Nats steal Labour donor data

Written By: - Date published: 1:57 pm, June 12th, 2011 - 433 comments
Categories: labour, national - Tags:

National knows that the public oppose its agenda of asset sales, lower wages, and service cuts. So they’re going to campaign dirty. They’re running this week’s muck-throwing via sickness beneficiary* Cameron Slater. The Nats breached the Labour Party website and stole a list of online donors. Hardly the stuff of scandal, just an attempt to intimidate.

Slater is going to publish that list and other things like blank candidate forms and, from this, try to concoct one of his conspiracy theories -you know, the ones he runs every couple of months that never go anywhere.

The real goal, from the point of view of Slater’s controllers, like Jason Ede and Simon Lusk, is to try to scare off Labour donors and activists. National’s been playing that game for generations, of course, only the technology has changed.

Labour is naturally aghast at this private data being taken and have identified the security hole that let it happen but it’s hardly their fault. If you don’t bolt all your windows it doesn’t change the fact that the guy who breaks in and takes your stuff is a thief.

Labour has closed the weakness that National breached and commissioned an independent security assessment. It will be interesting to learn if the actual breach was made by Slater, whose tech skills are poor, or someone else in National.

Many of you, I suspect, will have given an online donation to Labour some time this year and be unhappy that your private information may be published. Just remember who is at fault here: National.

I’m not going to be intimidated and neither should you be. In fact, I’m going to labour.org.nz and making a $20 donation right now.

 

 

*for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.

433 comments on “Nats steal Labour donor data ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Nick K 1
    12 June 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Very nice try Eddie at a character assassination – a pyrrhic victory if you like. But it doesn’t alter the fact that a major political party in this country is simply not fit to govern, from its leader down to its governance and electorate branches.

    Spin all you like, but face the mirror and hang your heads.

    • Monty 1.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:31 pm

      Labour are now in full panic mode – The Standard here will do the personal assults on Cam Slater, while over at Red Alert they will ignore Cam’s treasure trove as long as they possibly can. The wonderful thing is that this seems silimar to the Brash email saga of a few years back. Now the boot is on the other foot and Labour are going to enjoy the full swing right where Trev noted the the green bottle should be lodged.

      Oh Happy days.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 2:34 pm

        Theft of personal data is theft.

        As for panic – no, but it is a warning shot across the bows reminding Labour how dirty and desperate the Right Wing are this year.

        • U 4 United 1.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 8:37 pm

          Theft? Nothing has been stolen! We’re not dealing with Hagar this time.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 3:47 pm

        I don’t really think Cameron Slater has a “treasure trove”, and in political terms if you think members of the public donating to a party is a “treasure trove” then there’s something seriously wrong with you.

        Now a secretive organisation like the EB making donations and doing machinations behind the scenes for National really is quite on another level.

      • ianupnorth 1.1.3
        12 June 2011 at 3:55 pm

        Treasure trove Monty? You have no guile, you are unable to enter any significant debate and continue to troll here and Red Alert; you are pointless, thank you and good night!

  2. Portion Control 2
    12 June 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Have you got any evidence that Slater only has donor data, that he hacked it, that the hack is now closed, that he was acting on instructions of National, or that the data was obtained illegally? Are there any public links to these claims or have you received this information from inside Labour Eddie?

    • ZeeBop 2.1
      12 June 2011 at 3:08 pm

      *for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.

      Slater has a right to political activism. You should ask why his MP dad can’t support him.
      As for the nonsense about public teat. If Slater says he gets $200 a week, and
      he comes up to you personally and says he’ll only take $100 a week if you give up $100
      dollars worth of government subsidy would you? No. Because you know we are
      all the happy recipients of government support.
      As for the cycle, its obvious to anyone with some business experience, not you, that
      its cheaper to ride a bike than to use the buses, if it costs $4 a day on the bus, and
      you are doing that five times a week, that means you save $20 a week, and $1000 a year.
      The price of a ‘nice’ racing bike. Now think of this, he buys a cheap bike, makes the savings
      for a year then buys the nice racing bike with the savings.
      That is a good use of money, especially when so many waste precious oil running around town inefficiently achieving little.

      WINZ should ask the question what activities that Slater enjoys could be providing him an income, and so adverts on his blog site, and so WINZ needs to help him to do that, instead it just pays out money. National could quite easily put a ad on his site, or get some chinese milk farm investor.

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 3:49 pm

        “WINZ should ask the question what activities that Slater enjoys could be providing him an income, and so adverts on his blog site, and so WINZ needs to help him to do that, instead it just pays out money. ”

        Most of the rest of your post is just diversion, or plain missing the point. I wonder if Cameron does declare the revenue from advertising to the IRD/WINZ?

        • Zetetic 2.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 3:59 pm

          or the money he gets from Simon Lusk for doing the online side of his nominee campaigns.

          • law 2.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 7:47 pm

            Any evidence that funds have exchanged hands?

          • Blondie 2.1.1.1.2
            12 June 2011 at 10:10 pm

            Or the car he gets for free from his mate’s company – the one that his wife’s trust owns shares in – which also pays for all his phone bills and car running costs.That also contributed heavily towards his legal costs. Oh…. which hasn’t paid tax in years, either (apparently the director is quite good at arranging his finances to avoid such pesky details as taxation)

      • mickysavage 2.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 8:18 pm

        Slater is a beneficiary bludger.  He should hang his head in shame or admit he is a hypocrite …

        • ZeeBop 2.1.2.1
          12 June 2011 at 8:37 pm

          You are obvious wrong. Try to think about what you are actually saying.
          People who are on a low income, like Slater (unless you have evidence
          otherwise) are provided with income support for a reason. Can you
          think what that reason is? So you can tell them what they can and cannot
          do? No. So you can get on your high horse and force them to discuss
          why a Doctor gave them a sickness certificate. Obviously for some
          reasn Slater is unable to keep down structured work. There was another
          person in the news with a mental problem, he was rich, he started a
          drug company, but went off his lithum and totalled a car killing someone.
          Such events happen, people have brains that are damaged, and no
          matter how much cussing you try most people are compassionate
          enough to treat them with some humanity.
          But on the fiscal question, why should someone on a low income,
          who does not drive, who does not go out and spend in restaurants, etc,
          who basically indirectly benefits from all the government expenditure
          on regulating eateries, and roads, etc, etc, yet pays taxes, have
          savings, owns property, why should they not then get some government
          services too for their tax dollar. Why should parents of kids get family
          credits, while single people pay the same rate of tax and so subsidies
          schools and family tax credits. Everyone has a right to some share of
          the community wealth they contribute too. And therein lies the rub, you
          are a fascist who likes to create a non-citizen sub class to bolster you’re
          rather sad personality. Feels good getting angry about Slater. The
          guy is so obvious more plagued by his own demons. Stop kicking
          people when they are down, because it then does come around eventually.

          • mickysavage 2.1.2.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 9:00 pm

            ZB

            I am proud to support people who are down on their luck.  And if someone asks me to support a community initiative and I will do so quickly.  

            But when someone abuses someone else who is down on their luck, and it turns out that the abuser is receiving public support, then all I can say is either agree that we should support all people down on their luck or give up your benefit.

            Whale is a hypocrite.  He should go out and find real work or STFU

            • Anita 2.1.2.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 9:05 pm

              mickysavage,

              Are you saying that people that are on benefits have somehow given up the right to attempt to identify and prevent corruption by politicians? Are they also banned from making complaints of burglary? Or sexual assault? Or using public transport? Or cluttering up the centre of town?

              Or are you saying that for people to receive benefits they must demonstrate sufficient moral worthiness for you?

              P.S. Any chance you could change your nickname? I had previously assumed you had some political similarlities to the first Labour government.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 June 2011 at 9:10 pm

                You use a lot of hypotheticals there Anita, why don’t you say something about the specifics re: Whaleoil that MS actually did mention.

                • Anita …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:17 pm

                  The first in the first paragraph is exactly what ms appeared to be saying. The remainder in that paragraph are merely corollaries of the first.

                  The second paragraph is also, I think, a paraphrase of what ms said.

                  The third paragraph is a personal observation based on the history of social welfare in NZ.

              • mickysavage …
                12 June 2011 at 9:15 pm

                Anita

                Are you saying that people that are on benefits have somehow given up the right to attempt to identify and prevent corruption by politicians?

                No but Slater pushes the boundaries.  He rails against beneficiaries who may possibly be able to work but who do not.  He is certainly competent to work but does not and then jumps up and down about people who can work but do not.  He is part of that class.  He is a hypocrite.

                P.S. Any chance you could change your nickname?

                Not right now.  My persona is a reflection of what I admire, not who I am.

                So are you advocating we should cut Cameron slack??

                • Anita …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:24 pm

                  mickysavage writes:

                  No but Slater pushes the boundaries. He rails against beneficiaries who may possibly be able to work but who do not. He is certainly competent to work but does not and then jumps up and down about people who can work but do not. He is part of that class. He is a hypocrite.

                  Who are you to judge his ability to work? Must all sickness beneficiaries meet the mickysavage test, or just the ones you don’t like?

                  And yes, call him on his hypocrisy, that is totally called for. Simply bashing him for being a mentally ill beneficiary is not called for.

                  So are you advocating we should cut Cameron slack??

                  Hell no. Call him on everything wrong that he does, call him on his hypocrisy, on his willingness to damage passers-by in pursuit of his political goals, on his prejudices, on everything else immoral, underhanded or unpleasant that he does. But don’t criticise him simply for being a mentally ill sickness beneficiary – that is not a wrong thing.

                  And don’t make the same mistakes he makes by harming other beneficiaries and people with mental illnesses in pursuit of your political goals, while complaining when him as his cronies do it.

                  • NickS …
                    12 June 2011 at 10:49 pm

                    This.

                    Shit, on the basis of what I can do by micky and Eddies stuff, I shouldn’t be on one either, despite a range of personally frustrating problems that make fulltime work and 2nd/3rd uni courses a mission. Amongst other fun.

                    And yeah while Eddie brings up some good points, the bit at the end is just straight ablism. Though imo Cameron should have been moved onto the invalids benefit by now, since his depression is clinically chronic, on top of not responding effectively to antidepressants.

                    On the bike thing, unless someone regularly bikes long distances, and doesn’t tire out from doing it, even on road bike they ain’t going to do particularly well. Heck, I’d only manage 30, maybe 35Km in the same time on a decent road bike, but then again I could probably easily bike from Christchurch to Rangiora and back and not have any muscle soreness in my legs. On a mountain bike no less.
                    *cough*

            • Armchair Critic 2.1.2.1.1.2
              12 June 2011 at 9:13 pm

              Anita is correct, mickey, and it’s a simple concept she’s expressing:
              The right to government support (e.g. a sickness benefit) is totally separate from the right to hold and express an opinion.
              …all I can say is either agree that we should support all people down on their luck or give up your benefit.
              There is no “either/or”, we must support people who need support. It’s that simple.
              He should go out and find real work or STFU
              1. You are not in a position to make that call.
              2. No one should be told to STFU

              • mickysavage …
                12 June 2011 at 9:18 pm

                AC

                Feck the left is so principled.  Slater is arranging for a full court press on us while on a benefit and I prefer to cut off his source of income, which I contribute to …

                You may be right but Slater is evil and unprincipled.  What do you suggest that the left does?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:28 pm

                  Something I admire about the Right – they don’t get distracted by niceties of phrase and BS sticks and stones. There’s an end goal in mind (make lots of money for our mates and screw the Left – in that order), and if shit arises on the way, it gets parked and everyone keeps going hard out on target.

                  So I suggest we point fingers all we like after the match is won and the real Bene Bashers are kicked off the Treasury benches and put out to pasture.

                  Bonus Prize: fucking Key will resign and leave the country.

                  • Idiot/Savant …
                    14 June 2011 at 12:57 pm

                    Something I admire about the Right – they don’t get distracted by niceties of phrase and BS sticks and stones. There’s an end goal in mind (make lots of money for our mates and screw the Left – in that order), and if shit arises on the way, it gets parked and everyone keeps going hard out on target.

                    So I suggest we point fingers all we like after the match is won and the real Bene Bashers are kicked off the Treasury benches and put out to pasture.

                    Or, in other words “STFU and support the team, no matter how revolting and indefensible we are being”.

                    This mindset, right here, is why I can never support Labour.

                • Anita …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:30 pm

                  mickysavage writes (quoted out of order):

                  You may be right but Slater is evil and unprincipled. What do you suggest that the left does?

                  Attack him for being evil and unprincipled.

                  Feck the left is so principled. Slater is arranging for a full court press on us while on a benefit and I prefer to cut off his source of income, which I contribute to …

                  The nice government has provided you with a friendly dob-in-a-beneficiary service. That would be, I guess, the right thing to do if you genuinely believe he is not entitled to his benefit.

                  • Nark …
                    12 June 2011 at 10:14 pm

                    Actually, I already rang WINZ months ago giving them details about Cameron Slater’s other sources of income……. however since his extra “income” was more along the lines of, he did work for his mates’ company and in return they paid his rather considerable expenses, but no actual cash changed hands – apparently this was in the too-hard basket.

                    • Jacqueline …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:49 pm

                      Yeah – you make a habit of doing that when you don’t get your way, don’t you? That -and eating iron pills.

                • weka …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:31 pm

                  The problem I have is that you can’t tell if somone is capable of holding down a job by observing from the outside like that (I can think of multiple scenarios that can explain what I’ve seen described here of Slater’s behaviour/actions). If you know Slater personally, or have inside information that supports your assertion that he’s a bludger, then why haven’t you phoned WINZ and dobbed him in?
                   
