Member log in

Anonymous NZ attack on National Party sites good news for John Key, GCSB Bill supporters

3News reports Anonymous NZ attacked 13 National Party-related websites overnight, substituting their content with a video attacking the GCSB Bill (a still from it is pictured. You can see the whole thing - minus the pixelation over the F word - on 3's site here).

As I type early Tuesday morning, the sites, including, are no longer displaying the video, but are offline.

The attack will merely make the internet look more scary and out-of-control to the average person, helping the GCSB Bill's progress. A poor result. Or, who knows, maybe the result somebody wanted.


Judith Collins' comment today that Anonymous has shown how easy it would be to hack a bank account is off-beam.

John Key and other National MPs had personal sites taken over by Anonymous. Their hosts likely didn't have a lot of security - and neither was it hugely necessary. They don't contain any sensitive data; they're essentially just brochure sites (and they were obviously backed up as they're now back online).

Banks, by contrast, have spent millions on industrial strength security. That's not to say no one will ever hack them, but it would be orders of magnitude harder.

So: a day of own-goals.

Protestors wearing Anonymous' signature V for Vendetta masks during an anti GCSB Bill march up Auckland's Queen St on Saturday. They numbered three of around 2000 (Chris Keall).

More by this author

Comments and questions

Yeah. Own goal. Stupid.

I prefer to think that Anon NZ indicates the resentment of ordinary Kiwis/New Zealanders. You can Google NZ Online Anthem or try this link

This childish immature and irresponsible attack on a legally allowed website only justifies the need for the GCSB. Such individuals are well outside the 'right to freedom of action, that is so often claimed by anti-establishment groups, usually of very low membership numbers.
Subversive activity designed to undermine the credibility of, or the ability of any legal entity, governments included, to go about their business needs to be monitored; and if necessary prosecuted.
The 'freedom of speech' rights sources, so valued by the media, also carry responsibilities, something that is not very well understood by the younger generations, including some so-called professors at Auckland University.

Ah, the voice of authoritarianism always sounds so reasonable. Trade just a little freedom and he will give you security. And when you do you lose both.

Without the GSCB you may one day not have any freedom; witness the quashing of information relating to the demise of the RNZAF strike wing by the Comrade.

That would be an accurate assessment if we still lived in the medieval ages, where socialism wasn't even thought of.

Yes and no. Certainly agree that it draws attention to the ability of some people to work maliciousness online.

But also a very clear and expression of the outrage that many people feel at National's gleeful legalisation of state terrorism. They've converted fear into anger, and that, my friends, is the writing on the wall.

Agree that it is a timely (maybe too timely) reminder.

But please, spare us the emotive clap-trap, and explain precisely what is so wrong with the GCSB being allowed to assist domestic authorities, upon request by those authorities, to investigate NZ citizens it may feel pose some form of threat? Give us a break.

Most of the 'outrage' you refer to is fueled from the somewhat cynical way the Bill has been reported by the MSM (without mention of the fact the GCSB will be acting specifically to assist and at the request of domestic agencies), and frankly from a position of significant ignorance.

The balkanization of the internet is only sped up by actions like these.

you misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the internet, that the tighter a grip you try to place on the internet the more it has the capacity to slip through your fingers.

Any sort of impediment made by a government in a effort to control the internet will only prompt people like anon to program new ways of avoiding these impediments, until perhaps (like in North Korea) the public is finally forbidden from even possessing internet access, at which point accusations of Fascism cannot be denied.

organizations like the GCSB and other governmental intelligence gathering groups working on behalf of the powers that may be in their respective countries are struggling to adapt present styles of government to the digital post-industrial culture of the 21st century.

It unnerves them that the traditional public forums such as the news at six and the news paper (which operated in an extremely slow, routine and hierarchical manner) are being replaced with a multitude of new and fluid outlets/receptacles for information which allows a voting population to circumnavigate the left verse right embellishments of the traditional media effectively halting the transmission of the sanctioned opinion that said traditional media has historically fostered.

it is this loss of security in the ability to foster the "appropriate" opinion that has governments across the world, including ours, pushing for legislation that legalizes the spying on of its own citizens, if it cannot control the opinion as it once did a traditional government cannot function because it cannot bank on the majority of its voters sharing an aligned opinion, making the implication of traditional policy next to impracticable.

which leaves few options open; the first is totalitarian style government restriction and monitoring on the flow of information through the internet,

second is to leave thing as they are and hope that this culture will naturally evolve into a state where governance and digital trans continental communication can become compatible, foreseeable as older generations give way to younger ones who are familiar with the trend of technology,

or lastly a concerted effort between the government and the people to readdress the systems of government and transform them into a fluid and malleable state which places more emphasis on digital public discussion as a form of open door policy deliberation. the trade offs for this one however would be a complete readdressing of our constitution, a new treaty that is actually a legal document and properly insures a mutually beneficial co-operation between indigenous and pakeha (this would have to be done extremely carefully, and i do not posses enough knowledge of the present treaty to be sure how) and the establishment of this country as a republic.

personally i expect the second scenario to be the most appropriate at the present time, but i suspect that in the future the third will need to be seriously considered by this country.

