Slater’s privacy conundrum

31 comments on “Slater’s privacy conundrum ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tom Jackson 1

   25 August 2014 at 8:02 am

   I’ve been wondering for ages why he would attack Blomfield. Anyone have any idea who would want him smeared?
   • felix 1.1

     25 August 2014 at 8:11 am

     Just a paid-for attack. Slater probably didn’t even write the posts.
   • Rodel 1.2

     25 August 2014 at 11:04 am

     I recently read where Slater’s wife said he behaves the way he does because of depression.
     It may be that his behaviour is a result of medication. Modern antidepressant drugs tend to remove empathetic responses. That is, aspects of interpersonal relationships, which are important to a normal person lose their relevance and are discarded like water off a duck’s back. The result is a pseudo pathological attitude to the feelings of others. They just don’t care anymore about anyone but themselves and their aspirations but they are unaware of and will deny that it is a drug effect.
     • consequences 1.2.1

       25 August 2014 at 12:00 pm

       A theory that’s probably easily disproved by looking at Cameron’s behaviour before he was put on medication. Sometimes being an arse is just caused by being an arse.
       • Murray Olsen 1.2.1.1

         26 August 2014 at 9:31 pm

         The theory shouldn’t be dismissed so readily, at least not before several years in a secure institution with daily un-anaesthetised ECT. That would be the scientific way to proceed.

         In any case, he claims he hasn’t taken the medication for ages. I don’t believe him, but that’s what he says.
     • Stephanie Rodgers 1.2.2

       25 August 2014 at 12:40 pm

       I don’t think it’s particular nice to make assumptions about other people’s mental health or medications to draw conclusions about their behaviour.

       Mentally-well people can be offensive, vicious scum. Mentally-unwell people can be offensive, vicious scum. This kind of armchair psych diagnosing just reinforces prejudices against people with mental illness for no good reason.
       • Tom Jackson 1.2.2.1

         25 August 2014 at 4:20 pm

         Well, there’s a tendency in our society ATM for people to excuse their poor behaviour by attributing it to a mental illness. Depression appears to be the mental illness du jour and I personally find the trend towards mass medicating people for it extremely trouble and a cover up for society’s ills.
     • NickS 1.2.3

       25 August 2014 at 3:57 pm

       Nope – anti-depressants don’t do that, the main side effects are usually weight gain, with a very low risk of suicidal ideation, if they work that is. In my case, they haven’t blunted standard empathic responses, meaning there’s stuff I need to avoid, nor have the they resulted in lowered aggression thresholds. Though in my case I’m borderline ASD vis social behaviour, so I was never normal to start with.

       In Cameron’s case he’s more of a poorly socialised arsehole, those personality flaws were likely made worse by depression and continued positive reinforcement by his social circles even after medication. Only one way to fix that (ethically speaking) and it involves long term therapy and Cameron actually recognising and admitting his behaviour is an issue. Which is sadly high unlikely given his current behaviour and social circles.
       • Murray Olsen 1.2.3.1

         26 August 2014 at 9:41 pm

         One real problem in all this is that his poor socialisation has been constantly reinforced, and by some of the most powerful people in the land. As lprent stated above, he’s an immature idiot of no great intellectual ability who has been used by others. To develop any humanity, he’d have to face up to this. I think it would be too painful for him.
2. UglyTruth 2

   25 August 2014 at 8:11 am

   In the Privacy Act 1993 there is no significiant difference between the theft and receiving of Matthew Blomfield’s hard disk, and using a login to access Cameron Slater’s gmail and facebook accounts.

   There are, however, real world differences. Blomfield lost possession of his data when the hard disk that it was stored on was stolen – IOW in Blomfield’s case it is true to say that his data was stolen. But it isn’t true to say that Slater’s gmail and facebook data was stolen since the original data remained available to Slater after it was copied.