                   
                   

                  • Dan …
                    12 June 2011 at 11:44 pm

                    Thoroughly agree with you there weka. In fact, as someone who was on a sickness benefit for two years as a result of sporting head injuries one of the hardest things I had to come to grips with was admitting to myself and explaining to others that I was in fact injured and unable to work, despite a lack of physical signs.

                    In fact, a large part of the depression/frustration that I felt was the wish that I had actually done something that has openly physically damaged myself (i.e. broken and arm or a leg). I still never quite came to grips with being comfortable in admitting that I was injured it just didn’t feel ‘honest’ without an outwardly, overt physical sign. As a consequence I learnt not to be so quick to judge by appearances only.

                • PeteG …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:44 pm

                  MS: What do you suggest that the left does?

                  Sort out their shit.

                  If they have played by the rules, if they haven’t abused Parliamentary Services, if they haven’t done anything else that’s against parliamentary and electoral rules, then they have nothing to worry about. They will come out of this on the moral high ground.

                  You do know he is also charging National, Maori and Greens for abusing the system and misusing public money too?

                  BTW, using a great name irritates me too, not quite as bad as calling yourself Jesus Christ, but I usually manage to ignore it. Come to think of it, MS is probably up there with JC, or higher, in Labour circles.

                • Armchair Critic …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:46 pm

                  The left must stick to its principles, and attack those who oppose it with one eye firmly on those principles. It seems you and CV are suggesting the way to address the evil that Slater espouses is by abandoning some principles and try to out-evil him? That’s out and out wrong, and long term it won’t succeed.
                  And the left need to sort out their response, quickly. They need to have concise messages ready first thing tomorrow. Stuff like “we got hacked, and hacking is illegal”, “political parties all around the world talk to each other all the time”, “we haven’t misused Parliamentary Services”.

                • mickysavage …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:53 pm

                  Anita

                  Slater is a bludger.  He is reasonably intelligent, capable of running a popular blog, wanting to challenge Mallard in a bike race, and has been rejected from receiving cover under an insurance policy after ten years of coverage.

                  He may be depressed.  I know many people who are depressed who soldier on.  I am happy to contribute to their continued support.  But not to Slater’s.  He is a bludger and a hypocrite.

                  • Jaghut …
                    13 June 2011 at 3:59 pm

                    So obviously the difference between a bludger and a deserving beneficiary is the political party they support.

                    Your hypocrisy makes me sick.

                    I think the justifications your brain is struggling to come up with will be rejected by the sick feeling in your gut – the knowledge that deep down you are everything you accuse the right of: unprincipled, self-serving, a liar.

                    I don’t know you personally, but I can only wonder what sort of person you must be like, being one who is prepared to sell out their beliefs when someone you don’t like uses them…

                    • mickysavage …
                      13 June 2011 at 4:21 pm

                      Feck I don’t know what bought that on.
                       
                      I struggle to see how my view is hypocritical.  I agree to a full and properly functioning social welfare system.  I agree as Anita has pointed out that mental issues can be complex and that apparently properly functioning individuals can be struggling to cope.  I also believe though that if someone is capable of working then they should rather than rely on the benefit.
                       
                      To clarify though Slater should always be free to express his own opinion.  My suggestion that he should not receive a benefit is aimed at his apparent ability to work, not because of the political views that he choses to hold.  I have mixed those two thoughts up and agree that I was wrong to suggest/imply that receipt of the benefit should in any way be affected by one’s political views.
                       
                      Agreed that I do not have any sympathy for Slater.  I find him unprincipled, overly aggressive and I have no time for his political beliefs.  He is also a hypocrite.  He rails against beneficiaries but is an example of the worst sort.  I do wish that I was not paying him to carry on the way that he is.
                       
                      What is wrong with that?
                       
                       

                    • Jaghut …
                      13 June 2011 at 4:39 pm

                      [Replying to this comment because for some reason there is no reply button under yours]

                      The hypocrisy (and the attached insults stemming from that :P) I see in your posts here comes from the different treatment you apply to beneficiaries in general, and a beneficiary who is notably right-wing.

                      It is clear that political persuasion has a huge influence on how the issues of benefits are talked about. For example, the attempts made by National to reform the welfare/benefit scheme are systematically referred to by the Left as ‘beneficiary bashing’. Furthermore, any questions made by someone on the Right about the validity of an individual’s claim to a benefit are described as hateful, anti-beneficiary, etc, etc..

                      But yet yourself feel perfectly entitled to question whether or not he desrves to receive the sickness benefit. I’m assuming you’re making this judgement from what you’ve read about him online, instead of meeting him in person during a depressive episode, interviewing his doctor, reading his medical reports, or knowing the details of his insurance policy.

                      I, like you, are for acomprehensive welfare scheme because I believe a nation as rich as us can afford it.

                      However, it galls me to see a supposed champion of the beneficiaries turn on one when he raises points that disagree with other aspects of your political philosophy.

                      [lprent: The depth of replies only goes to 10. Then you stop getting an ability to reply. It is a wordpress limitation – but I’d stop it there as well because otherwise the comments start getting too ‘vertical’ ]

                    • felix …
                      13 June 2011 at 4:57 pm

                      Thing is, Jaghut, for your accusation of hypocrisy to have any validity you need to compare two things which are alike in all aspects but one, and then show that mickysavage regards them differently because of the aspect you wish to highlight (in this case political views).

                      So mickysavage’s hypocrisy in this instance could be shown by you giving an example of a beneficiary like Cameron who also rails against “bludgers” and attacks beneficiaries in spite of being one him/herself, but who holds similar political views to mickysavage.

                      If you can find such an example and show that mickysavage regards this person significantly differently than he does Cameron, then you will have shown mickysavage to be a hypocrite.

                      Otherwise you’re just pissing in the wind.

                    • Jaghut …
                      13 June 2011 at 5:06 pm

                      Felix, gives me a bit of quote hunting to do… by that same turn I could challenge you to find a quote from Slater specifically attacking those on sickness benefits. Alternatively, we could rely on our respective logical inferences, and spend our time doing something more productive.

                      I’m going to go play Minecraft 🙂

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 6:38 pm

                      felix,

                      Surely to show that mickysavage is a hypocrite all we’d need to do is find an example of him criticising someone for attacking an opponent by attacking their beneficiary status. That is mickysavage criticising someone for using beneficary bashing as a tactic against political enemies.

                      In which case, try this.

                      When the right attacks the benefit status of their political opponents ms is against it. When the left does he’s right there cheering them on.

              • RedLogix …
                12 June 2011 at 9:27 pm

                I keep coming back to my brother who has something charming called Ushers Syndrome. Read that wiki page and then wonder that he’s been turned down for the SB repeatedly. So when I see someone as evidently active and capable as Slater apparently eligible for the SB then it naturally causes me to wonder. I might even want to ask a question or two.

                No-one is saying Slater does not have a right to some income support. If he’s not capable of structured work, then fine he’s perfectly entitled to the UB.

                • Anita …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:35 pm

                  “Not capable of structured work” does not entitle him to the UB.

                  Out of interest, why are you so confident in your abilities to assess anyone’s ability to work? Let alone from only the public face that person chooses to display?

                  I suspect that if you had met me in public during the two years I was on the sickness benefit you would have also thought I was fit to work. Fortunately we have a system based on private specialist assessment, not crowdsourcing.

                  • Eddie …
                    12 June 2011 at 9:45 pm

                    Anita, weka. Please take my word that I am not attacking Slater as ‘another bludger beneficiary’. I have no interest in the right’s attempt to denigrate beneficiaries.

                    I’m saying the guy doesn’t seem very sick, he seems fully capable of a range of physical and technological work. Indeed, he is sub-contracting for Lusk. Benefits should be there for those who need them. Not for people who don’t. When people who don’t need them get them it gives the right fuel to attack the whole system. I’m no expert on Slater’s problems but I think WINZ should be taking another look, that’s all.

                    You may recall that for ten years, Slater lived off income insurance claimed due to the same illness he claims to get the benefit. The insurers cut him off when they saw what he was up to. he took them to court and lost.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 9:51 pm

                      Eddie, that’s fine, but please phone WINZ instead of making vague accusations of benefit fraud here especially ones based on the myth that ill people can’t do anything. It is entirely possible for people legitimately on SB and IB to work. That can be paid work or unpaid work. (Income from paid work has to be declared and is deducted from the benefit after a certain amount)
                       
                      I have no idea if Slater is bludging. But neither does anyone else here as far as I can see.

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 9:54 pm

                      Eddie writes:

                      Anita, weka. Please take my word that I am not attacking Slater as ‘another bludger beneficiary’. I have no interest in the right’s attempt to denigrate beneficiaries.

                      Then why parrot their behaviour?

                      I’m saying the guy doesn’t seem very sick, he seems fully capable of a range of physical and technological work

                      So doesn’t-seem-very-sick-to-Eddie is the new sickness benefit test. Personally I preferred the assessed-by-medical-professionals test. Why do you think your test is better?

                      Indeed, he is sub-contracting for Lusk. Benefits should be there for those who need them. Not for people who don’t.

                      If Slater is earning some income they will be abating his sickness benefit during the periods in which he does earn.

                      I’m no expert on Slater’s problems but I think WINZ should be taking another look, that’s all.

                      No expert, but willing to attack him, and by proxy other beneficiaries and people with mental illnesses.

                      If you really are concerned about whether he should be receiving the sickness benefit then try dobbing in a bludger, government style, that way you won’t be reinforcing the beneficiary bashing culture the right is encouraging, or perpetuating complete bollocks about mental illness.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:00 pm

                      Here’s the eligibility criteris for SB:

                      To receive a Sickness Benefit the client must:

                      not be in full-time work, is willing to undertake it, but because of sickness, injury or disability, is limited in his or her capacity to seek, undertake, or be available for full-time employment or

                      be in employment, but is losing earnings through sickness or injury; is not actually working; or is working at a reduced level

                      be aged 18 years or older or

                      be aged 16 years or older, be married, in a civil union or de facto relationship and have one or more dependent children

                      have continuously lived in New Zealand for two years or more since becoming a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident

                      have no income or an income of less than the amount that would fully abate the benefit
                       

                      And:
                       

                      To receive Sickness Benefit as a result of sickness, injury or disability, your client must meet certain medical qualifications. Your client must be:

                      limited in their capacity or unable to work full-time due to sickness, injury or disability or
                      in employment but because of sickness, injury or disability cannot work or can only work at a reduced level
                       

                      http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/main_benefits/sickness_benefit/sickness_benefit-01.htm
                       
                      http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/main_benefits/sickness_benefit/sickness_benefit-50.htm

                    • Eddie …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:02 pm

                      I will be contacting WINZ.

                      Anita, the Right wants to destroy the whole benefit system by claiming that everyone is a bludger. That’s politics I clearly do not agree with.

                      That doesn’t preclude the possibility that Slater may actually be receiving a benefit he isn’t entitled to.

                      I am not attacking other beneficiaries. And the fact that you resort to that kind of debate-killer argument is beneath someone as intelligent as you.

                      Oh, and you don’t seriously think that Slater will be declaring his income to WINZ do you?

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:11 pm

                      “Oh, and you don’t seriously think that Slater will be declaring his income to WINZ do you?”
                       
                      Depends how stupid he is. If it’s public that he’s making money, esp if he’s paying tax, then he’d be a complete idiot to not declare it.
                       
                      I don’t think either Anita or I have suggested that Slater isn’t or can’t be bludging. It’s just that no-one here has presented any evidence. Being able to ride a bike or run a blog doens’t preclude someone from SB. Honestly, the level of ignorance here about illness and work capacity is astounding.
                       
                      I’m glad to hear you will be contacting WINZ. I’ll be interested to hear their response. But I hope you have alot more to go on than what’s been said here.

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:17 pm

                      Eddie writes:

                      I am not attacking other beneficiaries. And the fact that you resort to that kind of debate-killer argument is beneath someone as intelligent as you.

                      If I had written:

                      The fact Eddie resorted to ending his post with an unrelated beneficiary bashing diatribe which reinforced unhealthy stereotypes of the mentally ill and was bound to derail the conversation is beneath someone as intelligent as him.

                      would you feel the teeniest bit patronised?

                      Oh, and you don’t seriously think that Slater will be declaring his income to WINZ do you?

                      Actually I do. Work and Income are pretty full on about that kind of rort, he’d be very unwise to try it (especially as I suspect there are many staff there who’d love to catch him out).

                    • PeteG …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:18 pm

                      Anita, the Right wants to destroy the whole benefit system by claiming that everyone is a bludger.

                      That’s getting a wee bit off topic isn’t it? And a wee bit off your rocker. Calm down a bit and try take some rational pills.

                      And the fact that you resort to that kind of debate-killer argument is beneath someone as intelligent as you.

                    • Barnsley Bill …
                      12 June 2011 at 11:16 pm

                      Two mistakes in that one. Where is your proof he is working for lusk and no court date has been set yet for the insurance company fight.

                  • weka …
                    12 June 2011 at 9:46 pm

                    And while we’re at it… how many hours a week does Slater spend ‘working’? How many blog posts per day? How many times a week does he bike? How often does he go hunting? How much work is involved in his full court press against the left? There’s lots of stuff being thrown out here, but little of substance.

                  • RedLogix …
                    12 June 2011 at 9:52 pm

                    I suspect that if you had met me in public during the two years I was on the sickness benefit you would have also thought I was fit to work

                    But I doubt you spent those two years attacking and denigrating the very system supporting you, and others also depending on it.