The language might be somewhat obscene, but the sentiment is just about right!

Sounds like the "brick through the window" ploy from House of Cards.

Key couldn't have done it any better if he'd planned it himself!

He may have. How would we know?

Perhaps he did.

It was done to push their AGENDA.......
Another bogey man.

Common sense says, if you are going to post criticism of Key and the govt, exercise caution and do it from a computer at the library.

The many US green card holders, US residents and US citizens living here in New Zealand should be more worried about the FATCA IGA NZ will be signing with the US. The IRS has now even published US tax compliance laws on the IRD website: Soon all US persons (greencard/citizens/residents/dual citizens/etc) will be fleeced of their cash by the US IRS as most have no idea they need to be paying tax to the US ever year, including capital gains on their home sales, phantom capital gains on currency changes and reporting their bank account balances. The fine is $10k per year per account for not reporting a NZ bank account to the IRS for US persons and/or subject to 50% fine of the highest balance in the account even if no tax was due.

Not surprised by this - I've been privy to some fairly extremist and vitriolic left-wing comment on Facebook by people who, bizarrely, assume everyone they know shares their political beliefs. I wonder if the Labour/Greens know how successfully their own supporters are undermining their reputation??
An example of the type of thing I'm seeing is the reference to the Nats as being 'Nazi' and 'devils' and anyone voting for them or agreeing with their policy as 'evil'
God forbid Labour/Greens get in - those who lean to the right are likely to be burned at the stake.

So since they are anonymous it could actually be the GCSB geeks doing this kind of thing ... false flag action to curry favour for their "we have power to do anything with your computer" bill.

How would we know? This is the kind of secret powers they want, right?

How would this help support them though? I can't imagine anybody with less than 2 brain cells going: "aww yeah na this is a bad thing and our freedoms aren't under attack". Why? Because regardless it'll still happen and continue to happen even if the bill passes due to the large amount of techniques even a simple home user can use to hide their IP and port, besides I'm not keen on somebody going through my card details when i make a purchase online. It's more of a security threat in that sense as well. Imagine if someone were to hack the GCSB's data centre which contains peoples bank details.

Wait, why is it necessary to have a spy agency investigate an act of vandalism?

One law at a time. The increased scrutiny of the state into our lives slowly erodes the civil liberties of our democracy. Where will it end?

If they were false flag antics, at least they were a little less transparent than the envelopes of white powder delivered to various people's offices. Those were just painful in their awkward obviousness.

However, I doubt these DDOS attacks were false flag, more just protests against the the National Party's deplorable attacks on privacy.


>"The attack will merely make the internet look more scary and out-of-control to the average uninformed person"

There, fixed it for you.

So R.J. Robert and others would like to entrust their privacy to the GCSB and Key and cronies?

Perhaps they would be wise to review the fact that three months worth of private phone logs from a journalist (Andrea Vance) were suddenly provided to the David Henry inquiry without a warrant or any judicial oversight.

Yes, a journalist. Not a minister, a journalist.

From the Herald: "Mr Carter said they were not requested by Mr Henry, but he had received them by accident."

And people seriously want to entrust every New Zealanders' privacy to buffoons in Wellington?

Have you people no foresight, and no appreciation of the misuse of such abilities throughout history?

There won't be 'misuse of such abilities'; unless the electors are foolish enough, to once again, elect a near dictator/communist ideology regime as government.

Consider how Key dismisses opinions apart from his own, including lumping the Law Society's considered analysis as either politically motivated or misinformed.

That's a pretty dictatorial way of approaching things.

Besides which, by putting the mechanisms in place, you simply open yourself up to abuse.

It's naive to think it won't be abused, especially in light of this Andrea Vance phone records fiasco.

And what about the IRD? How do they fit into all of this? Will they be able to access people's emails/phone calls and glean info on any kind of business transaction they wish?

They already have the power to tap into your bank account and steal your money at their whim, as well as contacting your debtors and ordering them to take money from payments owed to you. This is done without any regard to disputes, privacy or matters of commerical sensitivity.

As we become one of the most over-taxed economies in the developed world, cash is once again becoming king. The IRD will be looking at any, and every, tool at their disposal to enrich their masters.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson