Charge Cameron Slater or let me hack systems

Written By: - Date published: 9:01 am, July 20th, 2015 - 107 comments
Categories: blogs, crime, Media, police - Tags: ,

Early last week I made a statement to and complained to the police about Cameron Slater paying Ben Rachinger to try to hack into my computers on the behalf of his mysterious “funder”.

I’d read the various bits of information that Rachinger has scattered across various parts of the net since early this year. It reads just like Cameron Slater 1, and many parts of what he displayed and gave to the police should have been easily independently verifiable – especially the unaccounted “donations” to Ben Rachinger.

I am absolutely certain that Cameron Slater did knowingly pay someone who to gain unauthorized access to my computers. Cam’s farcical PR written denials just read like his usual lying.

That means he and his “funder” were soliciting for someone to commit an offence under Section 249 “Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose“ and/or Section 252 “Accessing computer system without authorisation“ of the much amended Crimes Act 1961. While Section 249 is probably the most applicable because of the benefits and advantages that Cameron Slater hoped to gain from his agent’s work, Section 252 leaves very little room to argue.

252 Accessing computer system without authorisation

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.

Note that these are the offences that whoever accessed the Cameron Slater’s systems last year will also face if they charged before a court.

For most of the data that Rachinger reports that Cameron Slater was after, and apparently thought that Rachinger had acheived,  would have been unauthorised. That is because on my systems they would require “super-admin” status on the website, something that only two people have, or a direct login to the machines which only I have.

That makes Cameron Slater and his funder chargeable under at least Section 311 “Attempt to commit or procure commission of offence“ (2). There are a very limited number of people who could have given Cameron Slater the information that he was reported as requesting.

311 Attempt to commit or procure commission of offence

(2) Every one who incites, counsels, or attempts to procure any person to commit any offence, when that offence is not in fact committed, is liable to the same punishment as if he or she had attempted to commit that offence, unless in respect of any such case a punishment is otherwise expressly provided by this Act or by some other enactment.

Now these aren’t the only parts of the Crimes Act that are applicable. They just seem to be the most applicable.

//—–

Cameron Slater is a serial offender at accessing other people’s systems for dishonest purposes and without authorisation. At present there are currently 3 known cases open on Cameron Slater’s computer related offending. They date back to 2011, have a still open complaint that dates back to early 2012, and yet shows no signs of either any charges being laid.

  1. In 2011, Cameron Slater, Jason Ede of John Keys parliamentary office and an unnamed IT tech at National party head office accessed files without authorisation on the NZ Labour party website. Far from being the innocent accident that he and National portrayed it as being at the time, subsequent revelations in Dirty Politics (pages 28-36) and the rawshark email dumps showed that they’d actively opened files and paid someone to open database files.What is quite clear from those sources is that this group were deliberately attempting to gain political advantage using this material (which makes it a dishonest purpose under Section 249) and that it involved clearly reckless, unauthorised,and repeated access to the Labour party computer system. This was part of a formal complaint by the Labour party to the police in December 2014 after the election.There appears to have been no outcome from this to date, more than 6 months afterwards.2The Labour party deserves some flak for not laying a complaint with the police in 2011. They generously chose instead to believe the public lies that Cameron Slater and the National party hierarchy were using in 2011.
  2. In 2012 Cameron Slater was given a hard disk and documents that are the property of Matthew Blomfield which he copied.The Crimes Act makes no differentiation between unauthorised access of information for a dishonest purpose on a hard disk or a networked computer. The source of these materials is currently the subject of a protracted legal appeals in a defamation case by Matthew Blomfield.What doesn’t appear to be under dispute is that Cameron Slater accessed this information and that he proceeded to use this material (at the very least) for the benefit of his website in constructing 87 posts partially or wholly based on the material from these sources until the a district court order in October 2012.A May 2012 complaint about the source of this material and the access to it was apparently ignored by police, and revived abruptly in October 2014 after the search warrant on Nicky Hager after Cameron Slater complained about him. The police appeared to have suddenly rediscovered that part of the law because they appeared to have used the same logic that they ignored on the initial complaint to obtain search warrants against Nicky Hager. There has been no apparent progress in this complain either. 3
  3. Cameron Slater’s hiring of Ben Rachinger to access my computers. This appears to have been the subject of complaints about it since at least February this year. No substantive action appears to have been taken that I am aware of has taken place.I finally got around to organising time to go into a police to make statement myself before they even contacted me, and it was my computer systems. WTF?

The obvious contrast of the effective lassitude of these police investigation of these computer related crimes is the abrupt search of Nicky Hager. That happened in October 2014, a few short months after Dirty Politics was released.

Only the police can answer why that particular complaint was acted on with such rapidity where other very similar complaints appears to have been ignored or have no apparent progress over long periods of time. However that abrupt action by the police is currently in front of a judicial review and awaiting a decision on the way that they applied for, conducted, and subsequently acted on those search warrants.

//—-

Now I think that for trying to procure an unauthorised access to my computers for what I consider to be a dishonest purpose, a repeat offender like Cameron Slater and his equally criminal funder should stand before a judge and preferably be imprisoned. If hackers are a irritating blight on the net  for most computer professionals, then their funders are even more so.

Sure I’m not exactly happy with Ben Rachinger either. But that is more for being a bullshit artist telling idiots like Cameron Slater and his unknown “funder”  what they wanted to hear.  But I’m really not worried about Ben Rachinger for another reason. As far as I can detect (see below) and after some extensive checks, Rachinger has never attempted to get into my systems at anything apart from the public level or beyond the background noise of the thousands of attempted hacks that my systems see every day.

Sure, I think that Ben Rachinger effectively scammed those suckers. They could always try complaining about fraud or a civil suit if they want restitution for their expenditure. But I suspect that the courts will take a dim view of them looking for payback on a criminal act.