                    I have no confidence in my ability to assess Slater’s eligibility. Never said I was. But that does not mean I have to be silenced on it, nor challenge him on it.

                    Fortunately we have a system based on private specialist assessment, not crowdsourcing.

                    Again you pretend that the system is perfect. I once climbed Mt Aoraki with a guy who was on ACC because ‘he couldn’t raise his right arm over his shoulder’. Well it seemed ok when he was holding an ice axe.

                    Now if Slater was an ordinary peaceable dude with no history of attacking beneficiaries as ‘bludgers’ I’d agree to his right to privacy. None of my business.

                    But that’s not the case here is it?

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 9:57 pm

                      “ But I doubt you spent those two years attacking and denigrating the very system supporting you, and others also depending on it.”
                       
                      But that just makes it look like you think he should be called out as a bludger because he’s an arsehole and hypocrit (about which I’m sure most of us agree he is).

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:02 pm

                      RedLogix writes (Anita in italics):

                      I suspect that if you had met me in public during the two years I was on the sickness benefit you would have also thought I was fit to work

                      But I doubt you spent those two years attacking and denigrating the very system supporting you, and others also depending on it.

                      Actually… 🙂 I spent some of that time attacking/advocating against the system; in particular the way it treated people with disability and mental illness, saying the system should be different from the way it was. Wanna stop my benefit, or say I looked too well yet?

                      Now if Slater was an ordinary peaceable dude with no history of attacking beneficiaries as ‘bludgers’ I’d agree to his right to privacy. None of my business.

                      But that’s not the case here is it?

                      If Eddie’s post had been remotely related to Slater’s history of attacking beneficiaries then I would have no problem with contrasting those comments with his publicly admitted personal circumstance.

                      Instead we have a post about Slater “stealing” stuff and trying to scare Labour people and so on – which then finishes with an unrelated entirely personal attack able to be paraphrased as “and Slater is a nasty bludging beneficiary and the mentally ill should sit in a dark room and do nothing”. Meh.

                • R …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:41 pm

                  Seriously, RL, on what grounds has your brother been denied a sickness benefit? Do they tell him why?

                  • RedLogix …
                    12 June 2011 at 10:01 pm

                    Yes, because other than a serious hearing loss and loss of most of his sight once the light levels drop at dusk, he’s quite physically fit and mentally capable.

                    I’m not going to detail his life story here, but his problem is that he was never considered quite deaf enough to be part of the deaf culture, nor quite blind enough to be legally blind. He just fell into a great big uncharted crack between the two.

                    And according to all the tick boxes at WINZ that never quite added up to an SB. His despairing battles with the system would fill a large book.

                    Things have looked up these last few years. A CI has miraculously transformed his hearing, and a truly good man employs him two days a week. But when I think of what he’s gone through my blood boils.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:14 pm

                      Sorry to hear that story Red. WINZ is one of the most dysfunctional and fucked up systems I’ve ever come across. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone to be in need of them (‘cept maybe Slater 😉

                    • R …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:15 pm

                      oh, man. Sounds horrible. I feel for him, and for you. So sorry for what he’s had to go through. Glad to hear that things might be looking up. And thanks for replying. I was really shocked having looked at that link.

              • mickysavage …
                12 June 2011 at 9:44 pm

                Feeecccckkkk

                Slater wants to prevent people who qualify for a benefit from receiving one.  He wants to attack community and collectives.  He also receives a sickness benefit.

                Feck him.  If he wants to undermine a collective community I am fecked if I am going to contribute to his salary.  He is at the extreme edge of the continum and  I know this makes bad law but he is a bludger and should be forced to work.

                He is at the bottom 1% of beneficiaries.  The remaining 99% should feel safe.  But he is a bludger and should be ashamed.  Presuming he has a conscience …

                • Anita …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:47 pm

                  What makes you able to assess that he is “at the extreme edge of the continuum”?

                  Anyhow, I’m glad to see that you only think people you judge to be worthy and nice and politically aligned to you should get income support, I’m sure that won’t affect beneficiary’s ability to exercise free speech or their political views once your rules take over.

                • Eddie …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:49 pm

                  It’s not political for me. If he genuinely meets the criteria for the SB, I say he should get it.

                  But I have big doubts as he whether he does.

                  The insurance company certainly thought the level of his political activism shows he is fit for work, which is why they cut off the income insurance he was receiving.

                • PeteG …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:50 pm

                  MS – I’m very surprised you’re saying that.

                • weka …
                  12 June 2011 at 9:53 pm

                  Where’s the evidence that he’s bludging, MS?

                  • mickysavage …
                    12 June 2011 at 9:58 pm

                    He is on a sickness benefit and appears to me to be able to work.  I would normally never reach this conclusion but he has bashed beneficiaries for so long and insists on receiving support from the collective.  

                    He is a threat to the collective and the collective is paying for him.

                    If he is principled he would put his medical records on the web.

                    Honest he is more capable than many workers I know.

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:05 pm

                      So appears-to-mickysavage-to-be-able-to-work is the new sickness benefit test. Wanna explain why that’s a better test than the current multiple-independent-medical-professionals one?

                      Do you think I should have been expect to make my medical records public when I was on the sickness benefit?

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:05 pm

                      “He is on a sickness benefit and appears to me to be able to work.”
                       
                      Yep, and I’m on Invalids and ‘appear’ to some others to be able to work. They’re wrong and I’ve  been damaged by those kinds of ignorant assessments.
                       
                      ” I would normally never reach this conclusion but he has bashed beneficiaries for so long and insists on receiving support from the collective.  ”
                       
                      Yep, so this is political. And as someone on Invalid’s Benefit I don’t like seeing this kind of expediency at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. If the left can challenge someone’s right to a medical benefit on the basis of ‘appearance’ then the right is given full go ahead to do the same to me and others.
                       
                      Please see my post above about SB eligibility criteria. SBers are allowed to work.

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:14 pm

                      What he’s done wrong is been involved in the misuse of personal data. If he had any principles, he’d have said “nah, it’s not right to publish this, ‘cos it’s private”.
                      His source of income is nothing to do with the misuse of personal data. The post Eddie wrote would have been much better for omitting any reference to Slater and the SB.
                      Focus. The data are the issue.

                    • mickysavage …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:23 pm

                      OK

                      He is going to release some private information about the Labour Party and donors and wants to harm the party.  The information has been sourced by a number of organisations including apparently the National Party.

                      Slater will go to town on it.  While doing so he will exhibit skills which could be used in gainful employment.  And while he does so my tax dollars will be used in sustaining his efforts.

                      I am against bene bashing.  But in the clearest of cases I actually do think that the benefit should be withdrawn and the recipient forced to work.

                      Cameron would agree with me.

                      Why should he not be forced to abide by his rules?

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:28 pm

                      mickysavage writes:

                      Slater will go to town on it. While doing so he will exhibit skills which could be used in gainful employment. And while he does so my tax dollars will be used in sustaining his efforts.

                      While on the sickness benefit I exhibited many skills that could be used in gainful employment, that did not mean I was well enough to be employed.

                      I am against bene bashing. But in the clearest of cases I actually do think that the benefit should be withdrawn and the recipient forced to work.

                      If he isn’t entitled to the sickness benefit he shouldn’t receive it.

                      But that does not mean that beneficiary bashing is ok, or perpetuating damaging misunderstandings of the nature of long term illness, disability or mental illness.

                    • just saying …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:30 pm

                      Anita I knew Cameron Slater very well.

                      He is an absolute hypocrite in every regard. He cheats on his wife; I’m aware of several women he’s slept with behind his wife’s back. First hand knowledge; btw, not second-hand gossip. I could even prove it.

                      More relevant to this discussion, however, is the fact that not only IS he capable of working, he DOES. He regularly performed a number of duties for his friend’s business – such as vehicle repossessions (which he very much enjoyed as he got to bully the people whose cars were being repossessed) and was reimbursed for his efforts by way of a free vehicle, all vehicle running expenses (eg petrol), and all his mobile telephone bills – and contributions towards his legal bills.

                      You can look up the name of the company if you want – it’s Botany Security Limited. The same name which is screen printed on the side of Slater’s purple 4×4, I imagine so that the company can then claim the vehicle running costs as a business expense. I very much doubt that the company is paying FBT for the amount of private usage that Slater gets out of that vehicle, though.

                      You might also find it interesting to look through the names of the shareholders and directors of that company. Don’t just stop there though – look into the shareholders of the company shareholders – and see if you can start joining the dots. Bear in mind that Slater’s wife goes by a different surname to him. Also maybe do a quick google on the director of this company, there are some rather interesting articles about a company which he previously grew, publicly floated, made a shitload when he sold his shares, and which folded about a year later – so that all the new shareholders lost out bigtime.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:35 pm

                      That’s all very interesting Just Saying. But where is the evidence that he’s not eligible for SB? You are allowed to work on SB.

                      …
                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:45 pm

                      just saying,

                      I’m sorry your sexual relationship with Slater has caused you so much upset, but I’m not quite sure what you expect me to do with all that information.

                      If you believe he is not entitled to the benefit he receives you could contact Work and Income.

                      If you believe he is not paying tax which is has an obligation to pay you could contact IRD.

                    • Dan …
                      12 June 2011 at 11:56 pm

                      “[Slater] receives a sickness benefit… I am fecked if I am going to contribute to his salary… He is at the extreme edge of the continum and I know this makes bad law but he is a bludger and should be forced to work.”

                      “He is on a sickness benefit and appears to me to be able to work.”

                      Shit, micky with opinions like that you should run for Act!

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    12 June 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Theft of personal and politically sensitive data is theft of the most serious kind.

    A large police investigation is warranted.

    But it doesn’t alter the fact that a major political party in this country is simply not fit to govern, from its leader down to its governance and electorate branches.

    Indeed, and in November they are going to be removed from the Treasury benches.

    • Nick K 3.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:25 pm

      Indeed, and in November they are going to be removed from the Treasury benches.

      If the alternative is Labour, I am off to live in Somalia. At least there the politicians steal from the citizens with full knowledge of the facts (from Granny):

      The minute stated the “Labour North” collective should “use Parliamentary Services for best outcome of LP (Labour Party)”.

      Parliamentary Services rules strictly forbid the use of services for campaigning purposes.

      It was clarified that an officer or MP is required to be on site for campaigning use as the rules and use of parliamentary services resources is under increasing scrutiny.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 2:36 pm

        Stealing from citizens involves selling off billions of dollars of state power generation assets to foreigners and then giving the money to the already rich.

        Key, English, and the rest of the NAT traitors to NZ economic sovereignty shall be tossed out of office in November.

        • William Joyce 3.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 3:50 pm

          It’s also fraud for Key to get  “mom and pop investors at the front of the queue” to fork out their retirement funds to buy assets they have already paid for!

      • mickysavage 3.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 8:22 pm

        Hey Nick

        Can I contribute to your ticket?  And when you are there can you let me know if Somalia is actually better????????

      • NickP 3.1.3
        13 June 2011 at 5:04 pm

        Hmm Nick, dont have much of a choice do you? Theres Somalia where Nact piracy skills may come in decidely useful, theres incompetence but honesty with Labour, or there is deliberate larceny and kleptocratic abuse under Nact.

        You poor poor soul, my heart bleeds.

  4. Peter Bains 4
    12 June 2011 at 2:19 pm

    He may be active, but at least he is not assulting and raping people like other sickness benes.
    Thisk of this as convalescence for Cam, no point sitting on the sofa watching re runs of Oprah each day, you still need some activity to try and keep the ole grey matter functioning.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:20 pm

      Well you are a sicko.

      • Peter Bains 4.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 2:22 pm

        You are a thief.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 2:23 pm

          No, Slater is the thief (or the fence). And try to keep up with the news.

          • Peter Bains 4.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 2:49 pm

            Bludgers are the labour party, always using other peoples money.

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 3:01 pm

              its not your money dickhead.

              And if you don’t want to pay taxes to pay for English’s BMW with seat warmers, move to Somalia.

              • jbc …
                12 June 2011 at 3:02 pm

                ” move to Somalia.”

                …or Singapore if Somalia is not to your liking.

                • Peter Bains …
                  12 June 2011 at 3:07 pm

                  [Racist abuse. Repeat behaviour will result in removal of your right to post here….RL]

            • Jum 4.1.1.1.1.2
              12 June 2011 at 6:30 pm

              Peter Bains

              Since when did rich people with accountants ever pay enough taxes to cover all the money and assets they’ve stolen from New Zealanders.

              They’re greedy, selfish thieves the lot of them. Are you one Peter Bains?

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 June 2011 at 6:33 pm

                Peter Bains is probably a trained pet for the wealthy Right, doing tricks in order to earn scraps thrown from his master’s dining table.

            • mickysavage 4.1.1.1.1.3
              12 June 2011 at 8:24 pm

              Peter you need help.  Would you like me to recommend a reality drug?  It could be helpful …

              • just saying …
                12 June 2011 at 11:33 pm

                Can’t get a word in where this comment should go. This is the nearest I could get.
                I used to comment quite a lot on the Standard as ‘Just Saying’, so I just want to clarify that the new ‘Just Saying’ who talks about knowing Slater personally etc. is not me.

                For the record, I completely agree with Anita. How can you people not see that you are diminishing all sickness beneficiaries (apart from those most visibly affected), with your comments. I can’t help wondering if this is indicative of your real feelings about those on benefits and those who suffer mental illness.

                • ZeeBop …
                  13 June 2011 at 8:54 pm

                  Many people are mentallu unhinged on the right and the left, in denial about how
                  reckless we us up oil.

                  The law is clear, everyone is equal before the law. Slater too.

                  If someone falls sick the Doctor will declare them so, then offer treatment
                  which can be denied. So if they are not a threat to people or themselves
                  there can be no declaration of mental defect even if they are. This
                  is obviously a good thing given so many near Democracies have been
                  known to declare people defective in the recent past. e.g. Gays.

                  So the question is why so many of you are having problems understanding
                  some basic humanity. That we have a profession elite who decide lawfulness,
                  they are called judges and they are very wise to make sure they get all the
                  evidence before them.

                  Secondly, so what if Slater is a hypocrite, he has that right because he
                  is obviously unhinged. Worry more about Key who happily lies his face
                  off and how we don’t worry about his sanity, because it must beat up his
                  sub-conscious something rotten knowing he is saying what he does.
                  I mean ‘balanced full funded tax cuts’, please!

                  If you want to defend the welfare system please do so by understanding
                  why it was put in place, everyone has a right to income support not because
                  they are bludgers but because SOCIETY benefits from insuring that the
                  poor are not in poverty. Think about that. We benefit from giving Slater
                  money by keeping him going to a Doctor and regress to some point when
                  he does need to be sanctioned and locked away, and I assure you being
                  rejected by society is hugely threatening to people. Never understood
                  horse whispering did you? horses want to belong, thats how you negotiate
                  them without beating shit of them.

                  We benefit in many ways when citizens consent to take welfare,
                  we benefit by keeping them from being disease carriers, from
                  getting into desperate straights, losing their assets to criminals
                  because they went to a loan shark, selling their daughters or sons
                  into prostitution. Sure it happens from time to time but take the
                  benefit away and many people get a whole lot more desperate.

                  So its shocking that so many on the left have forgotten why we
                  want the poorest to have enough, to have food, housing and
                  health. It will only cost more if we let the private sector in.

                  Wait until there are a couple of hundred people begging on the
                  street, lice covered and sneezing and you’ll be desperate to
                  want a people to get just enough to leave them healthy.

    • Bob 4.2
      12 June 2011 at 8:35 pm

      FFS….. The Benes i know arent assaulting or Raping …. and if hes active why is he on a benefit ? seems like if youre the whale then ya mates on the right can put on the blinkers once again .
      As for grey matter……..always remember the photo of the whale trying to look staunch at the gym …. too many smacks to the head…

  5. jbc 5
    12 June 2011 at 2:21 pm

    “it’s hardly their fault” ??

    It’s a sign of incompetence for an organisation to leak private data through its web site. I’m sure people here would be crowing about it if the shoe was on the other foot.

    Tempting as it is to blast Slater (as I agree he is a loathsome character) I think that’s misplaced. Someone should be blasting the fool that designed the site security.

    • Zetetic 5.1
      12 June 2011 at 4:02 pm

      websites do get broken into. Even the world’s biggest companies aren’t safe. It’s not a sign of incompetence. All political parties are shoe-string operations so that every cent possible can be devoted to campaign materials. If you think Labour or any party is going to have state of the art protection, you’re dreaming.

      • jbc 5.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:47 pm

        “websites do get broken into. Even the world’s biggest companies aren’t safe. It’s not a sign of incompetence.”

        I’ll have to disagree with you there. It’s a big competence failure whether you are Sony or NZLP or even a one-man IT company.

        Information security breaches in systems that follow current best-practice are very rare (those that rely on 0-day exploits). I can almost guarantee that a dullard like Slater could not breach a site run by a competent operator.

        “If you think Labour or any party is going to have state of the art protection, you’re dreaming.”

        Also disagree. State-of-the-art protection does not mean costly. It can readily be achieved with community-supported free software and a clueful individual. Labour should be all over that.

        There is really no excuse.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:53 pm

          Information security breaches in systems that follow current best-practice are very rare (those that rely on 0-day exploits). I can almost guarantee that a dullard like Slater could not breach a site run by a competent operator.

          Meh you are so out of touch its funny. Even the script kiddies are laughing at you.

          As are the Chinese cyberwar units.

          • jbc 5.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 6:29 pm

            “Meh you are so out of touch its funny. Even the script kiddies are laughing at you.”

            If you ever worked with me I doubt you would say that.

            Do you even know what a script kiddy is? Think about that and what you quoted.

            Is there anyone here with a clue? Lynn?

            …

            Bueller?

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 6:38 pm

              Given that everyone from the Pentagon to Sony to the NZ Government to US defence contractors have had private networks and databases accessed by unauthorised parties in the last 5 years, and serious MS security vulnerabilities are exposed on a bimonthly basis, this is not a rare crime or a rare problem – and those are just the instances that we have heard about through the media.

              Nevertheless I accept the general point that Labour better up its opsec. The Righties are playing for keeps this year.

              • jbc …
                12 June 2011 at 7:32 pm

                The media give very little useful information on these attacks but wherever the facts have been disclosed they almost always reveal at least one big failure in good security practice.

                Even in cases where 0-day exploits were used these are often used in conjunction with other weaknesses that permitted escalation of the breach.

                Big $$ multinationals the size of Sony can make some basic mistakes – I’m working with one right now. Big does not mean smart. Ditto for governments. Banks tend to be better (security-wise).

                Anyway, I stand by my earlier comment. Anyone building an Internet service should have security in mind and follow best practice. A huge amount of information on this is out there for free. For a small organisation like Labour this is well within reach.

                I’d expect they’d do a better job of it than most.

      • infused 5.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 10:01 pm

        It is a sign of incompetence. I’ve designed many pages based on .net. You need to cover many holes. It’s stupid to think otherwise.

  6. ianmac 6
    12 June 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Good idea Eddie. I too will make another modest donation to the Labour Party. Rally chaps.
    How about you Nick?

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:25 pm

      Frak yeah. I’m upping my regular contribution.

      Every hand to the barricades!!!

      • side show bob 6.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 8:29 pm

        You sure you can afford $1 a year Viper. Have to cut back on that Chardonnay.

    • jbc 6.2
      12 June 2011 at 2:26 pm

      I’d send it by snail mail if I were you.

    • Nick K 6.3
      12 June 2011 at 2:28 pm

      How about me? I make my donations to Labour through my taxes it seems. Not keen to give any more.

      • Colonial Viper 6.3.1
        12 June 2011 at 2:37 pm

        You don’t want taxes, you go live in a non-civil society like Somalia. And tell Bill English to give back his $20/wk he takes for housekeeping.

        • Bazar 6.3.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 4:04 pm

          We could also tell Phil Goff to give back the $384+ housing accomidation he receives each year because he doesn’t have a home to live in.

          Oh wait, he does have a home, its just occupied by tenants paying him rent…

          • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 5:56 pm

            meh its not his family home; if Phil owned a garden shed in Newtown which he rented out he wouldn’t live in that either.

            • Bazar 6.3.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 8:03 pm

              Meh?

              You’re having a gripe over a housekeeping fee of $20 by national, and when i point out a $384+ housing accommodation expense at the hands of labour, its “meh”.

              …

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 June 2011 at 8:08 pm

                It wasn’t Goff’s family home. Get it? His family home is outside of Wellington – the one his actual family actually lives in and keeps his animals on.

                English and his kids haven’t lived in Dipton in forever!

                And you know full well that English claimed a frakload more than just $20/wk for his ‘away from home but not really away from home’ accommodation in Wellington.

                • side show bob …
                  12 June 2011 at 8:33 pm

                  Warning warning, meltdown in progress

                • Bazar …
                  13 June 2011 at 3:18 pm

                  I see
                  So its alright if goff rorts the system to its fullest because he has a home far away.
                  But its not alright if english rorts the system to its fullest because he has a home far away.

                  Wait what?

                  • felix …
                    13 June 2011 at 7:14 pm

                    Bill doesn’t live in his “home far away”. Neither does his family. But he lied and said they do so he could collect hundreds of thousands of dollars for “away from home” expenses when he wasn’t actually “away from home” at all.

                    It’s really not too hard to understand.

        • TightyRighty 6.3.1.2
          12 June 2011 at 8:47 pm

          you wilfully missed the point on that comment Colonial Viper. Quoting some more rules of politics? avoid the issue and attack the questioner in return.

          Seriously, this wouldn’t be the first time labour have fallen foul of the funding rules, we can’t just be expected to believe this is all a national party plot to throw dirt at labour when you think about the pledge card. especially as the same players on the same team are still playing the game.

          If the news of the world exposed Pakistan again for match fixing, would you automatically assume it’s an english plot, just because news of the world are fervent supporters of english cricket?

          • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.2.1
            13 June 2011 at 7:21 pm

            I’m glad you picked up on the problem of match fixing. Exactly what National and their proxies are doing here with the start of their dirty tricks campaign and what they will continue to try and do as the year wears on.

  7. Portion Control 7
    12 June 2011 at 2:26 pm

    This will be Labour’s Hollow Men I fear.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:39 pm

      Yes, the Hollow Men are orchestrating this. Key, English, Joyce, Brash. And their moneyed back room supporters.

      • jbc 7.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 2:43 pm

        That’s silly. Unless those guys hired the company that operated the Labour web site and paid them to fuck up the security.

        Never ascribe to a conspiracy theory that which can be explained by incompetence.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 2:45 pm

          yeah mate they can run but they can’t hide. The Right Wing are playing dirty and desperate this year. And its going to get worse as their poll numbers continue to slide.

          As for “incompetence” – Slater did very well as a digital personal information thief, I thought. You should give him and his mates some credit.

          • Bazar 7.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 4:11 pm

            “As for “incompetence” – Slater did very well as a digital personal information thief, I thought. You should give him and his mates some credit.”

            Frankly, until its revealed how the infomation was collected, his compatence as a hacker remains unknown.

            Given the media’s glee at calling any creative use of a public machine as hacking, it wouldn’t surprise me if he simply found a hidden page, and then collected the infomation. With labour entering spin mode “OMG we got teh hazored” to hide their incompatence.

            It happens more often then you’d guess in IT.

            If the labour/police press charges, there might be hacking involved, if not. Then labour just had a hidden page or no security, and are proclaming hacking to save face or present a farse.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 5:58 pm

              A “hidden page”?

              WTF, a hidden page which simultaneously displayed up to date information from the membership and donors databases?

              Seriously, I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

              • SHG …
                12 June 2011 at 10:34 pm

                If the machine containing the membership and donor database was connected to the Internet then it seems the Labour IT team are incompetent.

              • Bazar …
                13 June 2011 at 1:45 am

                I’m laughing at your incredulity, and misplaced belief of infallibility. So i guess we’re equal.

                But moving on, in a egg-on-your-face moment, it looks like whale oil simply downloaded a backup of the database from their webserver.

                Thats some impressive hacking skill huh.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 June 2011 at 2:35 am

                  Happy to wait for the full police investigation mate, instead of taking your word on what the crime scene “looks like” to you.

                  • Luva …
                    13 June 2011 at 4:02 am

                    How many times in a day can you say Police Investigation

                    You do have a way or repeating yourself don’t you

      • Portion Control 7.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 2:43 pm

        Froth and foam all you like Viper. This will expose a lot of inconvenient information about Labour and the people behind it. The Chris Flatt email today seems to refute Eddie’s claim that the donor details were stolen. Flatt emailed party members saying that a “security vulnerability” had been exposed and now tidied up. That doesn’t point to theft. That points to organisational incompetence making whole tracts of labour party data available online.

        If I were a Labour Party member and if my details got outed by the blubbery one then I would be furious with the Labour Party. Furious enough to send a flurry of complaints to the Privacy Commissioner and seeking compensation from the Labour Party.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1
          12 June 2011 at 2:59 pm

          Slater’s action is theft.

          And should be subject to a complete and thorough police investigation of both him and his associates.

          Starting with his cell phone and email records.

          • ianmac 7.1.2.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 3:42 pm

            I bet Slater didn’t do it himself. I bet the NAct machine did it then passed it over to Slater so that NAct could be seen to have “clean hands.” Then of course Farrar and his mates at the Herald like Fisher will do the rest.

          • Portion Control 7.1.2.1.2
            12 June 2011 at 3:49 pm

            Why not lock him up in jail until he confesses?

            There is no evidence of theft. Flatt’s email to members suggests there was a system vulnerability. This was no more theft than was the “theft” of Brash’s emails that appeared in the Hollow Men. A big police investigation there an no evidence of any theft, so you can’t crow with any credibility about theft in this case. Especially since Labour have admitted that they had major security issues.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.2.1
              12 June 2011 at 5:59 pm

              “No evidence of theft”

              Uh, criminal investigation by the police is required to determine that, not your say so. I say go for it.

              • Bazar …
                13 June 2011 at 2:02 am

                If you give infomation out to the public for free, you can not call them a theif.

                Putting that data on a public web server, designed and configured, to give that infomation out to the public for free, does not make them a theif for on the same principle.

                There are areas of copyright, as although a copy was given away for free, no licence was given to whaleoil for redistrution.

                And all work created in NZ is copyrighted unless that work is donated to the public domain.

                So thats how you can’t just steal the news from one website and make it your own.

                So in theory, Labour could claim that if whaleoil redistributed the list, he’d be breaking copywright.

                However there are a problems with that.
                First is fairuse, in that he could use parts of it to prove a point, or as a small referance to his main story.

                The other is copyright is to protect creative works. A list of names and places has failed the test needed for copyright protection in the states, and its quite likely NZ would be the same.

                Finally i’m not a lawyer, so i can’t say what laws are likely to be broken by publishing personal details and electioning details publicly.

                Monday morning should be interesting… But as things are now at the point of writing, i don’t believe Whaleoil has broken any laws, let alone guilty of theft.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 June 2011 at 2:30 am

                  I gently suggest that you are so full of it.

