If Nicky Hager has emails from National Party sources to Cameron Slater he will also have other emails.
Anyone familiar with Whaeloil will know that some of them must be from Labour Party sources, possibly even MPs.
Anyone familiar with Whaleoil will know that some of them could be from journalists.
If Hager was on the path of the righteous which he claims his book would also have exposed them.
At least some of those people should be worried because anyone familiar with Whaleoil will know that fire is fought with fire.
The dirtiest trick is not what Hager exposes but that and how he got the information and published it:
Isn’t the most dirty trick exposed in Nicky Hager’s book, the revelation that Hager reveals that he received six years of stolen e-mails, hacked from Cameron Slater’s Gmail and Facebook accounts?
Is it not ironic that so many on the left have marched and protested against the right of the GCSB to assist the SIS or the Police to intercept communications, if a Judge or retried Judge agrees that there is enough evidence of criminal or national security issues to give out an interception warrant. They protested for weeks and months.
Yet when we get evidence of a massive criminal hacking of six years of personal communications, then they do not see that as dirty politics. They celebrate it, because it occurred against someone they do not like. Does this not suggest a large degree of hypocrisy and faux outrage over the GCSB changes last year? Are any of those anti-GCSB protesters going to condemn Nicky Hager and his unknown associate/s for the hack and publication of Cameron Slater’s Gmail and Facebook?
Do all those journalists who wrote dozens and dozens of stories about the GCSB Bill, have a view on whether it is okay to criminally hack someone’s private communications, because you don’t like what they write? Is this where we want politics in New Zealand to go – partisans from the left and right trying to hack each other’s communications?
The book does expose dirty politics in New Zealand, the dirty politics of those who criminally hack private communications, and publish them. They’ve just had journalists in the UK go to jail for publishing stories that they knew were based on hacked voicemails. Here though, you get to make royalties out of them.
I don’t think it’s wrong for a judge, retired or practising, to give authorities the right to intercept communications where there is sufficient evidence to justify it.
I do think it’s wrong for someone to hack someone else’s emails to use them selectively and to do so for political purposes.