//—-

The reason why I am sure that Rachinger didn’t manage to actually access my systems? Well that comes from my profession, skills and and experience. So here is a potted history 4

I am a 56 year old computer programmer who has been involved in programming and using computers since I first touched a HP21C programmable calculator in 1976. I have made a living off them since 1985/6 and effectively dropped out of doing management by 1991. I still spend about a quarter of my time learning new systems. That is just my profession, the one I get paid for. Most of the systems I have ever worked on have been networked targets for hackers. You develop a talent for not letting them access your systems.

I’ve also spent nearly 25 years being a volunteer political activist, much of that wielding a computer. That includes running this site.

So my systems have automated traps, notifications, scans, and logging on all levels on my systems for everything from logins to the traffic. The events that my systems flag as being more dangerous are routed directly to my cellphone. These include author logins from strange IP numbers especially for the social networking attacks by someone like Ben Rachinger.  Access to these monitoring systems is something that can only be obtained with my physical presence, my keys, and are limited to specific devices.

In other words it is damn unlikely that anyone apart from me can conceal their being able to access my systems.

While it is possible that someone could bypass all of that, but it’d cost a damn sight more and require skill levels way way above those that Ban Rachinger, Cameron Slater, or his mysterious “funder” appear to have.

//—-

But to to the point of the post, finally. As many people are probably aware, I think that Cameron Slater is a technological illiterate.

I am not. I’m pretty competent.

But the laws that bind me from hacking into systems are exactly the same as those that bind Cameron. Unlike that computer criminal, I actually obey those laws – both the ones that came in in 2003 and the ones that existed before but were made more explicit in 2003.

So if the police have no intentions of enforcing those laws protecting computer systems for irresponsible people like Cameron Slater who has been so clearly violating them, then shouldn’t they tell us?

Back before these types of laws and changes to university regulations came into being, responsible hackers used to routinely test the security on systems. It was something that I did throughout my first degree at Waikato starting in 1978.

Let me be free to access the systems I want to have a look into. I have the tools, the background in security and networks. I’d love to openly and freely hack into systems without legal retribution –  just like Cam does. I am sure that there are thousands of competent people like me in NZ here who’d enjoy doing that as well. There are several who are authors on this site.

Outside of the political sphere, there are way more non-political tech-heads who’d enjoy being given Cam’s apparent license against prosecution by the police. They would also like to remove themselves from the artificial and clearly unenforced legal restrictions that we currently voluntarily observe.

If the police don’t want to prosecute such crimes done by the irresponsible amongst us, then  why constrain the responsible?

So I ask Mike Bush and his staff to just give us a clear signal and many of us will.

A clear signal like not laying charges against Cam for clear violations of the Crimes Act would be sufficient.

After all, why should we leave the fun to well connected technological idiots like Cameron Slater and the fools that fund him?

dirty10

 

  1. After reading Cameron Slater for the last seven years he has a distinctive ‘voice’. It is so distinctive, that it is easy enough to pick out when someone else has been writing using his name or when he writes under other names on other sites. Or for that matter when he is lying, bullshitting, or blustering.
  2. I checked that nothing had actually resulted from this yesterday. Apparently Labour are hoping for a result soon. 
  3. Again I checked yesterday and there had been no result to date.
  4. As usual I can expect the ignorant, useless, and general fuckwits to attack my background with stupid slogans. Of course they are usually the people who appear to know very little about computer systems. Since I don’t expect such morons to read to the end, I will announce that I will permanently ban people raising that as an issue here unless they can point to something more specific than repeating Barnacle Bill’s “greatest sysop” line. Think of it as evolution in action.

107 comments on “Charge Cameron Slater or let me hack systems ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Charles 1
    20 July 2015 at 9:23 am

    The privileged do not announce the existence of privilege or how it works. That’s not the game. How would they claim moral superiority over their immoral actions if they did that? How would they blame their victims for events outside the victim’s control if they admitted that connections are what matters, that connections tilt the field in their favour; and that efforts, intelligence, reason, “earning it”, or the law, have little effect in outcomes or ascertaining the truth?

    The scary thing is that’s it’s not a Right/Left issue. It’s a power/no power/imbalance human issue. It’s fixable to certain degrees, with regards to the issues in the above article, but not easily eliminated from human interactions unless politics itself was to disappear forever.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    20 July 2015 at 9:25 am

    They’ll ignore it. You’l launch a private prosecution. The AG will take over the case, and screw it up, and Slater will escape justice a la John Banks.

    So long as the National Party has a say in who the AG is, their enablers are above the law.

  3. Detrie 3
    20 July 2015 at 9:29 am

    Nice article. Clearly if these laws are not going to be enforced, the job opportunities for us old geeks are interesting. To ensure we get preferential treatment, should my CV state we’re a paid up member of the national party or just a friend of the PM? I have no ponytail, so hope that won’t count against me.

    • lprent 3.1
      20 July 2015 at 10:48 am

      I am a friend of an ex-PM including when she was the PM. However she would have tossed me to the wolves if I’d done anything illegal. Unlike the current PM who seems to think that he should apologize when Slater gets caught lying.

      But I suspect your hirsute inadequacies are fine. I never had the hair for a ponytail myself.

      And who’d want hair in the places that Cameron keeps it?

  4. Anne 4
    20 July 2015 at 9:34 am

    The police are well aware they are not – I repeat NOT – to seriously investigate the com-plaints against Cameron Slater and his invisible merry men. In fact the ‘merry men’ might be the ones the police’s bosses want to protect. They will continue to procrastinate with excuses that these cases are very complicated and will not be completed for some time to come.

    A copy of your post has just been added to your police file. I heard the clonk. 😈

    • RedLogix 4.1
      20 July 2015 at 9:55 am

      Yes … no-one gives a rat’s patui about Slater. It would be the risk of all the threads unraveling during any discovery process which must be hosed down.

    • Chooky 4.2
      20 July 2015 at 10:08 am

      +100 Anne…however it is worth laying complaints with the police and registering the issue…these complaints add up ….and it is not a good look for New Zealand corruption wise if they are NOT investigated

  5. Pat 5
    20 July 2015 at 9:47 am

    what does Slater have on the powers that be that furnishes such a level of protection??