                  Unless of course you happen to have the precise technical details of what Whaleoil did to obtain that information, and you happen to also have the technical details of the vulnerabilities and accessability of the Labour system which was penetrated.

                  Basically you are full of it and a full police and/or SIS investigation is required to determine if there are charges to be answered by Whaleoil and his compatriots.

                  NB taking a handbag that you saw while walking by an unlocked parked car is still fucking thieving.

                  • Anita …
                    13 June 2011 at 5:26 am

                    Colonial Viper writes:

                    NB taking a handbag that you saw while walking by an unlocked parked car is still fucking thieving.

                    Take a photograph of it isn’t.

                  • Bazar …
                    13 June 2011 at 1:23 pm

                    I work in IT, i deal with IT legalities as part of my job.
                    I also have had the pleasure of dealing with hacked web servers, as well as vetting websites and webpages of security flaws.

                    So i’m somewhat versed in this aspect of web security, and most security flaws amount to little more then just changing what is entered in the URL bar. And given whaleoil isn’t renouned for his hacking skills, i doubt it would be anything else.

                    Also the facts coming from whaleoil’s and Labour’s response, strongly suggests that it was simply a case where labour kept their creditcard transactions in a publicly accessible folder on the server, or something close to that.

                    So if we work on that assumption, then it becomes clear that whaleoil hasn’t actually broken any laws.

                    And as i’ve explained, its not illegal to take something that was given out freely.

                    If the police get involved now, it’ll not be because a crime has been committed, but because someone at labour pulled strings to get the police in for a photo op.

                    The police have no reason to want to investigate the server, thats for a private consultation firm to take a look at.
                    The police don’t have the skills or manpower for that kind of thing.
                    In addition they wouldn’t understand the IT layout, and obviously they wouldn’t be allowed to drag the server to their IT department for “forensic” analyals, nor would they want to work on a live server in place.

                    So unless labour know of some actual crime that has taken place and they haven’t let on about it, there is ZERO reason for police to be involved.

                    And as for your analogy, its faulty.
                    Your comparing physically stealing an item, to making an electronic copy.

                    That shows how little you understand of IT and its legalities.

                    This kind of event isn’t the first time (nor will it be the last) where some secret was stupidly put on display and someone recorded it:
                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10661707

                    And then, just as now, there is no grounds for a police investigation.

                    But please, don’t wise up to the bitter reality, live in your bubble world where a white knight police officer will find whaleoil broke some law, and he’ll be told not to publish any of it while the investigation goes on (because you know hes got such a great history with respecting what can’t be published).

                    As they say, ignorance is bliss, and in your case you must live a very blissful life indeed.

                    • lprent …
                      13 June 2011 at 1:45 pm

                      Ah no. You’re wrong (and I’d suggest that you brush up on your law). Pulling the stuff off the server may not be illegal – and I have some question marks about that.

                      However if he then uses it directly or indirectly for gain then that has a high probability of being illegal. To take an extreme case if he used the information to blackmail donors then not only would that act be illegal, but probably so would the act of taking the data. That is because the relevant legislation looks at the intent of taking the information, in particular for gain. It also don’t discriminate about how people gain from it.

                      Now since he is intending to publish this information on a site that advertises and where he is the owner of site, it is pretty easy to argue that he is doing it for personal gain. So I suspect that anyone named by Whale could complain to the police about his criminal intent, as could Labour.

                      In which case the police and the courts would have to determine his criminal intent. I suspect that there isn’t enough precedent for the police to not to charge him. They’d have to pass it to the courts to decide

                    • Bazar …
                      13 June 2011 at 3:30 pm

                      Re: Lprent

                      “However if he then uses it directly or indirectly for gain then that has a high probability of being illegal.”

                      Rubbish. By that same definition then looking at the stock exchange is illegal, even internet banking.

                      “To take an extreme case if he used the information to blackmail donors then not only would that act be illegal,”

                      I believe blackmail involves different laws entirely, as i think it has legislation written up, or altered to specifically deal with the concept of blackmail.

                      “but probably so would the act of taking the data.”
                      I doubt it, i’m not a lawyer so it might be the case, but it’d make no sense. Either he took the data and its legal, or it wasn’t.
                      You can’t have a legal transaction made illegal after the fact, because of another law. Which is what you’re suggesting?

                      And there is no blackmail being committed, at least not yet, and i doubt ever. If he said he’d publish the details of your transactions if he ever caught you donating again, then maybe blackmail would come into it.

                      But punishing labour supporters regardless of their reaction isn’t blackmail. In fact he’s not even made any demands, so it’s not blackmail.

                      “That is because the relevant legislation looks at the intent of taking the information, in particular for gain”

                      What legislation are you referring to?

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 5:33 pm

                      By that same definition then looking at the stock exchange is illegal, even internet banking.

                      Sigh… If you consider some forms of insider trading by picking up ‘unsecured’ files or using the knowledge of reading someone internet banking page when they haven’t logged out. Both rely on accidents and both can be illegal. You can’t state absolutes unless you look at the case. It is the sign of someone who really just doesn’t understand legal processes.

                      The blackmail one was an extreme example in response to your blanket statement that using the information gained in the manner that WO did would never be illegal. It appears that you are too inflexible a thinker to understand that what I was attacking was your absolute statement – which was just wrong.

                      But I suspect that you’re merely a bit of an idiot about law based on your other comments today.

                      What legislation are you referring to?

                      The various sections of the crimes act related to computers. Hunt around, they have been put up several times today.

                    • Bazar …
                      13 June 2011 at 6:55 pm

                      “Sigh… If you consider some forms of insider trading by picking up ‘unsecured’ files or using the knowledge of reading someone internet banking page when they haven’t logged out”

                      That’s insider trading which isn’t applicable. If the data was taken without authorization, thats a different crime.

                      “The blackmail one was an extreme example in response to your blanket statement that using the information gained in the manner that WO did would never be illegal.”

                      I don’t recall saying that, although i do hope it’s never made illegal, the ramifcations are horrendious to free thought/speach.

                      I did say that if WO accessed the infomation like i ASSUMED he did, that it wasn’t illegal. I could still be proven wrong, and that he did take unauthorized mesures to access the infomation.

                      As for your legal hopes on the crimes act, its all pinned on the hope that he gathered the infomation without authorization, or the hope that jury to believe he was both acting dishonestly AND had no claim of right.
                      Which is a long shot indeed.

                      “But I suspect that you’re merely a bit of an idiot about law based on your other comments today. ”

                      Thanks, i’ll remember to tell my friends about that next time i’m having drinks with them, it’ll be a good laugh.

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 7:38 pm

                      I never said that what he did was illegal. What I said was it may be found to be illegal if it can be shown that he accessed it with criminal intent for personal gain. In other word the mens actus is not illegal by definition, but coupled with a mens rea may be according to the crimes act.

                      Perhaps you should read the statutes rather than trying to make up your own law.

                    • Bazar …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:04 pm

                      I have read the statues, and i see people grasping at straws, to try and prove he did something illegal.

                      But i think we can agree on a sentiment:
                      “Perhaps you should read the statutes rather than trying to make up your own law.”

          • infused 7.1.2.1.3
            12 June 2011 at 10:05 pm

            Where were you when this happened to Don Brash? This is too funny.

        • IrishBill 7.1.2.2
          12 June 2011 at 4:16 pm

          It’ll expose about three months of online donations by labour supporters. If that’s your idea of a scandal you need to get out more. Seriously.

      • U 4 United 7.1.3
        12 June 2011 at 8:45 pm

        OK, so now it is Key etc…further up the thread it was Whale Oil. If you were “moneyed” Viper (and you NEVER will be) would you prefer the back rooms too? You are a loser, live it, love it and/or grow up!

  8. Portion Control 8
    12 June 2011 at 2:35 pm

    So far all Slater has is minutes of one meeting which could have come from anywhere. If Labour are so incompetent to give out donor info then people should be fired. If Slater has that much info, what else might he have? This will unwind any gains Labour hoped to make.

    • Monty 8.1
      12 June 2011 at 3:59 pm

      Cam Slater it seems has a very deep “deep throat”. I understand from sources that Cam has some informaton that will make the Brash email saga look like it was executed by amateurs.

      Unlikely that the source will be identified = but it is not theft. Labour should look very close to home to find out the souce of this material. There simply is no trust and the factions are infighting. Think about who and why would such information be released? Who looks bad and should be evicted and work back from there.

      in the meantime we on the right just sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

  9. Nick K 9
    12 June 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Viper – I don’t know Bill, but why don’t you ask your mate Winston to repay the $158k he still owes us?

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:43 pm

      Better still, why don’t you ask Fay and Richwhite to repay the $500M they owe us? Or the Right Wing pricks who sold off Contact and subsequently lost two billion in profits and capital gains from this country?

      Fuck your distraction with a couple of $K here and there.

      The real theft from us is being counted in the tens and hundreds of millions.

      • Dan 9.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:34 pm

        Deal, and we’ll do it right after Labour compensates us for Telecoms lost profits

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:38 pm

          Deal. For once we agree.

          Lets start with re-nationalising all these assets at 25c on the dollar, and then block any resale into private hands for the next 99 years.

          BNZ, Telecom, large parts of Downer/Downer EDI, Contact Energy, etc.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 6:40 pm

            Draco, yeah I know, 25c on the dollar is 25c too much 😀

            • Matt 9.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 8:11 pm

              Its sad that your hate for the wealthy and those better than you have screwed you up so much.
              Your fortress economics will only send us future into the dark ages while creating rampant poverty.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 June 2011 at 9:19 pm

                Meh save your scary bed time stories for the naive little kids who didn’t have to live through the ‘enlightened times’ of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia.

  10. Uncle Helen 10
    12 June 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I very much hope that Mr Slater will do the right thing and publish the membership lists. Decent Kiwis have a right to know if their colleagues, neighbours or associates are members of subversive organisations like the Labour Party.

    IrishBill: banned for a year for continual trolling.

    • felix 10.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:58 pm

      Maybe we should make Labour Party members wear a red triangle in public? Or a “Red Square” perhaps?

      • higherstandard 10.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 3:05 pm

        All political party members should wear a sign as follows – “I is drooling idiot who supports felching crooktards”

    • JD 10.2
      12 June 2011 at 3:36 pm

      More proof that socialist lack a sense of humor.

      • felix 10.2.1
        12 June 2011 at 3:52 pm

        Pretty sure Uncle Helen isn’t a socialist, JD, but yes it was a pretty lame attempt at humour.

    • John H 10.3
      12 June 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Banned for a year??

      I see Labour and their blog are fairly sensitive about all this. Does make one think there really is some substance about to come out.

      [Unwise to second guess Irish. What you have not seen is the history of this commenter; a ban for a year probably has to been seen in that context. Nor is there any requirement to have a time limit on a ban. Some people are removed permanently for egregious offenses, especially those who do so knowingly….RL]

      • IrishBill 10.3.1
        12 June 2011 at 4:33 pm

        I’m not sensitive at all but I’ve warned and banned UH many other times. To be honest I’ve been keen to remove his misogynistic handle and pointless claptrap from the site for a while.

        I’ve been told that there’s three months of online donor details (names, emails and amount donated) that got out through a back-up problem.

        The minutes were different – apparently they were emailed to Aaron Gilmore by mistake and he must have passed them onto the research unit or to Cameron directly. Personally I doubt Cameron has sweet f**k all. It’ll be a huge disappointed to his groupies when he fails to deliver on his big talk (again).

  11. Nick K 11
    12 June 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Okay. But be sure to ask Helen Clark to face the gallows for authorising the sale of Telecom when deputy PM in the 4th Labour government.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:57 pm

      lolz the First ACT Government undermined our entire economy and set this country on a neoliberal track.

      But that’s the past now mate. Today the task is to stop English, Key, Joyce from doing the same shit for their mates.

    • mickysavage 11.2
      12 June 2011 at 9:29 pm

      Pillock.  What else can I say?

  12. JD 12
    12 June 2011 at 2:56 pm

    “Better still, why don’t you ask Fay and Richwhite to repay the $500M they owe us? Or the Right Wing pricks who sold off Contact and subsequently lost two billion in profits and capital gains from this country?”

    Why don’t you could ask Goff to give Fay and Richwhite a call, wasn’t he in cabinet and thus part of the decision making process when all the asset sales went down so maybe he’s still tight with them? I’m sure they’re still greatful for his acquiescence.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      12 June 2011 at 2:58 pm

      NACT are here to sell out what’s rest of NZ. Labour has learnt.

      National hasn’t.

      • JD 12.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 3:38 pm

        Harnessing the power of google I pulled up this little gem.

        http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/approval-granted-vector-wellington-network-sale

        Are you stupid enough to actually believe what you write here?

        • Bunji 12.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 4:43 pm

          Did you read your link? It’s approval for the sale of a private business from one private company to another private company. How does that relate to government asset sales?

          • JD 12.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 5:06 pm

            1. Its a strategic asset – just like Auckland airport, another private company where labour blocked its sale to Canadian interests.

            2. It is a monopoly.

            3. The majority shareholder, with a shareholding of 75.1%, is the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust who holds these share sfor a public purpose.

            But fuck all that, it’s still a ‘private company’ and you’re such a labourite tool you can’t even for the sake of consistency takes Cullen’s dick out of your mouth for a minute to see how hypocritical this line of argument is in light of the facts.

            • Dan 12.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 5:20 pm

              While we’re here, why wasn’t Wellington’s lines company a strategic asset? Its sale was okayed just weeks after the airport debacle.

