Police Charge Hacker Of Francis Abbotts Files

[lightningdance]

A SYDNEY woman faces up to two years’ jail after being charged over computer hacking that led to student records about a $60,000 scholarship granted to Tony ­Abbott’s daughter being leaked to the online magazine New Matilda.

NSW police have charged Freya Newman, a 21-year-old communications student from the University of Technology, Sydney, with unauthorised access to restricted data held in a computer.

Ms Newman was served with a court attendance notice at her home on Monday night to appear on the charge before a magistrate next month.

Police involvement follows a complaint by management of the Whitehouse Institute of Design that its computer system was hacked on May 20, a day before New Matilda published an article claiming it had documents contradicting assurances by the Prime Minister that one of his daughters received a scholarship based on merit.

The New Matilda article prompted controversy over the selection process used to award a scholarship to Frances Abbott, and the magazine has criticised the Prime Minister for not declaring the grant on his register of interests.

NSW police pursued the institute’s complaint with a criminal investigation that concluded with the charge against Ms Newman under section 308H of the NSW Crimes Act, an offence carrying a maximum of two years in jail.

During the police investigation, the Whitehouse Institute handed over CCTV footage and email evidence that allegedly identified Ms Newman, who was working as a part-time night ­librarian for the institute in May when computer files were ­accessed.

It has been alleged Ms Newman gained unauthorised access to the files of Ms Abbott and more than 500 other students.

New Matilda editor Chris Graham lauded the “brave sources” who provided his publication with leaked information in a comment piece published on Monday.

[cherry*135]

"It is understood Ms Newman did not have access to the institute’s computer system. According to reports made to police, a person gained access to the system using the login of another staff member. There is no suggestion the person whose login was used was connected to the alleged computer hacking."

That doesn't mean she (Ms Newman) didn't have access to the institutes computers, it means no access to the institutes computer SYSTEM ( no username/password of her own to log in with) It is alleged she used another staff members login.
The other staff member didn't know their login was being used to access the computer system by someone else not authorised to do so.

That made me wonder how Ms Newman got easy access to the other staff members log in details.

[kilroy_is_here]

Actually paint if you bothered to read the term and conditions on half the stuff you do on line you would know that in amongst them is one in which you agree that they can on sell your details to marketing companies and data base registries, so good luck with that one.
Where as if she used an unauthorised login she stole the information for personal gain.

Btw I take it your case by case would be if it were a liberal it's ok to steal their info but not if it is done to a labor

[azureline**]

I haven't see anything yet that says she stole the log in details. How she got them is yet to be told.

[karliandjacko]

---

@kilroy_is_here wrote:

Where as if she used an unauthorised login she stole the information for personal gain.

Btw I take it your case by case would be if it were a liberal it's ok to steal their info but not if it is done to a labor

---

For personal gain. How do you work that out?  

It was information that should have been on the public record.  

It's a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that paints or any other poster implies that it's ok to steal from the libs and not from the labs.  If it's in the public interest it should not be hidden regardless of which side is covering up.

[cherry*135]

kilroy wrote:

Where as if she used an unauthorised login she stole the information for personal gain.

Please tell us how you know that and what the personal gain was.

The information gained, did prove the Institute and the Abbotts were lying about a 'merit' scholarship. 

[cherry*135]

In a comment piece posted this week, New Matilda's owner and editor, Chris Graham, said the news site had "relied on documents and information supplied to us by brave sources" in publishing their stories on Ms Abbott's scholarship.

“It’s concerning that any person who is accused of leaking information in the public interest would be pursued by the government of the day,” he said.

Ms Newman is due to appear in Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court on September 18.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/former-librarian-charged-with-accessing-studen...

[karliandjacko]

---

@am*3 wrote:

@kilroy wrote:

Where as if she used an unauthorised login she stole the information for personal gain.

Please tell us how you know that and what the personal gain was.

The information gained, did prove the Institute and the Abbotts were lying about a 'merit' scholarship. 

---

The institute has been handsomely rewarded for their support of Ms Abbott.

If these reports related to a member of any other party the Libs would be calling for their blood, or at the very least their sacking.  Why do they and their supporters think Labor should be held to a higher standard than the Libs and Nats?

[cherry*135]

The Insititute had a blurb from Tony Abbott on their website.. that seems to have gone now!

[***super_nova***]

If this is the truth, does it matter how the info was obtained? 

[fourandsixpants]

ref. kilroy said, with much presumption:

Actually paint if you bothered to read the term and conditions on half the stuff you do on line you would know that in amongst them is one in which you agree that they can on sell your details to marketing companies and data base registries, so good luck with that one.
Where as if she used an unauthorised login she stole the information for personal gain.

Btw I take it your case by case would be if it were a liberal it's ok to steal their info but not if it is done to a labor

..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................