    • dukeofurl 5.1
      20 July 2015 at 10:45 am

      He formerly ran a security business ( before it went bankrupt) so he would have been ‘tight’ with constables and sergeants who would have risen up the ranks now.

    • tc 5.2
      20 July 2015 at 10:45 am

      Heaps, Cammy’s been around the upper echelons of National all his life with his daddy getting his fingers burnt by Boag … [Deleted. Potentially defamatory, TC, I can’t find anything that backs the allegation. Can you point me in the right direction? TRP]

      The last thing Shonky needs is Slater off the leash, that’s why he apologised to him and noone else.

      Cameron alone could sink NACT without trace if Hagers book was followed through on by our so called law enforcment authorities as he’d take others down with him.

      • dukeofurl 5.2.1
        20 July 2015 at 11:44 am

        That information about the Slater ‘pere’ and Boag bust up, and what was or wasnt found in the National Party Presidents office seems to have been ‘lost from googles memory’

    • Markm 5.3
      20 July 2015 at 12:35 pm

      I guess the same as Nicky Hagar and the nameless Labour party luminaries involved in stealing his information.
      A bit rich to complain about attempted hacks on your computer when you condoned the successful hacks on skaters.

      [lprent: I have never condoned the hack on Cameron Slater’s system. If “Rawshark” can even be identified and charged, then he/she should be. But if Rawshark is prosecuted or even pursued by the police, then Cameron Slater damn well should be too for his two direct computer access offenses, and for trying to procure a hack of my systems.

      However I have previously said (or words to that effect) that the information from that hack is useful, illuminating, of high public interest, and Rawshark did a great service by bringing it to the surface from the disgusting sesspool of National’s dirty politics full of intimidation, planned blackmail, and the highly inappropriate linkages of parliamentary services work time to running attack blogs. Perhaps that is what confuses your simple mind.

      I don’t know of any known linkages between rawshark and Labour. My guess is that you are just repeating Cameron Slater’s well known unsubstantiated lying on the subject. FFS the idiot can’t even keep his story straight and generally refers to people who are even less technically illiterate than he is.

      Don’t raise it here again unless you can point to a credible source as it is defamatory. And please learn to think while you are on this site again. I really don’t appreciate your sub-moronic skills in trolling. ]

      • mpledger 5.3.1
        20 July 2015 at 12:50 pm

        Nooone here has supported Rawshark in his hacking. However, we respect Hagar’s lawful right as a journalist to write about the corrupt workings of our government.

      • Sacha 5.3.2
        20 July 2015 at 1:24 pm

        You have evidence that Labour party people were involved in hacking Slater? Do share.

      • Simon Johnston 5.3.3
        20 July 2015 at 2:42 pm

        False equivalence – what a surprise. Hager didn’t solicit what he was given, for one. And the Labour Party have nothing to do with any of this. What’s more, if you had bothered to read the article, you’d know that those of us who do pay attention are well aware of Rawshark’s crimes, and understand that he ought to be in prison too. The same time that Cameron Slater should face. Because that is the law.
        But sure, I know – reading is hard. Avoiding reality is necessary, I suppose, when you need to make stuff up to defend your hero’s criminal behavior.

  6. rod 6
    20 July 2015 at 9:49 am

    The police are not known as, the boys in blue, for nothing, Anne.

  7. ianmac 7
    20 July 2015 at 9:58 am

    I would have thought that police would subscribe to justice being seen to be done.
    Good hunting Lyn.

  8. infused 8
    20 July 2015 at 10:06 am

    The police don’t give a fuck about anything apart from protecting their own.

  9. Marty 9
    20 July 2015 at 10:12 am

    I can feel your frustration. But it should be abundantly clear that the police is the last place you are going to get redress. The school tie / funny handshake network always looks after its own. One thing I do find odd. If you’re going to lay a complaint about Slater, then how can you possibly not include Rachinger? He took the money. And even though you haven’t seen any signs, are you going to take his word for the fact he simply scammed Slater out of some cash?

    The whole thing smells of Rachinger changing sides along the way. In fact, both he and Slater sing off the same song sheet there. I know you have a hard on for Slater, but as you say, he can’t even type a sentence without a typo, let alone hack your system. He needed help. And there is no way that Rachinger would have been billing him repeatedly for nothing at all. Slater isn’t that stupid.

    Slater is no threat. Rachinger remains one. Are you trying not to poke the bear that can, after all, still do damage?

    • Anne 9.1
      20 July 2015 at 10:47 am

      Why is Rachinger a threat? Sure, he’s young and he did some silly things (including getting involved with Slater in the first place), but in the end he went along with the deal in order to be able to accumulate evidence. That was quite a brave thing to do. We all know Slater is such a consummate liar he even manages to convince himself he’s telling the truth. A well known symptom of a sociopath.

    • lprent 9.2
      20 July 2015 at 11:27 am

      One thing I do find odd. If you’re going to lay a complaint about Slater, then how can you possibly not include Rachinger? He took the money. And even though you haven’t seen any signs…

      Why would I lay a complaint against Rachinger? He doesn’t appear to have actually done anything to me or my systems. By the sounds of the bullshit he was feeding Slater, he doesn’t appear to have even have bothered. That means he didn’t do a s249 or a s252 offense against my site or me.

      I don’t think that Rachinger is actually likely to be a threat against any competently run computer system. He’d probably be useful to hire if people needed to know if their people could be sweet-talked into providing information that they shouldn’t. That appears to be his specialty – that of a salesperson.

      However Slater may pay someone more capable or competent next time. That makes him and his funders the persistent threat. Did you actually read or notice the wording of section 311?

      Every one who incites, counsels, or attempts to procure any person to commit any offence, when that offence is not in fact committed, is liable to the same punishment as if he or she had attempted to commit that offence, unless in respect of any such case a punishment is otherwise expressly provided by this Act or by some other enactment.

      Merely by paying someone to do a s249 or s252 offence, he is deemed to have done that act himself regardless if it was actually performed or not. So did his “funder”. The things he requested that Rachinger would do would have required access to my logins because there is no other way to get robust data that would stand up in even in media at any other level.

      That would have been completely unauthorized and an offense under s252

      It is also quite clear that Slater was after it to get benefit and advantage for himself, his website, and presumably his funder and the National party. That is a offense under s249

      Cameron Slater should be locked away from society for our protection. He has a clear pattern of repeatably doing this kind of offense and others. About the only thing that he seems to respond to (if you look at his history on names suppression contempt of court convictions) is being told that he will be heading to prison if he persists. Since he just transfers to some other illegal activity, it is pretty clear that he desperately needs prison time to understand what that means.

  10. Chooky 10
    20 July 2015 at 10:13 am

    +100 Good Post

    re “So if the police have no intentions of enforcing those laws protecting computer systems for irresponsible people like Cameron Slater who has been so clearly violating them, then shouldn’t they tell us?”

    ….this question needs to be asked/hammered in Parliament:

    …who is protecting us from Cameron Slater and his law breaking?

    …who is protecting Cameron Slater?

    …where does the law stand on this?…is the law an ass?…is the law being broken with impunity?…if so this is corruption…who is answerable for this corruption?

    • Anne 10.1
      20 July 2015 at 11:05 am

      On a related note is the revelation someone’s been investigating Rodney Hide. In his case it sounds like corporate-backed activity but Hide is upset and, having been through a similar process years ago, I understand his distress. It’s a frightening ordeal especially when you don’t know exactly why it’s happening and who is responsible. He will probably ultimately discover someone has been made a malicious claim about him.

      Whatever… its disturbing that non-authorised persons can spy on and, in some cases, terrorise others with apparent impunity from investigation and prosecution.

  11. Brigid 11
    20 July 2015 at 10:30 am

    Having made your complaint, what are the next steps we should expect from the police?
    If they appear to be dragging the chain, perhaps we should all make a complaint, given that Ben Rachinger claims he was paid to hack your servers which hold our private data.

    If the cops think it’s just a he said/he said argument, tracing the source of the payment Rachinger received shouldn’t be. The following argument about what the payment was for would be interesting.

    • Kevin 11.1
      20 July 2015 at 11:14 am

      If the cops think there’s a reasonable chance they’d find something to support the complaint they will execute a search warrant, like they did with Hager:

      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1314343-police-search-warrant-in-nicky-hager-raid.html

      • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1
        20 July 2015 at 11:34 am

        Well Lprent says hes absolutely certain so surely that must be good enough for the cops

        • lprent 11.1.1.1
          20 July 2015 at 11:40 am

          Yep.

          Of course that Rachinger voluntarily went to the cops when he realized how illegal the actions that Cameron Slater and his funder were asking for will probably be weighing with them as well. It certainly does with me. Doesn’t mean that I don’t think he is a bit of a little shithead of course…

          But as I pointed out further up, the police have a very good case against Cameron Slater and his funders under s311 for trying to procure these offenses to be done.

          I’d happily take over the file if the police are unwilling to prosecute and run the case against him. I’m sure that raising money for it will have a lot of backers. Just the thought of Cameron in prison for several years will have them flooding bank accounts.

          Of course it’d be preferable if the police would just do their damn job, quit pissing around, and lay charges on all on all of these clearcut cases.

          • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1.1
            20 July 2015 at 11:46 am

            In your opinion of course but I guess you could lay a complaint with the IPCA if you’re not happy

            • lprent 11.1.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2015 at 11:47 am

              Why would I bother? The police just ignore them anyway.

              Nope – straight to the courts without wasting further time.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                20 July 2015 at 11:57 am

                Let us know how that works out for you

                • Paul Campbell …
                  20 July 2015 at 9:21 pm

                  going to court in a private prosecution would probably work really well …. lprent would get supoena power over Slater and his backers ….. and unlike the police he likely wouldn’t feel obliged to protect the politically connected

                  • lprent …
                    21 July 2015 at 12:52 am

                    I never feel any reason to protect the politically connected. When I am irritated, they tend to hear my opinions one way or another.

                    But since outside of the political blogs I don’t get irritated by much, this usually isn’t an issue for most people except in design meetings.

                    But there is a welcome glut of time and tedium in running a blog that helps me with getting irritated and expressing myself in english. I have to say that I seem to write english a lot better when I am irritated.

                    When I am calm I write code. 🙂

                    However a private prosecution would be work. Therefore I’d be a lot more motivated, deliberate, persistent, looking for leverage and quite ruthless. In other words in my best development / bug hunting behaviour.

                    The police and the crown prosecutors would probably be a much better option for Cameron Slater.

                    • Paul Campbell …
                      21 July 2015 at 6:42 am

                      yes my point exactly …. and I do understand a private prosecution would be a giant pain

            • Anno1701 11.1.1.1.1.2
              20 July 2015 at 12:23 pm

              “lay a complaint with the IPCA’

              you mean the Impotent Police Complaints Authority ?

              BBBahahahahhhhahahwahahahhwhahhhahahahahahahahhhhhahaha

              snort

              hhhhawhwahababahahahwhawhahabbbbahahahahaha

              etc etc….

          • Anne 11.1.1.1.2
            20 July 2015 at 1:32 pm

            Of course it’d be preferable if the police would just do their damn job, quit pissing around, and lay charges on all on all of these clearcut cases.

            Ahhh no. These cases are very complicated. The police said so. What they didn’t say was why they were complicated. When you have the “PM’s Office” leaning over you from afar and when you have a police hierarchy who might owe their positions to that “Office”, I guess things can get a little complicated.

      • lprent 11.1.2
        20 July 2015 at 12:45 pm

        The time that they should have done that was back in Feburary when I believe it was reported to them AND when Cameron Slater probably still had that stuff hoarded on his computers. I bet that he doesn’t now. But it is unlikely to be needed to make a successful case.

        The raid on Hager as far as I can tell appears to have been a miserable failure. It was executed months after the materials they were ostensibly been after had already been excised – and on an encrypted file system that means really scrambled. Personally I suspect that some police and other agencies just saw an opportunity to pick up other information.

      • keyman 11.1.3
        20 July 2015 at 1:01 pm

        they only executed a warrant on Hager to find out what Hager had on police
        we have powerful corrupt elite who don’t like opposition or threats to there interests

        • Kevin 11.1.3.1
          20 July 2015 at 2:46 pm

          The police would have applied to a judge to get the search warrant and they would have had to have had sufficient reason for the judge to ok the search warrant.

          In other words, stop with the conspiracy theory crap already.

          • lprent 11.1.3.1.1
            20 July 2015 at 3:01 pm

            Have you looked at the details of the judicial review on the details about how the police sought that search warrant? I think that there is a link to it up in this post somewhere.

            It was just last week and we are still waiting for a decision on it.

            There were a bunch of lawyers arguing before a judge in Wellington that the information for the search warrant was incorrect (ie that the police had misinformed the person issuing it), that it was poorly executed, went well past the bounds that it should have during its execution, and

            The crown lawyers seem to have even conceded several of the arguments during the review.

            Perhaps you should wait for the result of the judicial review before concluding that the police acted lawfully.

            In other words stop being a ignorant fool talking out of your arsehole.

            But I suspect that is unlikely as you you appear to keep your brain in your ballsack and your thoughts appear to escape through the nearest loudmouthed exit.

            • Kevin 11.1.3.1.1.1
              21 July 2015 at 7:13 am

              Hey, I’m not the one throwing around accusations of police corruption and being under the control of the government. What I see is a combination of cop arrogance and incompetence. And nowhere did I say the police acted lawfully – all I’m saying is that without proof otherwise you can’t throw up accusations they acted unlawfully.

              “Perhaps you should wait for the result of the judicial review before concluding that the police acted lawfully.”

              Perhaps we should both wait before concluding either way.

              I’m actually surprised that your lawyer(s) even let you do this thread (you did get legal advice, didn’t you?). I can see at least a few statements you’ve made that go beyond opinion and are potentially defamatory if you’re not able to back them up with solid facts instead of speculation. And you can bet you’re ass Cameron Slater will be reading this thread.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                21 July 2015 at 7:33 am

                😆

                *opens popcorn*

              • lprent …
                21 July 2015 at 9:36 am

                You need to read what I write a bit more carefully. I certainly don’t say the things that you are trying to insert into them. That is your rather rather slow brain trying to see a broad pattern in a complex mix.

                Sure I do use the political implications as a goad. But that is merely because they offer a very easy alternate explanation that the police (and hopefully the government) desperately don’t want to get established in the public mind.

                But the police are conservatives at heart. They appear to run any kind of computer related crime way way down on their priority lists. It is outside their comfort zones. That is something that they need to get over. Computer crimes really aren’t that hard to detect or handle.

                The police also have a order problem. They are noticeably faster off the mark prosecuting activists who wish to peaceably change the current order than they are to those wanting to use the current order against other people. Usually they get damn stupid about it. See the Hager raid for a pretty good example. But their raids around NZ in 2007 were even better. A couple of paranoid fuckwits in the wrong place in the police and a ridiculous fantasy ensues.

                These factors sometimes causes some quite ridiculous variations in how they treat the same offences. When combined with their computer crime habits, it gets glaringly obvious. I’m highlighting that.

                I’m highlighting it rather strongly because the alternate explanation that you are wound up about is so glaringly obvious that even you can see it. And feel uncomfortable about it.

                There are no apparent reasons why Cameron Slater shouldn’t be charged on one or all of the charges I’m proposing for the reasons that are outlined in the post.

                There is sufficient case for a court to make a decisions on. But as the months go by the police are winding up with giga files of information that don’t add anything new to the underlying questions.

                Courts are now the best place to do that investigation and the determination of the legal questions in. I don’t think that waiting a further 6 months in investigating each of these three charges will add anything.

    • lprent 11.2
      20 July 2015 at 12:47 pm

      …what are the next steps we should expect from the police?

      More of a statement than a complaint. The original complaint was very early in the year and not by me.

      It appears to have been dragging on for nearly 6 months now.

      • Brigid 11.2.1
        20 July 2015 at 2:24 pm

        Right
        When do we start raising money for you to bring a civil case.
        I think, I really do think, we all do far too much talking and not enough acting.
        Nows the time to bloody act.

  12. adam 12
    20 July 2015 at 11:50 am

    I think this is just another case of laws – good people don’t need them, bad people will break them anyway.

    Because quite frankly Lprent, I don’t believe you would do anything nefarious just for the fun of it. I think that is what fundamentally divides you, from the likes of Slater and co.

    Personally I’m liking this, anything the police, and the national party can do to discredit the system, works for me. And the longer they look corrupt, the more people will question their right to rule – again works for me.

    • lprent 12.1
      20 July 2015 at 12:35 pm

      I don’t believe you would do anything nefarious just for the fun of it…

      During my first university degree (BSc started 1978), I used to find the security holes in the minicomputers and tell the sysops where they were. By the time of my second degree (MBA started 1985) at a different university, looking for them was an offense that you could be expelled for. During the 80s, various laws went into the Crimes Act about computer access as well.

      Of course in my paid professional life I spend a whole lot of time trying to crack into the systems we are building and selling. Everything from cracking into the hardware to read data to taking advantage of the quirks of algorithms. That is part of a programmers life. Especially when you are reviewing the systems someone else in the company has been building. For many of the secure devices like point of sales systems, that is a mandatory part of the testing processes anyway.

      I may not wave a soldering iron and scope like the electrical engineers. But I am an expert in giving myself rights and privileges that I don’t have across multiple operating systems, sneaking in monitors, and crashing programs artistically to my advantage. It is part of the job.

  13. G C 13
    20 July 2015 at 12:43 pm

    Charge him I say. People in New Zealand received criminal records for much less. Make an example of him – send him to a Serco run prison. #WhaleOilFightClub

    • AsleepWhileWalking 13.1
      20 July 2015 at 1:37 pm

      Brutal… #WhaleOilFightClub

      Perhaps the Police are taking their time, getting the case just right in preparation to charge him? Or just overwhelmed by workload at present? He is clearly at high risk of repeat offending (and then breaching the privacy of good law abiding citizens in disagreement with his political views).

      • lprent 13.1.1
        20 July 2015 at 2:32 pm

        I suspect that the police don’t have anyone particularly skilled in the area of computers on the charging side. They should probably just present it to whoever the the crown lawyers are this year and let them make a decision on the charging.

        For me it seems pretty obvious that he should have already been charged for all of the three complaints.

  14. Keeping an eye out 14
    20 July 2015 at 1:08 pm

    a few thoughts to consider.

    1. Rachinger is under going drug treatment and has been spotted at a facility in Dominion Road Auckland. Given his apparent mental health issues i would suspect that any complaint / statements made by him are taken with a grain of salt by the Police, so that includes his claims RE hacking your site. Fanciful accusations seem to be how Rachinger operates as he tries to be a somebody rather than a nobody like he really is. From where I sit Rachinger stuffed himself with the twitter claim of “I am Rawshark” and he was subsequently fired from his riole at Freed – a loose canon that nobody needs. His payback is telling tall stories that make him look like he is some hacker guru.

    2. Blomfield has been told (i have seen the Police file) that the HD in question has never been stolen, and in the Police file, Blomfield is noted as saying that he understands that position and acknowledges the Police are never going to take it further. And that has been the position on the said HD from the start. Blomfield never owned or paid for it. He has in fact when looking at it, been telling the Courts lies for quite some period of time with regard to his claims the Police are investigating when they are not, and have not been for quite some time. The IPCA has also investigated and found NO case to answer.

    So looking at what you have rasied, perhaps the issues lay with the fact that neither Rachinger nor Blomfield are credible, believeable, honest, decent or trustworthy.

    [lprent:

    1. There was ample documentary evidence and traceable transactions. That is all that is required.

    2. Not what I understand from Blomfield after talking to him last night (see the footnotes). That is a claim made by Slater frequently, and not backed by anything.

    But look at the sections of the crimes act again. They are for accessing computer systems (which include media). As far as I am aware Slater in his court documents has conceded that the information on the hard disk and documents was Blomfield’s private information that he copied and then accessed. Slater would have to prove that he was authorized to access that information – something that he is avoiding to do by divulging the source of them and how they came into posession of it.

    3. And that still leaves the Labour party hack…

    Basically I think that you are quite confused, ignorant, and don’t understand much about law. Perhaps you should avoid listening to Cameron Slater. It is not good while in your fragile and credulous state. ]

    • Kevin 14.1
      20 July 2015 at 2:48 pm

      So Rachinger and Blomfield are highly unreliable witnesses in other words and anything they’ve said should be taken with a big grain of salt.

      • Lord Donkey 14.1.1
        20 July 2015 at 3:01 pm

        Well above does not make particularly great reading for either of them wouldn’t you say Kevin?

        [lprent: If you twerps are going to set up a self-referential trolling, then use your brains about it. Write something intelligent. Especially you. ]

        • Kevin 14.1.1.1
          20 July 2015 at 4:07 pm

          Not trolling. I know nothing about Rachinger and Blomfield and was trying to clarify what “Keeping an eye out” was saying.

    • Bob 14.2
      20 July 2015 at 3:44 pm

      3. From my understanding, the data accessed on the Labour website was publicly published information, how Cameron Slater found out about the information is a different story, but it is the Labour parties job to not leave personal data sitting on the internet sidewalk for interested passers by to read it. Reading publicly published information isn’t illegal, otherwise you would be taking a risk every time you open a website or search on Google!

      • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1
        20 July 2015 at 3:47 pm

        Your understanding is limited.

        • McFlock 14.2.1.1
          20 July 2015 at 3:51 pm

          In so many ways…

        • Anne 14.2.1.2
          20 July 2015 at 5:26 pm

          Very limited. Cameron Slater and friends helped themselves to details of Labour Party membership lists without permission. This is an unlawful act. As far as I’m aware it included names and addresses including email addresses. He planned to publish at least some of the data but it never eventuated. Presumably he was warned about the legal consequences.

          That such a list ended up in that criminal’s hands was bad enough. What made it worse was the fact Labour chose to take no action. Their later excuse that it was an election year and they didn’t want to rock the boat doesn’t wash with me. Members and supporters were left in a vulnerable position and who knows what Slater and co. did with that list and how much potential trouble might have been caused. They have laid a complaint with police now but that’s of little comfort because the evidence will have long been destroyed.

          • lprent 14.2.1.2.1
            20 July 2015 at 5:55 pm

            They have laid a complaint with police now but that’s of little comfort because the evidence will have long been destroyed.

            Against Slater they have pretty good evidence. He was stupid enough to login from his static home IP. That gave them a pretty unique ID on his old Mac, which they then linked to the other accesses.

            The logs showed every file that he downloaded. That in itself is certainly sufficient for a s249 conviction.

            However the rawshark captures also showed what he intended to do with those files. That is sufficient to show a dishonest purpose and gain him a s252 conviction.

            About the only defence that Slater would have is to try to attack the validity of those bits of the evidence. From what I heard Labour were meticulous in collecting their evidence. And I rather suspect that Cameron’s little stash of blackmail material that rawshark extracted will pass a judge without much of a problem.

            I will be interested in what the police come back with.

            • Anne 14.2.1.2.1.1
              20 July 2015 at 6:14 pm

              Thanks for that lprent. It certainly is comforting to know that Labour appears to have made up for it’s initial lack of action.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 14.3
      20 July 2015 at 3:55 pm

      Jeez, Keeping, try to sound less like a Dirty Politics henchman, it’ll help the smears go down so much easier.

      • odot 14.3.1
        21 July 2015 at 8:38 am

        But…..but……smearing is all the henchmen know. When things aren’t looking good for “your side”, smear! Attack the persons integrity, their family, their colleagues, and eventually they will cave in..

  15. dukeofurl 15
    20 July 2015 at 2:23 pm

    “…has been spotted at a facility in Dominion Road …”

    How convenient. Sounds a round a bout way of saying they are keeping close tabs on him and use ‘a spotting’ to cover the fact his movements are monitored.

    “…he was subsequently fired from his riole at Freed –” Now look who is being fanciful, as its just big dream in Slater’s imagination
    ”
    News Editor
    Chief Reporter
    Production Editor
    Filing Editor
    Political Editor (Wellington based)
    Senior Reporters
    Junior Reporters
    Data Journalists
    Sports Reporters
    Drone Operators
    Video Editors
    Camera Operators
    Office Administrators
    Receptionist
    Personal Assistants
    Graphic Designers
    IT Support

    Antonio LENTINO
    1232 Sh1 Rd2, Wellsford, 0972 , New Zealand

    having a former deputy editor from the Herald stable who was fired for dealing in P doesnt a internet news operation make.

  16. Chris 16
    20 July 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Don’t refer to him as Cam. Sounds endearing, as if despite disagreeing with every political view the sub-human buffoon holds there’s still a degree of professional respect for him. I’m sorry, but no. The guy deserves nothing but disdain. Cam? No, no way. You might as well have a bike race with him and get your photo taken with your arms around each other.

  17. Kevin 17
    20 July 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Has Cameron ever been prosecuted and found guilty of computer related offences? If not then shouldn’t you be using the word “accused”?

    [lprent: Opps – just noticed that this was addressed to me

    Yes. He was “convicted” on about 10 counts of contempt of court for breaking name suppression orders using a computer. The various judges were quite vehement that they was a computer related crimes. Something about having a blog on a newtworked computer did not mean that he was exempt from their authority.

    Needless to say Cameron was full of piss and wind about how he was standing up for the freedom to speak, right up until he was in front of a judge with the option to bang him into prison.

    Then as usual he turned out to be a craven purse dog saying how we wouldn’t do it again. One eyewitness I talked to was apparently surprised that he didn’t have puddle beneath him.

    Then his published comments outside the court afterwards probably wouldn’t have endeared him to any judge.

    Besides, in these three open complaints, he hasn’t made it to “accused”. I think he is currently more a “suspect” ]

    • te reo putake 17.1
      20 July 2015 at 2:43 pm

      Yes, he has. He’s was convicted of using a computer to breach a court suppression order.

      • Kevin 17.1.1
        20 July 2015 at 2:51 pm

        So naming someone on your blog that has name suppression is a computer-related offence in the sense of what we’re talking about here??? Okay.

        • te reo putake 17.1.1.1
          20 July 2015 at 2:56 pm

          Yep. It’s using a computer in the commissioning of a crime. That’s the question you asked and now you have your answer. The Standard; educating the right since ages ago.

          • Lord Donkey 17.1.1.1.1
            20 July 2015 at 3:04 pm

            I believe TRP that Kevin is meaning the naming recently on this site of the 50 year old blogger that has name suppression and LPrent allowed a guessing game where the accused name appeared.

            • lprent 17.1.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2015 at 3:29 pm

              One of the many problems with name suppression are

              1. That they don’t tell me whose name is being suppressed if I am not in court. So I have no idea whose name I am meant to suppress.

              2. Name suppression orders do not prevent people from speculation on who it is.

              This means that I will limit when I know who it is and tell the other moderators. Something which both violates the order and rather obviates the purpose of the order in the first place.

              Normally we will stop people who are trying to state that they know who it is with a name (which clearly violates a known suppression order and rules here about verification), or who clearly start hinting with clues (which violates rules here about verification). Both are behaviors we can suppress.

              I’d point out that you are a known problem for your habits to do with the second under a number of handles.

              But if you don’t like this then rather than being a lazy and useless critic, go and reform the suppression order laws so it works in social media world.

            • Kevin 17.1.1.1.1.2
              20 July 2015 at 4:11 pm

              I meant that I’m surprised that anyone would consider that a computer related crime in the current context.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                20 July 2015 at 4:42 pm

                Well the current context is that charges haven’t yet been laid in this case, whereas in the other they were, and the verdict was ‘guilty’.

                The failed attempt to commission the crime isn’t a computer-related offence per se. It’s not like the perp has the technical nous to do the hack himself.

        • Chris 17.1.1.2
          20 July 2015 at 3:11 pm

          Do you see even a smidgeon of hypocrisy or a double standard in the cops deciding to charge Hager but leave Slater alone? Isn’t this more the issue?

          • Kevin 17.1.1.2.1
            20 July 2015 at 4:15 pm

            One difference is that Hager, using the stolen info he got (which he claims dropped on his lap) , wrote a book that got a LOT of media attention.

            • McFlock 17.1.1.2.1.1
              20 July 2015 at 4:17 pm

              So does slater’s bullshit.

            • Chris 17.1.1.2.1.2
              20 July 2015 at 4:33 pm

              So is writing a book that got a lot of media attention the test for whether the cops prosecute? FFS.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                20 July 2015 at 4:38 pm

                What Act would Hager be prosecuted under, Chris?

                Please enlighten us all with your special legal knowledge.

                • Chris …
                  20 July 2015 at 5:06 pm

                  Yes, okay, should’ve said looking to charge Hager, which the cops are certainly wanting to do. Something they’ve got no intention of doing to Slater.

              • dukeofurl …
                20 July 2015 at 4:48 pm

                Apparently so.
                Slater wasn’t prosecuted for using Blomfields stolen hard drive

                Slater wasn’t prosecuted for accessing (and skiting about it) Labour party database

                • Lord Donkey …
                  20 July 2015 at 7:30 pm

                  [removed]

                  Thats because Blomfields HD was not stolen. You can’t be prosecuted for a crime you did not do – unless of course the cops are trying to fit you up – and i hold plenty of evidence of that on several cases. One that includes the murder of a school boy. Cops have stated that, and Blomfield in Police memos confirms that he knows there are no charges being laid. Blomfield never owned the HD, as in never paid for it. If he did where is the receipt? The HD was the property of someone else. And that someone clearly believes Blomfield is a danger to the business community at large – so the stories are newsworthy (the Editor decides that) to warn the unsuspecting public. Its a defamation case FFS – so lets see how Blomfield provides truthful, reliable evidence with witnesses who will back his account of where the money went etc. Until then its just a vessel to attack Slater.


                  LPrent – you have stated above that you spoke with Blomfield just yesterday and that you / he believes that the cops are investigating – that so, which cop, what rank, what station – then we will know if its true. Until then i will rely on the OIA / PAR information i have obtained.

                  [lprent: Banned permanently.

                  I thought that you were subject to orders that don’t allow you to write this kind of material on this case.

                  But as importantly for this site, parts of this comment are likely to be defamatory. Other parts relate to yourself while writing under a pseudonym and your real identity not known to others on the reading the site which is something you may not do.

                  Other parts relate to an ongoing court case and as far as I am aware are not public information in that case, and you have not sourced to such public information.

                  I give a lot of room. However this comment stepped right over the legal edge at several levels. ]

              • Kevin …
                20 July 2015 at 8:54 pm

                Nope. Just mentioning it as a point of difference.

    • McFlock 17.2
      20 July 2015 at 2:59 pm

      Thanks for your concern.

    • dukeofurl 17.3
      20 July 2015 at 3:17 pm

      Dont forget Slaters background in thuggery ( before he was running a blog)

      he was involved in the notorious ‘throwing down the stairs’ event when a ticket holder was ejected from an election meeting held By Jenny Shipley in Auckland.

      Brownlee was convicted ( a private prosecution) but Slater was one of ‘Brownlees brownshirts’ on this occasion.

      “In the District Court at Auckland Native Forest Action campaigner Neil Able has been awarded $8500 in damages against National MP Gerry Brownlee for being manhandled out of a National Party meeting.”
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0203/S00109.htm

      Brownlee had the nerve to stiff taxpayers for his fines:

      “Mr Brownlee said he was acting in his capacity as a junior whip when he took on the task of removing Mr Abel.

      “In hindsight, I would have thought ‘oh well, I’ve got this big bill, I may as well see what is possible’. But quite clearly it wasn’t appropriate.”

      He had sent a request for reimbursement to National leader Bill English in 2001, one month after the rule was introduced.

      He sent a subsequent set of invoices in May 2002 after the court case, including one for $13,375 for damages and costs to Mr Abel.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10636760&pnum=0

  18. NZJester 18
    20 July 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Every day that ticks by the likely hood that Cameron could destroy evidence is getting higher. Recovering it by forensics would also be getting harder and harder.
    Labour needs to ask the minister responsible why the police have chosen to selectively apply the relevant laws in these cases!

    • McFlock 18.1
      20 July 2015 at 5:31 pm

      well, if someone held his hand he might be able to destroy evidence competently.

      But I doubt it.

      He probably thinks “empty recycle bin” would do the job…

      • NZJester 18.1.1
        20 July 2015 at 9:21 pm

        Give it enough time and it might as eventually parts of the deleted data might be overwritten a number of times by other data making retrieval harder and harder.

  19. whateva next? 19
    20 July 2015 at 5:47 pm

    I would at the very least like to know what exactly Ede and Slater intended to do with Labour membership details? Cannot think of a single legitimate excuse, have they ever been asked?
    and agree with all in the post thankyou Iprent

    • lprent 19.1
      20 July 2015 at 6:06 pm

      It is in page 33 of Dirty Politics.

    • Anne 19.2
      20 July 2015 at 9:04 pm

      Well, as I said earlier on this post Slater was planning to publish some of the data they had captured. In other words, he was going to “out” people for being members of the Labour Party as if being a Labour member was tantamount to being a closet communist or some such dastardly thing. He would have been warned of the legal consequences of such a move so nothing was revealed.

      But one thing of which you can be certain… copies of the data would have been distributed to various Nat luminaries (Judith Collins for starters) and sympathetic media types and one copy would have ended up in John Key’s top drawer. It is likely to still be there.

      Edit: oh and Jason Ede would certainly have a copy.

      Now I will re-read p33 of Dirty Politics. 🙂

      • whateva next? 19.2.1
        21 July 2015 at 5:25 pm

        I will have to dig out my copy! I still ask why “being a member of the Labour Party” is something to be “outed” as though it is a crime, or something to be ashamed of, I am very proud of it akshully Mr.Key if you are reading this.

        • lprent 19.2.1.1
          22 July 2015 at 2:11 am

          Cameron Slater, particularly then, had a habit of pursuing people he doesn’t like into their private lives. To their work, bosses, and workmates. The idea as far as I could see was usually to simply harass by lying copiously while having a few facts to add on as cherries.

          That is why I have absolutely no compunction in returning his previous attentions, but do it in a more fact based way. I figure that he has earned some of my sustained attention over very long periods of time whenever I see an opportunity. I consider it to a duty to help in providing for a community deterrence against his emulators in his patented types of foolishness.

          It is the dirty politics dividend…

          • Anne 19.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2015 at 8:12 pm

            Cameron Slater, particularly then, had a habit of pursuing people he doesn’t like into their private lives.

            Remember this:

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/01/not-involved/

            Slater claimed it was from his tip line but it was more likely Slater stalking Shearer then trying to suggest something untoward about Shearer’s meeting with union boss Gary Parsloe.

          • whateva next? 19.2.1.1.2
            22 July 2015 at 9:12 pm

            Yes, schoolyard bullying in my book, and thankyou for standing upto this ridiculous behaviour, grueling as it must be.

  20. Akldnut 20
    20 July 2015 at 8:06 pm

    I wonder if having my Linkedin profile looked at by someone at the Sunday News 26th Feb 2015 had anything to do with it?

Links to post