    • felix 12.2
      12 June 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Funny thing is, if JD and Nick K really believed a word of what they’re implying about Helen Clark and Phil Goff…

      …they’d vote Labour.

  13. Nick C 13
    12 June 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Any evidence that Jason Ede, Simon Lusk, or in fact anyone in National but Cameron Slater (pretty sure he isn’t even a party member) are involved with this? Seems like you are making desperate, completely baseless allegations.

    But the mad panic that you have gone into now that the shoe is on the other foot really is hilarious (Hollow Men anyone). I don’t think anyone really cares who is making small donations to the labour party, and I think it’s a bit creepy that Slater wants to publish them. But that doesn’t excuse the Labour Party for being so incompetent to have this sort of information obtainable by legal means.

    And if some of the other claims Slater is making are true..

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      12 June 2011 at 3:05 pm

      Theft of a vast amount of personal data which is of a politically sensitive nature, and which could facilitate identity theft and undermine our democracy is a very serious crime.

      A full police investigation is warranted.

      • higherstandard 13.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 3:07 pm

        “Theft of a vast amount of personal data which is of a politically sensitive nature, and which could facilitate identity theft and undermine our democracy is a very serious crime.

        ……. shouldn’t that be

        Theft of a vast amount of personal data which is of a politically sensitive nature in relation to the party I support, and which could facilitate identity theft and undermine our democracy is a very serious crime.

        • Peter Bains 13.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:05 pm

          Not theft if in open public domain CV.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 5:40 pm

            Don’t be an ass, someone who finds your front door key in the flower pot and uses it to get in and steal your personal shit is still committing theft.

            • T Mardell 13.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 7:16 pm

              If you walk by someone’s house, and the window is left open, and you reach on a take some of the property, that is theft.

              If in passing you observe a group of people acting in a certain way in that house, passing that information on is not theft.

              If you see an offence being committed inside that house and report it, then that is being a good citizen.

            • U 4 United 13.1.1.1.1.2
              12 June 2011 at 8:50 pm

              Theft? Only if there is a “permanent intention to deprive..” WO isn’t intending to keep this lot, he’s going to share it with everyone! As Johnny Mathis once sang…”its wonderful, wonderful…”

            • SHG 13.1.1.1.1.3
              12 June 2011 at 10:44 pm

              You misspelled “copyright infringement”.

    • mickysavage 13.2
      12 June 2011 at 9:33 pm

      Evidence about Simon Lusk?  Absolute heaps.  And all these posters keep popping up at the slightest mention of his name.

      What can this mean?

      • Nick C 13.2.1
        12 June 2011 at 9:43 pm

        Evidence that he was involved with obtaining this information, or that he ‘controls Whaleoil’? I don’t see any.

        I dont mean ‘evidence that Simon Lusk is associated with the National Party’. I know that may be the standard of proof for being involved with any and every possible conspiricy imaginable on The Standard, but it’s not enough anywhere else.

  14. Chris 14
    12 June 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Will the paid lap bloggers here lose their jobs when its found out Parliamentary Services are paying them?

    [That is a self-matrydom offense. Read the Policy page and take a week off…RL]

  15. McFlock 15
    12 June 2011 at 3:03 pm

    didn’t Nixon go down for something similar? Physical b&e, not comuter, but the recording and anti-terror industries say they’re equally as bad.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      12 June 2011 at 3:08 pm

      A full police investigation is warranted.

      If the SIS decide that there are national security grounds to investigate the undermining of a major NZ political party by criminal means they should also get involved.

    • nadis 15.2
      12 June 2011 at 3:59 pm

      No – Nixon’s position became untenable because he knew of, and probably was part of the conspiracy to cover up the break in. Never proven – and quite unlikely – that he knew of the break in before it happened.

      • Colonial Viper 15.2.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:28 pm

        A Captain has to take responsibility for the entire ship nadis. Whether that is sorting out a big mess made by subordinates and holding the team to account or taking personal responsibility for it and stepping down as a mea culpa, if the occasion necessitates it.

  16. Tombstone 16
    12 June 2011 at 3:04 pm

    The only people who should be hanging their heads in shame are those who continue to support a govt that treats ordinary, hard working people which such contempt. I thought the battle was well and truly lost but I’m now more convinced than ever that National will be gone by November. That Kiwis are waking up to Key and his razor gang and starting to see them for what they truly are – a bunch of self serving mofo’s who couldn’t give a damn about ordinary Kiwis and their families. Bring on the election!

    • higherstandard 16.1
      12 June 2011 at 3:09 pm

      “The only people who should be hanging their heads in shame are those who continue to support a govt that treats ordinary, hard working people which such contempt.”

      So anyone who’s supported any government since around 1900 then ?

  17. IrishBill 17
    12 June 2011 at 3:07 pm

    I for one don’t really give two shits about Slater or whatever trivia he’s got.

  18. peteremcc 18
    12 June 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Does Labour HQ regularly consult with The Standard on website security issues and donor details? Because as far as I’m aware, Labour have refused to comment publicly about how Whale Oil got the information.

    [ This is a group blog with many contributing authors, while ‘The Standard’ is a program running on a server. Attributing personhood to a program is dumb and usually considered a self-matyrdom offense….RL]

  19. peteremcc 19
    12 June 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Oh, sorry, I thought you guys preferred to stay anonymous. Let me fix that for you:

    [Banned for life. Never come back here…RL]

    [Update: Peteremcc deliberately and provocatively named an individual in direct contravention of site policy. He knew exactly what he was doing and then gloated about it. …RL]

  21. Maui 21
    12 June 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I think that a competent organisation would have reported this to the relevant investigative authorities by now.

    Those still hunting whales in Aotearoa will soon get a knock on the door.

  22. ianupnorth 22
    12 June 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Some people are just plain silly!

  23. Gareth 23
    12 June 2011 at 4:03 pm

    I’d suspect they were all obtained via a well written google search…. Most reputable websites patched that hole years ago…

  24. weka 24
    12 June 2011 at 4:06 pm

    “*for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.”
     
    What does Slater’s beneficiary status have to do with this post, or anything for that matter? You do realise you’ve just legitimised every rwnj prejudicial judgement about malingering or dishonest medical beneficiaries, as well as reinforcing ignorant ideas about what disability and illness are (eg that you can tell from someone’s blog whether they’re eligible for assistance or not). And you’ve supported the continual harassment of medical beneficiaries by people who don’t know shit about it.
     
    As a long time beneficiary (IB) I’ve been on the receiving end of other people’s ignorance about my disability, sometimes to great personal cost. It sucks and to see such speculation being done here is disappointing. TS writer’s should know better.
     
    If you have serious concerns about Slater’s eligibility, I suggest you take some actual evidence to WINZ instead of throwing out vague speculations from your position of priviledge on a major left wing political blog.
     
    And, no, just in case anyone is wondering, I don’t vote on the right, and I don’t like or support Slater and his ilk.

    • RedLogix 24.1
      12 June 2011 at 4:20 pm

      We’ve been down this path many times before weka.

      No-one here is bagging Slater because he is ill.

      What he does get attacked on is being ill, taking a benefit on the grounds of that illness, and then slagging all beneficiaries as bludgers.

      Being ill is not a free-pass on being a hypocrite and generally vile person.

      • weka 24.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:13 pm

        RL, Eddie posted a side comment speculating about the Slater’s eligibility to the sickness benefit. That’s NOT a criticism of Slater’s hypocricy, that’s a direct attack on someone by invoking the bludger myth.
         
        By all means have a go at Slater for being a hypocrit and an arsehole. But challenging his right to SB has no legitimacy in this forum (unless it is proved otherwise by people who have access to the facts eg by WINZ. Even then it can be really hard to tell).
         
        I don’t give a shit about Slater, I do care about the fact that this left wing blog pointing and saying ‘bludger’ lends legitimacy to all the rwnjs who do it and undermines the left’s criticism of those kinds of accusations.
         
         

        • RedLogix 24.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:20 pm

          Fair enough weka… but you can tie yourself up into knots with that kind of thinking. Fact is Slater has worked very hard to make himself a public figure, he’s the one whose thrust himself into the spotlight of public scrutiny and he gets to wear the consequences.

          Slater’s position is well removed from the right’s tactic of indiscriminately smearing all beneficiaries regardless of their circumstances and their desire to remain ordinary people with a right to privacy.

          • Anita 24.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 5:25 pm

            RedLogix writes:

            Fact is Slater has worked very hard to make himself a public figure, he’s the one whose thrust himself into the spotlight of public scrutiny and he gets to wear the consequences.

            Woah there, are you saying that if I choose to speak up for what I believe in then I deserve whatever muck the right choose to fling about my personal life and my past?

            • RedLogix 24.1.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 5:35 pm

              If you are going to stand up and start flinging muck about on other people then yes… you’ve made yourself a big fat target for scrutiny.

          • weka 24.1.1.1.2
            12 June 2011 at 5:29 pm

            Ok, so if I start blogging and become well known, does that mean that RWNJs can have a go at my eligibility to IB?
             
            I think it’s major shame that we don’t have more beneficiaries blogging politically, but I know that I wouldn’t do it for exactly the reasons I’m pointing out here. You seem to be saying that any medical beneficiary who puts themselves into the public sphere can expect to have their entitlement to a state benefit challenged. That’s bullshit.

            • RedLogix 24.1.1.1.2.1
              12 June 2011 at 5:38 pm

              Ok, so if I start blogging and become well known, does that mean that RWNJs can have a go at my eligibility to IB?

              Well that’s pretty much exactly what would happen. If you are going to make a public figure of yourself, expect people to check to see if your actions align with your words.

              • Anita …
                12 June 2011 at 5:42 pm

                I don’t think either Weka or I are talking about what would happen, we’re talking about what should happen.

                Should we be the targets of nasty personal attacks if we publicly stand up for what we believe in?

                And again, Eddie’s post does not touch on the alignment of Slater’s beneficiary status with his words – it’s an nasty personal attack entirely unconnected to the substance of the post.

                • RedLogix …
                  12 June 2011 at 5:52 pm

                  Nah… what goes round eventually comes around.

                  You characterise Slater as ‘standing up for what he believes in’. Fine, fair enough if that’s all he’d ever done then Eddie’s comments would be unfair and nasty.

                  But Slater’s own record of nasty personal attacks has pretty much torched any consideration along those lines years ago.

                  • weka …
                    12 June 2011 at 6:04 pm

                    Like I said, I don’t give a shit about Slater. I do care how the left using nasty tactics like this affects *other* medical beneficiaries and undermines the left’s ability to call the right on such tactics.

                  • Anita …
                    12 June 2011 at 6:11 pm

                    RedLogix,

                    Do you believe in the death penalty for murder? Or beatings for people convicted of assault? Or rape as a penalty for rapists?

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2011 at 6:22 pm

                      Those examples are criminal matters dealt with by the justice system. There is not an equivalence here.

                      The only penalty Slater will understand is one that speaks to him in his own language…regretably.

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 6:34 pm

                      Ok, so you are saying that retribution, even when immoral, is acceptable against people you feel are really bad if they justice system won’t do what you think it should – good to know you support vigilante justice.

                      Now, back to the substantive point… the effect of Eddie’s comments on beneficiaries and people with mental illnesses. Is that kind of damaging stereotyping and attacking of society’s most vulnerable something that the left should consider an acceptable political tactic?

                • RedLogix …
                  12 June 2011 at 6:17 pm

                  Look I do get the point you are making… the left has a long record of holding to high ethical and moral standards. Abandoning them comes at a cost.

                  But that does not give anyone a free pass to attack us with impunity. As you say there is a difference between what should happen in life and what does.

                  And if there is one painful lesson I learned rather late in life, is that when dealing with the likes of Slater you get no points for treating them with kid gloves. The only thing they understand is the same shite they dish out themselves.

                  • weka …
                    12 June 2011 at 6:21 pm

                    Well fuck you. No-one is saying treat Slater with kidgloves and there are plenty of other ways to take him on. This one is bullshit and some of the most vulnerable people in the community are the ones that pay the price (and I’m not including Slater in that).
                     
                     

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2011 at 6:32 pm

                      Well if think there are plenty of ways to go after Slater, then go to it. We’re right behind you.

                      But just bear in mind that if you annoy Slater enough he won’t hesitate to use the same tactic on you. Good luck with that.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 6:38 pm

                      Red, people in my situation don’t get that choice. That’s my point. I’m vulnerable in ways that Eddie, and possibly you aren’t. Because I’m on a benefit, there are things I can’t do. I can’t blog politically and be safe. And I can’t take on the likes of people like Slater for the same reason.
                       
                      If you really believe that Slater deserves this and it’s the only way to take him down, then organise and do it properly. Because at the moment all that’s happened here is you’ve compromised values that are meant to ensure the safety of vulnerable people in order to conduct a political battle you are unlikely to win by these tactics
                       
                      Tell me, what is the purpose? You think he’ll get kicked of the benefit, get a job and be too busy to blog?

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2011 at 6:57 pm

                      Fair enough weka… but nothing Eddie said has changed anything for the better or worse.

                      If you annoy the big boys enough they will always find some way of making your miserable life more miserable. SOP.

                      Maybe you are right, maybe if we are always principled and always do the decent thing then the likes of Slater will see the error of their ways and repent. If you want to hold your breath on that then knock yourself out.

                      But I think this fight was never safe. They always fought dirty because they had the money, influence or privilege to get away with it. Ask those progressives and lefties who fought the big battles, over slavery, child labour, equal rights for women, gays and children. Those who fought for employment rights and protections… like in the big battles of 1951 … risked everything. It was never a fair fight and never will be.

                      I’m not the enemy here. I too wish it was different… but it ain’t.

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 7:03 pm

                      I think hearing one of the loudest left wing NZ voices on the net indulge in beneficiary bashing and perpetuate damaging stereotypes about mental illness has made things worse.

                      If you think that what you write here doesn’t matter and can have no effect you wouldn’t write here – you can’t have it both ways.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2011 at 7:19 pm

                      I think you’ve read the wrong meaning. Yes what we write matters… but that’s not my point.

                      This was never a fair fight. Slater isn’t interested in principles or ethics. He’s only interested in winning. As far as he’s conccerned it’s a gunfight and he’s going to blow off anyone who turns up unarmed.

                      It’s cheap and easy attacking Eddie. How about taking on the real enemy here?

                    • Anita …
                      12 June 2011 at 7:29 pm

                      I’m not disagreeing with Eddie attacking Slater for all the things he does wrong (including his hypocrisy), I’m disagreeing with Eddie attacking him for being a beneficiary and for being mentally ill. I’m disagreeing with Eddie, by proxy, attacking all beneficiaries and all people with mental illnesses. Perhaps he should stick to “taking on the real enemy”?

                      And as for you comment about how I (or Weka, or both?) should be sticking to the real enemy… firstly, why do you get to define my “real enemy” (I like to think that the left does not have a hive mind)?, secondly, why do you get to make assumptions about what else I am doing with my time? thirdly, people enflaming discrimination and beneficiary bashing are the “real enemy”, wouldn’t you agree?

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 7:56 pm

                      “Maybe you are right, maybe if we are always principled and always do the decent thing then the likes of Slater will see the error of their ways and repent. If you want to hold your breath on that then knock yourself out.”
                       
                      You’re still missing the point Red. Nothing you will do at this level will make Slater see the error of his ways (and I’m still waiting to hear what attacking him as a SB is meant to achieve). The best you can do is influence other people who might consider his ideas valid but are open to change. But you can’t do that if you engage in the same tactics as him where those tactics devalue other people who don’t deserve it. I’m not saying don’t fight hard or even don’t fight dirty. I’m saying don’t be an arsehole while you do it.
                       
                      I agree with Anita, that a major left wing blog engaging in beneficiary bashing of the worst kind does change things for the worse. It changes TS’s legitimacy on such matters, and it contributes directly to the culture that says attacking beneficiaries is ok. It’s not about making Slater change his mind, it’s about the people who may still be influenced by what’s written here. Today one TS writer has shown that it’s ok to have a go at people for being a SB, and two long term commenters have supported that. That’s just wrong.
                       
                      btw, I’m not attacking Eddie. I’m calling him on one aspect of something he has written. To suggest that Anita or I are attacking him is not on. Just address the issues.
                       
                      This is classic dissent from within myth. It’s in the history of lesbians challenging hets within feminism, Maori women likewise, women challenging men within socialist movements etc. There’s nothing wrong with anything that Anita and I have done here in speaking out about the politics of illness and disability, and it’s a mistake for our comments to be portrayed as warlike by left wing commenters here in an attempt to get us to shut up.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 June 2011 at 8:34 pm

                      No-one but no-one is trying to shut you down. You’re making a valid and interesting argument, I’ve engaged you on it… we’re giving it a good thrashing out and everyone is getting a hearing.

                      So where does the ‘shutting down dissent’ bit come from? I’m not buying into that.

                      I agree with Anita, that a major left wing blog engaging in beneficiary bashing of the worst kind does change things for the worse. It changes TS’s legitimacy on such matters, and it contributes directly to the culture that says attacking beneficiaries is ok.

                      First up I don’t see Eddie’s comments as anything like “beneficiary bashing of the worst kind”. On re-reading them I have to say that Eddie may have a legitimate question. No-one can pretend that every person on a benefit is legitimately entitled to it…it’s pollyanna territory to pretend otherwise. And given Slater’s track record of twisting and manipulating for whatever ends suit him, it’s not wholly implausible to ask some hard questions about his entitlement to the SB. Unpleasant I’d agree, but scarcely wrong in principle.

                      Secondly the target is just one person, Slater. Challenging Slater is not the same thing as bashing all beneficiaries indiscriminately as we see righties doing here over and again.

                      Today one TS writer has shown that it’s ok to have a go at people for being a SB, and two long term commenters have supported that. That’s just wrong.

                      No-one has attacked Slater for being on the SB. I have been really clear on this and I would stand by my long-time record to defend that position.

                      But while I agree any determination about his entitlement to the the SB must be made professionally by the right people, that cannot mean the rest of us have no right to ask questions.

                    • weka …
                      12 June 2011 at 9:35 pm

                      Sorry, that was a bit over the top and I don’t mean that you were trying to shut the conversation down totally, just that there was the message to stop talking about it because it damages the cause. It was you saying “It’s cheap and easy attacking Eddie. How about taking on the real enemy here?” and CV saying “FFS fraking Lefties turning guns on each another on a day like today. Get over it and move on.” War analogies don’t work for me either.
                       
                      “First up I don’t see Eddie’s comments as anything like “beneficiary bashing of the worst kind”. On re-reading them I have to say that Eddie may have a legitimate question. No-one can pretend that every person on a benefit is legitimately entitled to it…it’s pollyanna territory to pretend otherwise. ”
                      I’m not saying there’s no-one ripping off the system, that would be stupid. I’m saying that there’s no way to know from this distance that that’s what Slater is doing, and generalised speculations of benefit fraud damages other beneficiaries. If anyone seriously and genuinely thinks Slater is committing fraud, then either phone WINZ, or phone a journo and get them to do the work on it.
                       
                      The reason that this is so serious is because medical beneficiaries do actually lose their income because of these kinds of speculations. That’s beneficiaries who are ill and eligible for their benefit. I don’t mean that Slater’s case manager might read Eddie’s comments and pull his benefit (don’t care about Slater). I mean that people who take home the message that if you can do x you really can’t be that ill, can then apply that to other beneficiaries they know. I’ve had a WINZ doctor do that shit to me. Luckily I made a complaint to WINZ and was ok, but I know others that haven’t been.
                       
                      I can’t stress how damaging it is to people who are ill to have those kind of ignorant speculations made. Anita has talked about the issue in terms of mental illness, but it applies to physical illnesses as well.
                       
                      Someone in Slater’s situation may survive on long bike rides (I have a family member who manages serious depression that way). If he stops the rides maybe his level of functioning decreases markedly, so he can’t work anyway. There’s no way to know from here.
                       
                      “Secondly the target is just one person, Slater. Challenging Slater is not the same thing as bashing all beneficiaries indiscriminately as we see righties doing here over and again.”
                       
                      Yep, and I’m just one person. Eddie, and now you, have legitimised every person who’s directed that prejudicial crap at me. You think righties don’t direct that shit at individuals? That they don’t damage individuals that way?
                       
                      “No-one has attacked Slater for being on the SB.”
                       
                      Maybe that’s not what you are doing, but Eddie has. Questioning a named ill person’s right to a benefit in public using publishing priviledges and without any evidence *is* an attack.
                       
                      “But while I agree any determination about his entitlement to the the SB must be made professionally by the right people, that cannot mean the rest of us have no right to ask questions.”
                       
                      Maybe. But Eddie brought out the most useless of prejudices – that depressed or other ill/disabled people can’t do x therefore this person can’t really be ill. It’s such bullshit and comes from ablist ignorance and priviledge. This is the crux of it for me. If you want to look at Slater’s entitlement to SB you can’t do it from those kind of ignorant assumptions.

              • weka …
                12 June 2011 at 6:01 pm

                So you *are* saying that any smear tactics are ok if one chooses to make oneself a public figure?
                 
                Why? Why is it not ok to judge ‘ordinary’ SB/IBs as bludgers, but it is ok if they choose to blog politically? That should shut those bludgers up nicely.
                 
                “expect people to check to see if your actions align with your words.”
                 
                You’re still not getting it RL. Slater daming the welfare state and then being a beneficiary is the highest of hypocricies and he deserves to be damned and critiqued for that. But that’s not what Eddie did. Eddie speculated about a sickness beneficiary’s medical condition and made an uninformed and prejudicial statement about that person’s eligility to a state benefit.
                 
                Where you say actions against words, Slater should be judged on his words about welfare and his action of being a beneficiary. But you can’t judge about his *medical eligibility* to a state benefit (as opposed to his moral right to it) because you’re not in a position to know the facts. The *only* people in a position to judge that are his doctor and secondary to that his case manager at WINZ (or whatever WINZ use these days instead of case management). And the WINZ doctor if he gets externally assessed.

              • weka …
                12 June 2011 at 6:15 pm

                Ok, so if I start blogging and become well known, does that mean that RWNJs can have a go at my eligibility to IB?
                Well that’s pretty much exactly what would happen. If you are going to make a public figure of yourself, expect people to check to see if your actions align with your words.
                 

                And you know what? If someone really did want to have a go at Slater over his eligibility, because he’s a hypocritical arsehole, you’d have to get some actual evidence to support the speculation that he’s bludging. An investigative journalist might be able to do that, it would take quite alot of work. I still don’t agree that this is ok, because for every arsehole who does deserve it who might get caught out, there are other beneficiaries whose lives would be made a misery or destroyed by such action who don’t deserve it.
                 
                If Slater does deserve that then go do it. But don’t sit on a blog and throw out prejudicial but unfounded statements that undermine ALL medical beneficiaries just because you hate someone.
                 
                It looks like political point scoring at the expense of medical beneficiaries. Shame.

              • pollywog …
                12 June 2011 at 6:36 pm

                Ok, so if I start blogging and become well known, does that mean that RWNJs can have a go at my eligibility to IB?

                Well that’s pretty much exactly what would happen. If you are going to make a public figure of yourself, expect people to check to see if your actions align with your words.

                _____________________________________________________________

                # lilman (198) Says:
                June 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

                BLACK WITH A VENGEANCE-you interested me enough to take a look!!!
                My son, who lives on this computer ,works for security firm specializing in hackers and tracing,I asked him to try and find you.
                Guess what- He did.

                LOL–HAHAHHA

                Name address- internet provider,even you tax details and most importantly your financial position ,debts and
                very very interesting.
                To be brave is one thing ,to be unmasked is a entirely different thing again.

                Now should I?
                Or shouldnt I ?
                ____________________________________________________________________

                Only on KKKiwiblog… 🙂

        • Eddie 24.1.1.2
          12 June 2011 at 9:53 pm

          weka. I’m not attacking beneficiaries as bludgers. I’m simply asking if Slater is really eligible. It’s a legitimate question.

          It helps no-one for someone who isn’t eligible to get the benefit. It just gives fuel to the Right’s attack on legitimate beneficiaries.

      • Anita 24.1.2
        12 June 2011 at 5:30 pm

        RedLogix:

        Being ill is not a free-pass on being a hypocrite and generally vile person.

        You are, however, skirting very close to the “deserving poor” argument, the poor only deserve our help (and benefits) if they are nice, deserving, and well behaved.

        Slater being on the benefit doesn’t remove from him any of the rights held so dear by us able-bodied earners – including the right to say what we believe (even if it’s judged foul destructive crap). Slater’s behaviour covered in Eddie’s post would be wrong even if he was on $500k a year, paying all the tax on it, and donating 10% to your favourite charity – his status of a beneficiary doesn’t change that at all.

        • Colonial Viper 24.1.2.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:34 pm

          FFS fraking Lefties turning guns on each another on a day like today. Get over it and move on.

          • weka 24.1.2.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 6:07 pm

            I’m really surprised by that CV. I’m calling bullshit on a piece of damaging discrimination. There are no guns here.

  25. Peter 25
    12 June 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I donated 10 dollars in good faith as a non-Labour member. I would not expect my details to be published by anyone as a result of donating any money to any organisation or charity.

    The point is we have serious issues in NZ if people cannot donate in confidence to any organisation.

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      12 June 2011 at 5:29 pm

      That’s why a full police investigation into Slater’s theft of personal details is needed, if only as a deterrent to others who would also like to steal identity data for political use.

      • Inventory2 25.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 9:42 pm

        You’re assuming that the details Cam Slater has are stolen CV. They aren’t; unlike the Brash e-mails that the Left is so fond of.

        • felix 25.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 10:08 pm

          Police disagree with you on Brash’s emails after a long investigation.

          Perhaps you should tell them what you know so they can reopen the file.

    • Anita 25.2
      12 June 2011 at 5:36 pm

      If you have some spare time you might like to apply the Privacy Act to this situation, starting with Principle Six. You have a right to have Slater confirm what information he holds about you and to access that information.

      • Colonial Viper 25.2.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:41 pm

        Who said that you can class Slater as an “Agency” as defined by the Privacy Act?

        • Anita 25.2.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 5:42 pm

          The Privacy Act.

          • Anita 25.2.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 5:44 pm

            In case it’s too much effort to look it up:

            agency—
            (a) means any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, and whether in the public sector or the private sector; and, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a department;

            • Colonial Viper 25.2.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2011 at 6:16 pm

              I’m no privacy expert but I suspect that the Privacy Act does not apply to individuals who obtained said information inadvertently, without soliciting it, or illegally.

              Will see if my assumption is correct or not.

              • Anita …
                12 June 2011 at 6:21 pm

                Your assumption is incorrect.

                Obviously someone who doesn’t know they are in possession of information is more likely to fail to provide information when asked, that is not to say that they are not required to provide it. They are unlikely to be penalised providing they acted reasonably when originally asked, and again acted reasonably when they realised they did have it.

