplyDelete"someone within MSD gave his name to the media."
- is this known as a fact or is it a (widely held) assumption?
"It seems they did next to nothing when they were told of security problems 12 months ago."
- MSD have said this was a separate issue that was addressed at the time, bad enough that they have multiple security lapses on this scale, but possibly not ignoring highlighted issues.
A new report gives a half answer to one of those questions:
ReplyDeleteSocial Development Minister Paula Bennett has conceded it is likely a flaw in her ministry's computer systems was actually uncovered in a review last year.
On Monday, the Ministry of Social Development said an investigation by Dimension Data in April last year did not discover the weakness.
Today, it says the company did identify flaws in the system and is not confident the right actions were taken after that report.
Ms Bennett says it looks like the same weakness that's been made public this week.
"They had identified a flaw. I think its our responsibility now to find out if had been followed up appropriately.
"You have to just say, by what we're dealing with in the last few days, they haven't been."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/118287/msd-security-flaw-probably-found-last-year-bennett
If that proves to be the case awful revelations become worse.
One year to fix unsecured devices on a critical government network?
DeleteThe first to go should be the Execs responsible for IT and Risk & Assurance unless they have CYA emails from the CEO / CFO or the Minister.
Another admission - it could have been unaddressed for eighteen months:
DeleteMSD boss admits warnings might have been ignored
Ministry of Social Development CEO Brendan Boyle has admitted his agency might have ignored warnings from Dimension Data - the company that tested security on its WINZ kiosks.
“We received a report from Dimension Data in April 2011, which identified flaws in our system," Mr Boyle said in a statement this morning.
At a press briefing yesterday afternoon, Mr Boyle said KPMG and Dimension Data consulted on security to the MSD. Dimension Data had carried out penetration testing on the kiosks and found no issues.
"Since yesterday afternoon I have received further information that means I am not confident that we took the right actions in response to Dimension Data’s recommendations on security. I will look to the review to provide me with the answers.
"We will be asking Deloitte to determine what we did to follow up this report’s recommendations and whether our response was adequate."
He added, "“I can confirm that KPMG was not engaged to penetration test our public kiosks. They have, however, been engaged in doing testing on other parts of our system."
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/msd-boss-admits-warnings-might-have-been-ignored-ck-130774
Sorry - typo paragraph 2 where "Paul" should be "Paula". Great work!
ReplyDeleteDo the names Madeleine Setchell and Erin Leigh ring any bells with you Scott? The Clark Government set the standard for bullying and intimidation.
ReplyDeleteIf you're already reduced to desperate deflection, without addressing a single point in the post, things must really be looking bad for Key.
DeleteFYI: Benson-Pope was sacked. So, when will Bennett follow?
KS, by all means comfort yourself that everything's okay, because Labour did it too.
DeleteExcept that it wasn't okay when Labour did it either. That's why I mentioned the Urewera raids.
Hear hear Scott. BTW Pablo's post on Kiwipolitico about A Culture of Impunity seems ever more prescient and accurate:
ReplyDeleteI ask readers if such a culture of impunity exists in NZ. I ask because it strikes me that although diluted and less repressive in genesis, there appears to be an attitude of impunity in the political and economic elite. They can buy silence and name suppression when they misbehave; with a wink and a nod they accommodate employment for their friends and provide sinecures for each other (think of various Boards); they consider themselves better informed, in the know, more worldly and therefore unaccountable to the popular masses when it comes to making policy
Impunity? Waihopai?
ReplyDeleteI thought the Urewera raids were in 2007 - the year before National came to power?
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm well aware of that. My post was not an attack on National specifically, even if Paula Bennett is probably the most blatant example of this sort of behaviour.
DeleteI didn't mean to suggest you weren't, it just seemed an odd placement among some much more recent farces, and I misread the intent, for what it's worth I apologise for that.
DeleteI think it's across all sectors unfortunately, and the sad thing is it is relatively acceptable. Unfortunately admitting you were wrong is taken as a sign of weakness (as daft as admitting you were wrong and then doing nothing to rectify).
As much as I don't like some of their policies, I think the Greens are probably the ones who can put their hands up and say 'look at us' in this respect.