What the IMF want

 IMF says your internet search history to be used to set credit scores

The information Facebook has about you and every user and sells on to others

An experiment

Facebook’s ‘Secret’ File on You Is Bigger Than You Think

Facebook’s ‘Secret’ File on You Is Bigger Than You Think — Here’s How to View It

Facebook’s user data gathering prowess has been common knowledge for some time now, but one journalist’s impromptu experiment suggests it is even more ubiquitous and pervasive than previously believed. Nick Whigham,a reporter for the New Zealand Herald, decided to test out a feature on Facebook that allows users to download a ‘secret’ file showing how much personal history the company has gathered about them. What he discovered is that Facebook not only has disturbingly vast consumer profiles on all 1.4 billion daily users but also tracks the internet movement and personalities of people who don’t even log into the website

A large part of Facebook’s business model is selling the information it collects about users to advertisers. It’s free to us because we’re the product. Its algorithms track your posts, likes, shares, and preferences, of course, but they also track your overall Internet activity — the websites you go to, your operating system, your IP address, and comments you happen to leave on random forums — via social media plugins and cookies on third-party websites. Even if you’re not logged into Facebook, your browsing behavior is tracked by secret trackers called Pixels, which are embedded on over 10,000 websites. Sorry, social media Luddites — even if you’ve never used Facebook, your online activity is tracked everytime you merely visit a website that contains Facebook ads and trackers.

***

I decided to do this experiment for myself and went through these instructions and within a short period of time I was able to peruse all the information that Facebook  has on me and is sold on to 3rd parties.

"To download your ‘secret’ Facebook file, click at the top right of Facebook’s navigation bar and select Settings. Then click “Download a copy of your Facebook data” beneath General Account Settings and click the green button. Then wait ten minutes and you should receive an email letting you know that “surveillance capitalism” is alive and well."

If you are a friend on Facebook you're right there!

All the apps I have installed on my computers are there - even the ones I've forgotten about

All the phone details of everyone I know (and also don't know) is available

Robin Westenra

Name	Contacts
Karina Ewert	contact: +64274179875
Gerald Westenra	contact: +64211687727
Nikki Wright	contact: +64272263517
Carole Christensen	contact: +64273233136
Rebecca Wilson	contact: +64274252494
Geoff Burns	contact: +642041205649
Angelique Carline	contact: +64273908838
Kathy Jack	contact: +64272435864
Peet Hoeksma	contact: +64275457489
Robert	contact: +64274301574

I don't use a smartphone but have been using Skype to make calls. All the details of every call I have made is there.

We all know that the police or security agents can go to our providers to get details of our cellphone and landline calls.

But here we are - this information is available, not just to police, but to anyone who pays for it.

Call History

Number:+6421878711

Call Type	Start time	Duration	Name	Number Label	Number Type
OUTGOING	2017-02-15 19:46:47	0			0

Number:+64275027519

Call Type	Start time	Duration	Name	Number Label	Number Type
MISSED	2017-02-09 17:54:16	0			0

Number:+64274838303

Call Type	Start time	Duration	Name	Number Label	Number Type
INCOMING	2016-11-18 16:34:36	74			0

Number:+64211687727

Call Type	Start time	Duration	Name	Number Label	Number Type
OUTGOING	2010-01-06 01:44:00	0			0

SMS History

Number:7246

SMS Type	Time
INBOX	2016-12-03 15:04:53
INBOX	2016-12-18 12:40:47

Number:+64211466421

SMS Type	Time
INBOX	2016-12-06 20:35:26
SENT	2016-12-06 20:36:59

Number:+64210381977

SMS Type	Time
INBOX	2016-11-14 20:25:34

Number:+64211687727

SMS Type	Time
SENT	2010-01-06 01:55:21
SENT	2010-01-05 21:02:58
SENT	2010-01-05 21:02:30
INBOX	2010-01-06 01:52:16

Number:+64274406999

The details of every message sent or received on Messenger (that we might have naively thought was private - except to the NSA et.al) is logged.

An example....

Here are "active sessions", along with ISP addresses

CONCLUSION

This is information that I can get about myself by applying to Facebook - with minimum security by the way.

Put this information into the hands of others and they can put together a personal profile and know more about me than I know about myself!

Internet privacy

I am not normally given to making commercial recommendations, but in view of the article below I am going to stick my neck out.

I can honestly recommend the Russian YANDEX Beta browser which is similar to Google Chrome.

What is different is STEALTH MODE - since I have had it it has blocked 28,250 entities tracking me - and interestingly, I have not had any of the previous problems I was happening.

It also blocks adverts.

While, If certain entities really want to see what I am doing, of course they still can, but this has been a great change for me that I can (as a non-expert) recommend.

Of course, once you enter Facebook or Twitter you are open game.

Give it a go.

I will be purging Google Chrome off my computer today.

Yandex Beta provides relative internet security

For more information, here is a review - 

Yandex’s browser enters beta, with a strong focus on privacy outside Russia

Here is today's article about Google's eavesdropping tool

Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission

Privacy advocates claim always-listening component was involuntarily activated within Chromium, potentially exposing private conversations

Privacy campaigners and open source developers are up in arms over the secret installing of Google software which is capable of listening in on conversations held in front of a computer.

First spotted by open source developers, the Chromium browser – the open source basis for Google’s Chrome – began remotely installing audio-snooping code that was capable of listening to users.

It was designed to support Chrome’s new “OK, Google” hotword detection – which makes the computer respond when you talk to it – but was installed, and, some users have claimed, it is activated on computers without their permission.

“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”

The feature is installed by default as part of Google’s Chrome browser. But open source advocates are up in arms about it also being installed with the open source variant Chromium, because the listening code is considered to be “black box”, not part of the open source audit process.

Download YANDEX HERE

BREAKING NEWS: NSA powers broadened

Senate Intel Committee approves CISA cybersecurity bill that could broaden NSA powers

New cybersecurity legislation cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday during a closed session. Critics fear it may broaden the NSA’s already formidable access to Americans’ data

RT,

8 July, 2014

Written by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), CISA – or Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act – is widely seen as a redux of last year’s CISPA bill, which was widely protested by online privacy watchdogs and ultimately defeated in Congress.

A draft of the bill circulated in June granted permission by government agencies to retain and share data for “a cybersecurity purpose,” which was defined as “the purpose of protecting an information system or information that is stored on, processed by or transiting an information system from a cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability.” According to the Guardian, that language would likely lead the NSA to stockpile weaknesses in digital security.

The legislation, which was approved by the committee by a vote of 12 to 3, would allow private firms to share information regarding cyber-attacks “in real time.” It would also shield those firms from lawsuits by individuals against those companies for sharing data with each other, and with the US government, regardless of terms of service contracts that may prevent such actions without a customer’s consent.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is joined by like-minded watchdogs such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation in panning CISA, the legislation’s “catch-all provisions” would seem to allow the collection of the content of communications, rather than just malicious code. “That's one of the biggest concerns," Gabriel Rottman, an attorney with the ACLU, told the Guardian.

CISA now heads to the full Senate for a vote, though it faces the hurdle of a shortened legislative calendar, as well as mounting opposition by the same groups that prevented passage of similar legislation over the past two years.

Privacy on the Internet

If you use Facebook this could be important information

Comments from Michael Green

The following message was just sent to the inbox of CNET News Senior Writer on Google and security, Seth Rosenblatt:

Interesting revelations in your article on CNET. Mark Zuckerberg apologizes for the recently revealed research study. Why? "We messed up." Meaning, he got caught.

Are you aware of another equally evil Facebook research study? For over 8 months now, numerous FB users, including me, have noticed that we can no longer set friends posts to appear on our feed in the usual mode of All, Most and Only Important. That space is whited-out in the drop-down and it is NOT a Java script issue (appears too on multiple browsers).

So many people have been affected that there is a FB page on it. Many these people wrote to FB and, through back doors, I also reached out to high level management. No response.

Why would FB do that? Well, we know some things with certainty. They are indeed tweaking their feed algorithms. They are control freaks, and their algorithms are all-important. On the more sinister side of the equation, FB is also in bed with the corporate world, not to mention the "sanitized news world" of the corporate state. One doesn't need to be a conspiracy freak, but think about that for a moment.

For some time, it seemed to me that what FB might be doing is using an ever-expanding group (and it is ever-expanding) of research subjects to test user-reaction to FB's exerting more control than ever over our feeds.

The only control left to me is follow/don't follow, and because I cannot parse the friends setting (or even see it anymore), I'm not following 90% of my friends at all. That hurts relationally, and it also keeps a lot of important stories away from me. Soon, all control over our feeds will devolve to Mr. Zuckerberg and his Facebook crew.