   Then there is the issue of jurisdiction: the gmail and facebook servers are not within the jurisdiction of NZ’s civil system, and there is no proof that whoever hacked Slater’s accounts is, either.
   • Watching 2.1

     25 August 2014 at 8:50 am

     Then there is the issue of jurisdiction: the gmail and facebook servers are not within the jurisdiction of NZ’s civil system, and there is no proof that whoever hacked Slater’s accounts is, either.

     UglyTruth has asked a couple of good questions.

     Regarding gmail and facebook access. In the usa there are what they refer to as “mail theft” laws that cover the internet. Slater didn’t own either of those application but just used them & I was wondering if the hacking is against the gmail/facebook servers with Salter PC being the mode of entry.
     It would be interesting if gmail/facebook got involved under usa jurisdication.

     Regarding the hacker. I assume that the hacker and whaledump are two different people (putting aside the spin). NZ is a too small a country not to leave a footprint, and I thought being a hacker it was important to be somewhat removed.
   • lprent 2.2

     25 August 2014 at 9:22 am

     Then there is the issue of jurisdiction: the gmail and facebook servers are not within the jurisdiction of NZ’s civil system, and there is no proof that whoever hacked Slater’s accounts is, either.

     Where the servers are makes no legal difference. The location of the hacker makes it more difficult, but that is an extradition matter. However it appears likely that they are in NZ.
     • UglyTruth 2.2.1

       25 August 2014 at 10:08 am

       [deleted]

       [lprent: Banned for 5 weeks for diversion trolling. Don’t try to change the topic to your obsession. Next time use OpenMike – that is what it is there for. Especially don’t do it on my posts because I’m notoriously irritable about it. ]
       • lprent 2.2.1.1

         25 August 2014 at 10:36 am

         Common law? Rather irrelevant when superseded by legislation.

         In case you hadn’t noticed.
         1. This isn’t England.
         2. Most of us didn’t come from England (my family came from damn near every where else)
         3. If I see you even attempt to divert the discussion on my post into your obsession you will receive a ban. Use OpenMike.

         [lprent: After looking at UT’s behaviour recently, I decided that I was being too lenient. ]
       • tricledrown 2.2.1.2

         25 August 2014 at 10:40 am

         Ok Ugly a bigger much more serious crime of undermining our democratic processes has been uncovered !
         So National are sending in their bullies splitting hairs to excuse their treasonous behaviour!
3. Awww 3

   25 August 2014 at 8:21 am

   It would be nice if the courts found that the act of receiving money doesn’t allow to to publish whatever the hell you want on a blog.

   Hope he loses both cases.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     25 August 2014 at 8:44 am

     There will be some in the corporate world feeling hot under the collar right now. I suspect some of them may be having those very same collars felt, if only by the Advertising Standards Authority.

     The court of public opinion may be harder to placate.
4. Watching 4

   25 August 2014 at 9:03 am

   Hope he loses both cases.

   On the Blomfield case Slater needs to lose (and go to jail) otherwise using someones data without their permission is now legal.

   On the gmail/facebook access of Slater accounts …… if he losses then Awww I coming for you accounts.
   On a serious note I am concern if then hacker isn’t dealt with we may have an untended legal position. The hacker did not know what was in those email until afterwards, therefore a similar argument can be used by the GCSB
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     25 August 2014 at 9:39 am

     The GCSB is always constrained by the laws setting it up. In theory even if they suspect unlawful actions that may be proved by judicial hacking they would still need to get a warrant to do the hacking.

     The hacker of Whaleoil really does need to be found guilty and then pardoned for services to society. We need to say, clearly, that hacking is illegal but at the same time we have to acknowledge that the hacker has performed a service for us.
   • Murray Olsen 4.2

     26 August 2014 at 9:51 pm

     The only reason for the hacker to not expect to find filthy stuff in Slugboy’s email archives would be if Slugboy were competent. He’s not. Therefore, although the hacker may not have had precise knowledge of what was there, he/she would have expected something.

     The police bust into houses and search cars without warrants with much less reasonable expectation.
5. disturbed 5

   25 August 2014 at 9:19 am

   Iprent,

   Why don’t you post a comment subject outlining now the making of a spectacular full length movie about the Nicky Hager book “Dirty Politics and how Government began an unsuccessful dirty politics attack on Nicky Hager’s integrity?

   As this never ending saga now would have ample subject material along with the addition also of all new emails appearing now, as we then can short circuit the rubbish Tabiod press dressing this up as a fanciful tale of politics as usual?

   This could by for penetrate the hearts and minds of everyone no matter their political affiliations as the Watergate movie clearly did.

   “Price of freedom & Democracy is constant vigilance.”
6. consequences 6

   25 August 2014 at 11:15 am

   I agree that Cameron hasn’t fully grasped the consequences of the last two weeks. Not only has he scuttled his own future, he’s scuttled the futures of multiple National junior polititions and hangers-on, the life-long aspirations of judith collins, his own father’s influence and possibly the chances of National in the coming election.

   Nobody from politics will ever talk to him again. No PR company will ever talk to him again. No media will ever talk to him again.

   He has isolated himself politically, socially and financially.

   What do you call a useful idiot who is no longer useful?
   • Sable 6.1

     25 August 2014 at 12:49 pm

     You know you may find the opposite is true and all of this gives Slater a kind of celebrity in certain circles. Will be interesting to see what happens….
7. Sable 7

   25 August 2014 at 12:47 pm

   Amusing article. I have only visited Slater’s site once and it was predictably pretty ghastly stuff. Certainly some of the comments in my opinion were pretty “out there”.

   Anyway he has made his bed now he will have to lie in it for better or worse….
   • Anne 7.1

     25 August 2014 at 2:11 pm

     Just up on the Herald website:

     David Fisher spills the beans about his former dealings with Slater. Slater may be currently inferring retaliation to any journos or reporters who may be considering doing likewise.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11313962
     • Sanctuary 7.1.1

       25 August 2014 at 2:27 pm

       I just read that. Wow. Just wow. It is an indictment of the entire media, many of whom became – and many still are – junkies to Slater’s particular heroin.
       • RedLogix 7.1.1.1

         25 August 2014 at 2:52 pm

         junkies to Slater’s particular heroin.

         A very apt and vivid metaphor Sanctuary.
     • rob 7.1.2

       25 August 2014 at 3:25 pm

       I was amazed that Cameron mocked David Fisher for his name. So I don’t feel bad about posting this

       Slaters are also known as woodlice, sowbugs and pill bugs. They are crustaceans and are related to the normally aquatic or marine crabs, lobsters and prawns but are adapted to living on land.
   • RedLogix 7.2

     25 August 2014 at 2:45 pm

     I have only visited Slater’s site once ..

     That’s one more time than me Sable. That’s the astounding thing about all of this. That so many people thought they could deal with this mad dog and not get bitten.

     The David Fisher article above is a sad mea culpa – how Fisher was sucked into the dark vortex and too late discovered his mistake. I’ll give the man credit for having the guts to write that – but not for his lack of discernment in the first place.

     It says so very much about all of these people that they were not immediately repelled by Slater on first contact, that they thought he could be ‘useful’ to them.

     It is the widespread, blatant sexism, racism and vicious political sadism – along with the entirely cynical use of devious and corrupt tactics happily embraced by a whole swath of influential National Party figures – which Hager documents in their own words – that utterly condemns them.

     The Prime Minister of this county cannot make an associate of Cameron Slater and pretend it means nothing. John Key’s sustained and secretive association with Slater – and his implicit endorsement of everything Slater represents – starkly brands him to be a covert racist, sexist and viciously bullying sociopath utterly unfit for public office.
8. Guesting 8

   25 August 2014 at 6:08 pm

   Re. Slater’s rapid legal education – his very good friends Collins and Odgers will be a great help.

   I like insect slaters, so interesting and varied, performing a useful function turning organic detritus into smaller detritus. Cam isn’t worthy even of his Slater name.
   • Murray Olsen 8.1

     26 August 2014 at 9:55 pm

     I don’t think he’s wealthy enough to need a tax lawyer, although undeclared income could prove tricky. I doubt if those two are much use for anything else.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS