IT expert Kieran Cummings reveals the full picture regarding the Tony Abbott timestamp issue.
I recently wrote a piece for IA on Tony Abbott’s press release, regarding Peter Slipper and the timestamps on the release.
On the face of it, even after forensically investigating the documents (PDFs), I concluded that they had been created on the 20/04/12 and were edited after release to show a “z” (Zulu/GMT) time zone.
The Department of Parliamentary Services made a statement to state that the “z” time zone was normal and that the documents were indeed made on the 21/04/12. I felt that the release was too hurried and deserved more attention. After firing off an email to DPS, I received a response to state they were looking into this and would get back to me.
The email I received is as follows:
In analysing the issues from the media enquiry, DPS used the file creation timestamp from the DPS servers that the documents were saved on. It is not possible for users to change the time zone on the servers.
File creation and access is not monitored on all computers on the network.
DPS uses a Microsoft Windows computing environment which is capable of supporting multiple time zones. The computers and servers in APH are configured in the AEST/AEDT time zone. A large number of computers and servers that are distributed across the country in electorate offices run with different time zones. This is a normal and supported configuration. Outlook Calendars are displayed in the time zone of the client machine. Users are allowed to change the time zone of their own computers to reflect times and dates for travelling staff.
DPS has analysed the original file on the DPS servers, a version that was emailed out as a press release and a version obtained via ParlInfo. The original file and the file emailed as a press release do not contain the ‘Z’ in the timestamp. The ParlInfo version does. The creation and modified date timestamps contained in the metadata from the original and the emailed press release version are the same. The ParlInfo version has a different modified date. The timestamp of 23/04/12 on the Parlinfo version of the file is the submission date into ParlInfo. DPS can confirm that the PDF file sent out as a press release was not created on 20/04/12 and was saved on 21/04/2012 at 9:08am. The word document used to create this PDF was saved on 21/04/2012 at 9:07am.
DPS technical staff have checked the MD5 hash from the original file version on the DPS servers and the file emailed as a press release and confirmed these files are identical.
DPS has undertaken further analysis of this issue and can confirm that there are other examples of this same issue occurring. DPS has been able to replicate this issue.
DPS has logged this issue with Microsoft to determine if this behaviour is by design or in fact an error.
DPS has not found any previous record of this being logged as an issue. It is common for users not to report all issues to the Help Desk, especially if they do not affect their day to day work.
While this does appear to clear Abbott’s office regarding the creation of PDFs/files on DPS servers, it does raise questions over the timing of file creations.
It seems this problem has existed for some time, yet no one in Parliament House thought to correct it. Seeing as time stamps are vital for accountability, I am concerned that known bugs/problems are being exploited to cover up the time of creation of official documents. As I have noted in my last blog post, the same user was using Adobe Distiller with correct time zone flags for some press releases and transcripts, but not for others.
While I am satisfied with DPS’s response, I do question the speed with which Abbott’s Office drafted and sent the statement on Peter Slipper. Between the press release being PDFed/saved and Abbott’s press conference in Brisbane, there was a matter of nine minutes for this document to be edited, clear legal, be read, understood, and recited by Abbott. This does seem to be cutting it fine – at best – and after Warren Entsch’s statements regarding his knowledge of the Ashby/Slipper case and News Ltd story, I can’t believe that someone in Abbott’s office had no knowledge.
For now, I will have to say that there is a lot of suspicious activity regarding IT in Abbott’s office. There is no smoking gun – as I did claim in my last post – but more of a whiff of bullshit. The fact Abbott’s office blamed servers – which was incorrect – rather than Microsoft Word, claimed it was ongoing through April, then claimed they were unaware of the problem does make me believe there is some furious track covering happening.
Since writing my blog post on the response from DPS Labor MP Graham Perrett has referred the Ashby/Brough/Bishop/Pyne conspiracy to the Australian Federal Police (letter excerpt above). While the AFP have not authorised a formal investigation as yet (we will know soon if this will happen), preliminary inquiries have started into Mal Brough, Julie Bishop & Christopher Pyne.
Looking at the potential charges (478.1 of the Criminal Code & s70 of the Crimes Act) & who is involved, this is not only looking bad for Abbott, but shows a clear problem with the front bench of the LNP. With Abbott refusing to read the judgement from Justice Rares, still backing up Brough, and poll results floundering, one can only assume that there are Liberal Party MP’s positioning themselves to take over from Abbott when he has to fall on his sword.
This case is far from over and the time stamps are just one line of investigation that journalists have dropped the ball on. People will not forget the news sources who whitewash for Abbott.