I have written to a few journalists on this but no one has yet replied. Now that we know this is the sort of thing that FB does, perhaps that will change. Hopefully, you will be interested.

Facebook's mood study: How you became the guinea pig

That controversial research into how posts affect users' emotions is just latest in a long line of privacy flaps -- and apologies -- for the social networking giant

CNet,

2 July, 2014

When news spread over the weekend that Facebook had manipulated its news feed to study how social media posts affect people's emotions, the real surprise was that anyone was that surprised.

The study (PDF), published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and conducted by Facebook researcher Adam Kramer, Jeffrey Hancock of Cornell University, and Jamie Guillory of the University of California at San Francisco, found that people tended to reflect the emotional state of their friends' posts.

So if your friends wrote happy posts, your posts in turn tended to be happier. Friends posting about a bad day at work would tend to bring you down.

The disclosure triggered a sharp backlash and elicited an attempt by Facebook to seek forgiveness -- one in a long line of mea culpas the company has issued over the years. Yet anyone paying close attention to the boilerplate disclaimers that tech companies regularly publish might have seized upon a couple of seemingly innocent-sounding phrases tucked away in the company's data use policy that spoke volumes.

Among other things, Facebook says quite clearly in the published document that it might use the information it gathers from people on its social network "for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement."

The tandem phrases "data analysis" and "research" appear to be unique to Facebook's user legalese. They do not appear in Google's terms of service and privacy policy, while "research" does appear in Yahoo's privacy policy but not its terms of service. LinkedIn is open in its privacy policy about the research it conducts on its users.

Google and Yahoo did not respond to a request for comment on whether they perform similar research on their users.

Line crossed?

However, privacy advocates warn that use agreements are carefully worded by design.

"There is no word in any privacy policy that is not there for a reason. If something is missing, then it's missing for a reason," said Brian Pascal, an attorney and privacy researcher at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. He added that while there may or may not be a "practical impact" by Facebook's specific policy phrasing, "it's certainly interesting."

"It's one thing for Facebook to A/B test some advertising structure," he said, referring to internal tests that websites frequently conduct to determine what resonates with visitors -- some people see one set of ads, some see another. "It's another to tweak their News Feed to manipulate [users'] emotional state."

That goes to the heart of the latest argument about whether Facebook crossed a red line. It's one thing to test whether Facebook users search more, thus generating more revenue, when presented with more or fewer links. For many people, though, it's quite something else when the company tests whether users' emotional state can be altered artificially.

Carey Sebera, an attorney who's worked on Facebook privacy cases, said that while the research may not have violated the law or even the company's own policies, Facebook ought to have been more ethical. She voiced concerns raised by other critics when she noted that legal documents don't necessarily equate with morality and that something that's legal isn't necessarily ethical.

Responding to the blowback, Kramer posted a brief response defending the project as one of many attempts by Facebook "to provide a better service" and "never to upset anyone."

"Nobody's posts were 'hidden,' they just didn't show up on some loads of Feed," he wrote on Sunday.

"I can understand why some people have concerns about it, and my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused," Kramer subsequently wrote. "In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety."

That response did little to mollify critics after they learned that of the 689,003 people experimented on in the study, which is less than 0.06 percent of Facebook's 1.2 billion users, none was aware of their participation. While that's considered standard operating procedure in business, Princeton University professor and privacy expert Ed Felten noted "the large gap" that exists between the ethical standards of industry practice, versus the research community's ethical standards for studies involving human subjects.

"Industry practice allows pretty much any use of data within a company, and infers consent from a brief mention of 'research' in a huge terms-of-use document whose existence is known to the user," according to Felten. But if people voluntarily give Facebook their data and the company operates within its own terms of service and privacy policy, the upshot is that Facebook can do with that information what it likes.

This is not the first time Facebook has run experiments on its users. In 2010, the company created an "I Voted" button, not unlike a "like" button, that displayed who among a user's friends had indeed voted. Facebook said in 2012 that it believed more than 300,000 voters turned out at the polls as a result of the study.

Facebook's actions are also bound to raise more questions about the power that large Internet companies wield and what they're doing with user data. It's part of a larger struggle within Silicon Valley over consumer privacy: What's the proper balance between enticing customers to use a service and then packaging that information for advertisers to help them to better target ads at their users?

Act first, apologize later

It's been a bumpy path. For instance, when Google in 2010 launched one of its first social-networking efforts, called Buzz, the company came under fire for weak privacy settings. Chief among them was a default setting that published a list of names that Gmail users most frequently emailed or chatted with. Most recently, a European court has forced Google to allow users to request that certain information about them be removed from the company's databases, including search results.

In 2012, Facebook settled with the Federal Trade Commission over charges that the company deceived customers by telling them they could keep information on the network private, but then allowing it to be made public. Facebook promised to offer users a "clear and prominent notice" when their information is shared beyond standard privacy settings. Whether or not Facebook violated that agreement with this research experiment remains unclear.

There have been other instances when Facebook inadvertently fanned privacy fears among its many users.

In 2006, the introduction of the news feed without sufficient privacy controls brought a public apology from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who acknowledged "we really messed this one up." Zuckerberg had toagain apologize a year later after the debut of a controversial product called Beacon that let Facebook friends see what you were doing on partner websites. Zuckerberg said Beacon was conceived as a way "to let people share information across sites with their friends," but he acknowledged that Facebook "simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it." (Facebook subsequently offered a way to opt out of Beacon before dumping the project entirely.)

That congenital tone-deafness has Felton urging more stringent ethical rules on scientific research that would require specific, fully informed consent from the subject, including the right to opt out of a study at any point without penalty.

Considering how many people now use Facebook, the company sees clear benefits in more research about their likes and dislikes. The company has often acted first and then apologized and amended its policies after public outcry and Pascal thinks this situation will be no different.

"A definite first step is [for Facebook] to become much more transparent about how they decide to conduct research on their users," he said. "The truth is that Facebook has access to data that nobody else has. The answer can't be that Facebook must give up on its research. What we want is some degree of accountability and transparency when they do undertake research."

Focus on New Zealand

There used to be a time when New Zealand never made the foreign media – because we were once a reasonably hormonious and peaceful country, Now New Zealand has been in the headlines on RT, both today and yesterday – and not for any reasons that one would like

New Zealand, like all its anglophone cousins, now has a liberal/corporate fascist government that practises crony capitalism and is destroying what remains of a civil society.

Apart from oil drilling the major threats to the survival of Maui's dolphins are "entanglement in gillnets and capture by inshore trawl fisheries. These are estimated to be responsible for over 95% of all Maui's dolphin mortalities. 

"Other potential threats include boat strike, pollution, mining, oil and gas exploration and activity, accoustic disturbance and coastal development".

New Zealand govt accused of opening world's rarest dolphin's habitat to oil & gas drilling

Maui's dolphin (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

RT,

18 June, 2014

The New Zealand government is insisting that the endangered Maui dolphin is not at risk after it signed off 3,000 square kilometers of a marine mammal sanctuary off the North Island’s west coast for oil and gas drilling

Documents released to the New Zealand Green Party show that the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary, home to the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin, was part of New Zealand’s waters that has been signed off to drill for oil and gas, New Zealand’s 3 News reports.

Documents, seen by 3 News, show that the Department of Conservation had highlighted that 3,000 square kilometers overlap into the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary but the area was still signed off for drilling.

“I think primarily once you go from exploration right through to production, you’re not jeopardizing the wildlife,” said Simon Bridges, the Minister of Energy and Resources.

The co-leader of the Green Party Russel Norman accused Bridges of being happy “to kill some more”dolphins with oil exploration.

But Nick Smith, the Conservation Minister, insisted that the drilling will be taking place “nowhere near where the Maui’s live.”

“There hasn’t been a single observation of a Maui’s dolphin, and the oil and gas industry hasn’t been involved in a single Maui’s dolphin incident in Taranaki over the past 40 years, despite 23 wells being drilled,” Smith told parliament Wednesday.

The Maui’s Dolphin is the world’s rarest and the smallest; there are estimated to be just 55 adults left off New Zealand’s North Island and they are seriously threatened by fishing and disease.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has called on the government to do more to protect the dolphins.

“We need to be doing more to save the last 55 Maui’s dolphins, not exposing them to further risks from seismic surveying for oil exploration. The government’s failure to fully protect Maui’s dolphins from net-fishing across their range is already putting them at risk of extinction,” said Peter Hardstaff, head of campaigns at WWF.

The International Whaling Commission also said it has “extreme concern” about the decline in Maui’s dolphins.

Coverage from the local press

Maui's dolphin sanctuary in oil drilling move - Greens

The Government has opened up for oil drilling more than 3000 square kilometres of a marine mammal sanctuary - home to the critically endangered Maui's dolphin, the Green Party says.

Stuff

18 June, 2014

Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said documents obtained under the Official Information Act showed the Government included more than 3000sqkm of the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary in the competitive tender for petroleum exploration permits, known as Block Offer 2014.

The area, home to both the Hector's and Maui's dolphins, was declared a sanctuary in 2008 as part of the threat management plan to protect the species.

Last week, the International Whaling Commission published a report slating Nationals' management changes as "inadequate" to stop the Maui's dolphin becoming extinct.

"The International Whaling Commission is calling for even greater protections for Maui's dolphins - this National government is putting these beautiful dolphins at greater risk of extinction," Norman said.

Only 55 Maui's dolphins are thought to remain. They can only be found in New Zealand.

"The Government should stop putting the short-term interest of a few mining companies ahead of the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who love and want to protect the endangered Maui's dolphin," Norman said.

His comments come as a decision is expected from the Environmental Protection Authority today on whether an iron-sand mining development will be allowed in the same Taranaki waters where the Maui's dolphins are found.

If given the green light the Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) operation would cover an area of 65.76sqkm off of Patea.

TTR proposes to extract up to 50 million tonnes of sediment a year and process it aboard a floating processing storage and offloading vessel.

About 5 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate would be exported.

But Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges today dismissed the Greens' concerns.

"There's negligible effect from petroleum [exploration] on Maui's dolphins," Bridges said, saying there had been no recorded deaths from the industry in 40 years.

About 95 per cent of threats to Maui's dolphins come from fishing, with set nets identified as the biggest threat.

"The Government's got a proud record on Maui's Dolphins," Bridges said.

"We've extended the set-net ban for fishing, and the marine mammal sanctuary area.

"But what the Greens are basically suggesting is that an area that's had petroleum development for over 40 years without incident should be shut down, and that's not correct and I don't think that's what anyone wants."

Bridges said raising concerns about seismic testing was "probably the best point [the Greens] can make", but he claimed there should not be concerns about the process, with a mandatory code of conduct for testing requiring marine experts aboard all vessels.

Information on Maui's dolphins from WWF

Elsewhere, as we have mentioned before, the government is opening up a pristine forest park, Victoria Forest Park, in the South Island.

The minister who signed the deal off had not even heard of the park!

Here is a report from TV3 that has been the only NZ media outlet to give this coverage. Kudos to John Campbell.

Locals speak out on oil drilling in Victoria Forest Park

Rock climber, Duffys Creek, Victoria 
Forest Park

Yesterday it was announced that the Government has opened up more than 3,000 square kilometres of a marine mammal sanctuary for oil and gas exploration.

That decision has prompted questions about which areas are opened up for prospecting, and why?

One area is Victoria Forest Park in the South Island - the man who signed it off was Energy Minister Simon Bridges.

But soon after the announcement it was discovered that Mr Bridges had never even heard of the park.

So what is this forest park like, and is there really any oil?

Reporter Dan Parker travelled to the West Coast to find out how the people who spend time in it feel about the decision to drill.

Watch the full report

Meanwhile the Minister of Conservation (sic) has given the green light to an Australian mining company to start work on a coal mining project despite the fact that coal prices are 'depressed'' internationally and state-owned Solid Energy is heavily in debt and has made more workers redundant and reduced its activity by a quarter

Green light for Denniston mining

Final permission has been given for work to start on a controversial mining project on the Denniston Plateau. Building work could start in two weeks, but it will be smaller than first planned.

Radio New Zealand,

19 June, 2014

Conservation Minister Nick Smith granted an access agreement for Bathurst Resources to build an open-cast coal mine on the West Coast in May last year.

On Wednesday, the Department of Conservation gave the Australian company the go-ahead to start work.

Bathurst Resources will have to reapply with DoC to continue operating the mine after six months, and each year thereafter.

Dr Smith said the company was going to give $22 million over five years to compensate for environmental damage, but that would now be spread over seven years.

Because the international price of coal remains low, Bathurst said it would mine less than a third of the proposed area to begin with and extend to full capacity when the price rises.

The first two years of production has been reduced from 62.2 hectares to 19.3 hectares, and amount of coal extracted reduced from 558 kilotons to 75 kilotons.

Bathursts' managing director Hamish Bohannan said it would begin mining for the domestic market and start exporting when the price of coal is higher.

Mr Bohannan said getting permission for the mine has been a longer process than anticipated. Work is scheduled to begin on 1 July this year.

_{Solid Energy cuts 137 jobs at Stockton Mine}

6 June

Solid Energy has confirmed job cuts at its Stockton Mine on the West Coast, as international coal prices continue to slump.

At a meeting this afternoon, the company confirmed 137 of the mine's 521 jobs will be axed.

It also plans to reduce the number of contractors it employs on-site, shedding around 50 contract jobs, and bring the work in-house for existing staff.

"We are going to lose families, we are going to lose skills and some very good people," says Buller District Mayor Garry Howard. "We really feel for those particular people at the present time."

Solid Energy chief executive Dan Clifford says the mine's production will be reduced by a quarter, from 1.9 million tonnes per annum to 1.4 million in the next financial year.

He blames the losses on a slump in international coal prices, which have fallen from US$330 per tonne in 2011 to US$120 per tonne today.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Solid-Energy-cuts-137-jobs-at-Stockton-Mine/tabid/423/articleID/347409/Default.aspx#ixzz3529PKBjH

As far as this govenment is concerned, forget alternative energy, forget public transport.

All their energy is directed towards helping their friends in the road transport industry.

Crony capitalism at work

National plans to spend billions on roads

National is proposing to spend billions over the next decade on the country's roads, prompting opposition parties to accuse the Government of being stuck in the past.

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee has released the Government's draft land transport policy statement, showing an emphasis on the country's road network at the expense of public transport and walking and cycling initiatives.

Brownlee said the proposal continued National's focus on "economic growth and productivity, road safety and value for money".

The $38.7 billion would be spent on building and maintaining roading networks that were "critical" to the country's economic performance, as well as on road safety and walking, cycling and public transport initiatives.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10162805/Opposition-parties-slate-land-transport-plan

Politically, the Labour Party has been engulfed by a new crisis ("a storm in a tea party") which demonstrates how the incumbant fascists are able (with the help of the media) manufacture consent for their criminal, crony capitalist government.

It also demonstrates that Labour is not substantally different from National and that we are increasingly unlikely to see a change of govenment in the coming election which was cunningly announced early by the government to exploit the difficulties of the opposition.

We live in dark times and events will be manipulated to ensure the incumbent government get to further their agenda.

Welcome to liberal/corporate fascism

Poll adds to Labour woes

Subliminal messages: Notice how the New  Zealand Herald places a confident, 'smiling' Key next to an angry Cunliffe

A poor result on a new political poll has added to Labour's woes today.

Labour has dropped six percentage points to 23 per cent in the stuff.co.nz/Ipsos political poll. National rose to 56 per cent - a result that would let them govern without a coalition partner.

The polling took place early in the week before the revelation that David Cunliffe wrote a letter in support of Donghua Liu's residency application in 2003.

The poll showed results for Mr Cunliffe as preferred prime minister slipped two percentage points to 11 per cent, while results for Prime Minister John Key to remain as prime minister rose three points to 51.4 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277146

Key on Liu-Labour link: More to come

Prime Minister John Key believes the Labour has a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu.

He also acknowledged he had known for some weeks that Labour leader David has written a letter supporting Mr Liu's application for residency.

The release of the letter yesterday in the face of denials from Mr Cunliffe that he wrote any such letter has thrown his leadership into crisis.

It followed revelations earlier this week that Mr Liu donated $15,000 to Labour in 2007.

It did not show up in the donations register although that may have been lawful at the time.

A new poll will fuel Labour's crisis, with the Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll today recording a 6 point plunge by Labour to 23 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277098

Meanwhile a very dangerous legal precedent has been set whereby a book on Kim Dotcom, written by a journalist, is deemed not to be journalism - and therefore not subject to laws protecting journalists' sources

Privacy ruling on Dotcom research

The High Court has ruled that research material used for a book about internet businessman Kim Dotcom is not protected by the Privacy Act, because the book is not journalism.

Radio New Zealand,

19 June, 2014

The Crown wants access to research material from a book called The Secret Life of Kim Dotcom as it prepares a court case against the internet businessman.

Normally, journalists' research material is protected from Privacy Act requests, but Justice Winkelmann found the exemption only covers news articles and programmes, not books.

The book's author, David Fisher, says he is astonished by the ruling and worries it will have a chilling effect on journalism.

Media lawyer, Ursula Cheer agrees the Privacy Act has a narrow definition of news.

But she says the ruling only applies to information held about people already involved in court cases.

Justice Winkelmann ruled Kim Dotcom should ask for the research material and, if relevant, supply it to the Crown

More on the political shenannigans

David Cunliffe says he has full caucus support

Beleaguered Labour Party leader David Cunliffe is sure he has the support of his colleagues despite revelations over a letter on behalf of controversial businessman Donghua Liu.

Mr Cunliffe told reporters at Wellington Airport on Thursday morning he had no intention of quitting the leadership, and later told Radio New Zealand's Nine to Noon programme he had the full support of his caucus.

"Because media have been asking the question, I double-checked," he said. "We are a unified team and we're going forward to win this election."

Mr Cunliffe said it was technically possible under Labour's constitution that he could be rolled in a caucus-only vote, but he thinks that's unlikely and he won't be putting it to the test.

"The reason for that is people are well aware that that kind of change so close to an election would be extremely damaging to Labour's chances and a lot more people would be worrying about their own place."

It was revealed on Wednesday that Mr Cunliffe wrote to the Immigration Service in 2003 on behalf of Donghua Liu. A day earlier the Labour leader had said he had never advocated on behalf of the Auckland property developer.

But Mr Cunliffe said his electorate office had failed to find the letter and told him he had had no involvement with the businessman. He said the letter made it clear that he did not advocate on Mr Liu's behalf, but simply asked if the businessman could be told how long his application would take.

Mr Cunliffe told Nine to Noon the timing of the release of the letter under an Official Information Act request was "interesting" and that "people were primed to ask questions".

Former party president Mike Williams earlier rejected suggestions that Mr Cunliffe's leadership was now damaged beyond repair, saying the latest reveleation was a storm in a teacup.

"Having said that, it's not a good look and he's been let down by his staff," he told Morning Report.

A Fairfax/Ipsos poll published on Thursday showed a 6 point drop in support for the party, down to 23 percent, compared with National on just over 56 percent. Two major polls at the end of May had the party on about 30 percent support.

Mr Williams said apart from Thursday's poll, Labour had been doing better than at the same time in the last cycle, but if the trend continued in larger polls there could be a panic reaction in caucus and a leadership challenge would be possible.

"If the polls continue around low 20s that will become a possibility because at that point you've got people losing their seats and nothing focuses the mind of an MP more than the thought of losing their seat."

Under Labour Party rules, MPs can vote out a leader without triggering a party-wide contest during a 90-day pre-election period, which begins on Friday.

Some of Mr Cunliffe's senior MPs said he still has their confidence. Former Labour leader Phil Goff said there was nothing wrong with the letter Mr Cunliffe wrote, that he was not doing it for favours, nor was there anything inappropriate. Deputy leader David Parker told reporters Mr Cunliffe had done nothing wrong.

Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta have ruled out a change of Labour leadership before the election and Jacinda Ardern told Radio New Zealand Mr Cunliffe has her full confidence and support. Other Labour MPs including Grant Robertson, Trevor Mallard, Annette King have not returned messages or not commented.

'Future rests with caucus'

But the Government said Mr Cunliffe will have a hard time convincing the public his word can be trusted.

Finance Minister Bill English said Mr Cunliffe's future rested with his caucus. Mr English told Morning Report that MPs don't remember everything they do, and the question for Mr Cunliffe's caucus colleagues is whether they believe his explanation or not.

One problem for the Labour Party leader is that he has repeatedly attacked the National Party over its links to Mr Liu, who is due to be sentenced on domestic violence charges in August.

Maurice Williamson was forced to resign as a minister in May this year after it was revealed that he had rung police about the charges Liu faced. As well, the businessman made a substantial donation to National, which prompted accusations of cronynism from Labour.

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Cunliffe would have to decide if he will judge himself by the same standards of accountability he has been so vocal about for government ministers.

John Key said people genuinely make mistakes in politics, but Mr Cunliffe has often not accepted that and has called for the heads of national ministers over similar issues.

Mr Key said even if Mr Cunliffe had initially forgotten the interaction with Liu, he should have investigated better when the matter came under scrutiny.