                Equally obviously someone who breaks a law to obtain information is more likely to be willing to breach the Privacy Act in the way they behave while it is in their possible. Obtaining something illegally doesn’t provide a defence – for commonsense reasons (“I can’t be charged with murder because I stole the gun that I used to shoot them” ftw).

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 June 2011 at 6:44 pm

                  Hmmm, so if an old boss of yours emails me and brings up some aspect of your past work history because I mentioned you in passing as someone that I know, and you suspect that we have been in touch, you can then legally force me to provide you with content out of my personal email account to show you what information I have about you?

                  Don’t think so.

                  • Anita …
                    12 June 2011 at 6:51 pm

                    I think you have misread Principle Six if you hold personal information about me in a way that it can be readily retrieved, and is is not “solely or principally for the purposes of, or in connection with, that individual’s personal, family, or household affairs” (s56) then if I ask you, you will need to tell me that you hold it, and what it is. You don’t have to show me your personal email no.

                    I suggest reading some of the fact sheets on the Privacy Commissioner’s website, they really are quite clear and useful.

                    • reid …
                      12 June 2011 at 10:01 pm

                      This sounds quite promising and I suggest Colonial Viper you should on Monday swing our taxpayer-funded legal resources which you have access to into vigorous action and find out whether in fact you can ask every single Labour Party donar to ask WO for their personal details.

                      I’m sure he’d enjoy that immensely, finding out all those names.

                • Bazar …
                  12 June 2011 at 6:46 pm

                  I’d question if he meets the critica for agency.

                  I don’t know if he even has a job, but if he doens’t i wouldn’t expect it applies. (As he wouldn’t be opereating in public or private).

                  If he works for an agency, and you send a privacy request to them, your only entitled to know what the agency/company knows collectivtly/offically, not what each individual employee knows.

                  And even if he was self-employed, and the sole employee, and you requested it from that very agency, unless that agency was involved in some form or way with the collection or use of the data, i expect he could say that the agency knows nothing. (Companys being a seperate legal entitiy to the person who creates/runs them)

                  Finally the only area i feel theres doubt, is if he was a sole trader, where there is little legal differance between company and employee. But then i don’t know if you can apply the definition of agency, because in a case of doubt, the agency needs to have a department. Which would make no sence for a sole trader

                  So as it stands, i feel like the privacy act is not applicable.

                  Disclaimer: I’m not a laywer

                  • Anita …
                    12 June 2011 at 6:54 pm

                    I have posted the definition of agency at 25.2.1.1.1 – agency includes “any person”

                    Disclaimer: also not a lawyer, but work with information legislation in my job.

                    • Bazar …
                      13 June 2011 at 1:29 am

                      I don’t believe you can just shorten that definition to “any person” as all the context is lost. I still don’t believe he’d fall under that definition of an agency.

                      But i lookedfurther into it and found the definiton had an explict clause that:

                      agency—

                      (a) means any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, and whether in the public sector or the private sector; and, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a department; but

                      (b) does not include— …

                      (xiii) in relation to its news activities, any news medium

                      So even if he was considered an agency all to himself, he’d seem to be exempt as he runs a news medium

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 5:36 am

                      I think I’ve already answered that, but to recap… it would be the most sensible exemption for him to argue applies. To succeed he would need to make two arguments; firstly that whaleoil is a news medium (not anything else like a political advocacy organisation – a blog isn’t automatically a news medium), secondly that the information is held by whaleoil-the-blog not Cameron-Slater-the-political-apparatchik. Both would be fascinating to get decisions on – which is the point of making the request.

            • Mactreb 25.2.1.1.1.2
              12 June 2011 at 10:52 pm

              Anita, you might like to have a closer read of that section:

              2 Interpretation
              (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
              action includes failure to act; and also includes any policy or practice
              agency—
              (a) means any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, and whether in the public sector or the private sector; and, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a department; but
              (b) does not include—
              (xiii) in relation to its news activities, any news medium

              News medium is also defined in s 2 as any agency whose business…consists of a news activity. News activity is also (rather helpfully) defined in s 2

              news activity means—
              (b) the dissemination, to the public or any section of the public, of any article or programme of or concerning—
              (i) news:
              (ii) observations on news:
              (iii) current affairs

              WO would more than likely come under the news media exception.

              • Anita …
                12 June 2011 at 10:56 pm

                I agree the news activity exclusion would be his best bet if he didn’t want to comply, but I’m not sure he’d get it – and it would be very interesting precedent, when is political blogging news and when is it something else (activism, advocacy?). Also he would have to argue that he held is as a news medium (the blog) not as himself, and it would be potentially useful to have him make that argument.

  26. PeteG 26
    12 June 2011 at 4:17 pm

    If what Whale claims he has is anywhere near correct, he will expose not only Labour (already ticked that one) but also National, Maori and the Greens. He says:

    National doesn’t have a clean slate either, nei­ther do the Greens or the Maori party.

    This com­ing week this blog is going to expose a mas­sive rort of tax­payer money. New Zealand polit­i­cal par­ties have hid­den behind a very shabby sys­tem that allows them to use Par­lia­men­tary Ser­vices funds to cam­paign, which is against the rules but a nod here and a wink there means they have got­ten away with murder.

    Just as the parties have cozy arrangements for misusing the MMP list, they fiddle parliamentary services to suit themselves. What else?

    If ever there was a time we needed to shake them out of this lifetime habit of abuse it’s right now.

    I’m trying things and proposing a structure that I think would help force a total rethink of how we do politics. I can do so much but it deserves a lot more than I can manage. It really is time for a revolution in how we do our politics – we don’t need to overthrow anything or change the system, we need to inject a core of different people and different thinking.

    Don’t just revert back the semantics over how you need policies you can’t implement and who’s the most dishonest.

    We need to bloody do something NOW. We need a small focused alternative that will keep the buggers honest and force them to work for us, not themselves and their parties.

    Or is it just back to futile banter as usual?

  27. mikey 27
    12 June 2011 at 4:28 pm

    [Deleted. Sexist abuse…RL]

  28. Michael 28
    12 June 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Nearest police station to Labour HQ is on Victoria Street, next to the Library.

  29. Deb 29
    12 June 2011 at 4:45 pm

    thedoublestandard.org is alive and kicking I see. No parallels with Nicky Hager of course?

    How long will the right be able to continue to get mileage out the continuing hypocrisy of some factions on the left? I guess on analysis that three terms of governance see so much scandal that it is hard to find a point of difference when the “other” side transgresses. What we do have though in this digital age is cached and easily googlable comparisons.

    I wonder when Cam will start the script for his play and the media starts tut-tutting about the new breed of hollow men

    • RedLogix 29.1
      12 June 2011 at 4:54 pm

      If you equating Hagar’s use of emails written by public figures talking about political matters of a high public interest, with a list of donors who had every right to expect some privacy…then you’ve lost me Deb.

  30. mikey 30
    12 June 2011 at 4:54 pm

    [Provocative and deliberate sexist misogyny. Banned for a month. ….RL]

  31. newbie 31
    12 June 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Here’s a nomination for Cameron to fight SBW…

  32. Anita 32
    12 June 2011 at 5:08 pm

    Eddie writes:

    for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.

    This seems like the kind of anti-beneficiary bullshit we expect to hear from the right.

    Are you arguing against the sickness benefit for people with mental illnesses? Arguing that mental illnesses only count if they are by-products of physical illnesses? That the general advice that well regarded advice that people with a mental illness may benefit from physical exercise is wrong? Or proves that mental illnesses are just for lazy malingerers?

    There are many reasons to criticise Cameron Slater, but being on the sickness benefit due to mental illness is the tactics of the ugly right, and the collateral damage to other sickness beneficiaries perpetuated by your post is not something I think any of us would like the left to be associated with.

    • RedLogix 32.1
      12 June 2011 at 5:13 pm

      Anita,

      We’ve had this discussion around Slater before. My response is here.

      • Anita 32.1.1
        12 June 2011 at 5:19 pm

        Your argument appears to be that attacking Slater for being a hypocrite about beneficiaries is reasonable, which seems a fair argument.

        Eddie, however, is not attacking Slater for being a hypocrite, he is attacking him for being a beneficiary due to mental illness. Whatever the argument sounds like in Eddie’s head the way it came out here as ugly beneficiary bashing and spreading the kind of unhealthy discriminatory misunderunderstanding of mental illness that so many people are working so hard to correct.

        • ZeeBop 32.1.1.1
          12 June 2011 at 8:45 pm

          I’m puzzled. I agree with you. But I have a question. If someone has to discuss their incapacity to refute an attack to their character then isn’t that disgraceful for whichever side of politics it is?

          Slater has a right to privacy, and so any attack on any citizen legitimately receiving government income support should be respected. Unfortunately I pretty sure Human Rights Advocates have all such up shop when it comes to such discrimination, another cut back.

          • Anita 32.1.1.1.1
            12 June 2011 at 8:55 pm

            You’re right, it is absolutely disgraceful to require someone to publicly justify their requirement for income support. Income support is the right of everyone here, not just those who meet some public test for worthiness.

    • weka 32.2
      12 June 2011 at 5:14 pm

      Exactly (see my comments above).

    • Eddie 32.3
      12 June 2011 at 9:55 pm

      I’m not anti-beneficiary, Anita. Nothing in what I have written here or elsewhere is anti people with legitimate need getting the benefits they need.

      I expect an apology from you.

  33. kriswgtn 33
    12 June 2011 at 5:48 pm

    If Slater has hacked into the site then he should face the same action as was taken against the following

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/5130034/Suspected-government-site-hackers-arrested

    Theft is theft

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      12 June 2011 at 5:51 pm

      A police investigation needs to occur to discover whether or not Slater and his associates now hold stolen credit card and other information which could be used to commit identity theft and other fraud.

  34. MLC 34
    12 June 2011 at 6:51 pm

    Perhaps they can get the same investigators that did the Brash Hollow men investigation.

  35. Johnno 35
    12 June 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Who edited the promo video on youtube? Someone from the Nat’s Research Unit? It’s not the sort of thing most people do at home.

    • MikeE 35.1
      12 June 2011 at 9:54 pm

      you could whack something like that together in 5 minutes with windows movie maker or imovie … its not exactly hard…

  36. MLC 36
    12 June 2011 at 7:19 pm

    RL, Why are you censoring so many posts? What happened to free,open and honest speech?

    • Colonial Viper 36.1
      12 June 2011 at 7:26 pm

      What happened to smashing down internet trolls ASAP. You comment here, you live by the rules. Pretty simple and pretty even handed from what I have seen.

    • RedLogix 36.2
      12 June 2011 at 7:32 pm

      Censoring and moderation are not the same thing. Anyone expressing ‘free, open and honest speech’ is always welcome to post here. Moderation however is required to prevent the threads from descending into a noxious wasteland.

      Please read the About and the Policy pages for some sense of what is not tolerated.

      And then there is the random factor; sometimes you get booted for being an idiot, sometimes you get lucky.

      • Mactreb 36.2.1
        12 June 2011 at 10:22 pm

        sometimes you get booted for being an idiot

        Sigh, there goes Colonial Viper. A shame, too, his idiocy is often entertaining.

    • Michael 36.3
      12 June 2011 at 8:16 pm

      There blog, there rules. Although The Standard authors always remind me of trained mindless bleating of the Sheep in Animal Farm…

  37. Gus 37
    12 June 2011 at 9:34 pm

    [deleted] when will this shit stop. I now give up on labour. Its truly fucked.

    [A week ban for attempt to name. – Zet]

  38. chris73 38
    12 June 2011 at 9:50 pm

    You leftie loonies on here are a bunch of hypocrites

    I say anything negative about bludgers and I get attacked and yet heres the lefties attacking someone with a mental illness

    I’m constant in my message but you lot are a pack of smarmy two-faced liars

    • Sookie 38.1
      12 June 2011 at 9:59 pm

      They’re attacking the odious Slater because he’s a despicable hypocrite, bashing ‘bludgers’ when he’s a notorious bludger himself. But I don’t really need to point this out, do I? You’re just shit stirring as usual.

  39. infused 39
    12 June 2011 at 9:55 pm

    How was it stolen? Another SQL injection attack? I bet it is… if so, Labours fault.

    • Colonial Viper 39.1
      13 June 2011 at 9:07 am

      Gotta love the Right Wing blame the victim, excuse the crim mentality. Mate you gotta join your local SlutWalk.

      (having said that, time that LAB sharpened up its IT security!)

      • infused 39.1.1
        13 June 2011 at 10:21 pm

        Not at all. If your site is compromised by sql injection, it’s your own fault. Seriously, it’s Web Dev 101.

  40. Sookie 40
    12 June 2011 at 9:57 pm

    I don’t understand what the usual RWNJ’s are gleefully spaffing themselves over. Some nerds hacked Labour’s site. Some Labour dude from Aussie visited a NZ Labour meeting. Labour might have used Parliamentary Services to send a few letters, which other parties do anyway. What exactly is the scandal here? I think you’ll find the public doesn’t give a rats ass about any of this.

    • PeteG 40.1
      12 June 2011 at 10:27 pm

      I think you’ll find that many of the public give an elephant’s arse about abuse of public money by politicians. Even things like “send a few letters, which other parties do anyway”.

      People have had an elephant sized gutsful of politicians arranging things and using public money to suit themselves.

  41. Georgecom 41
    12 June 2011 at 9:58 pm

    I have given money to the Labour Party and if Slater bungs my name on his website I am not that bothered. It’s no great secret.

    Rob

  42. MyHOP 42
    12 June 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Slater is a good christian man – how dare you attack him you nasty godless socialists. Sure he is a [please let’s not get in to personal rumours here – r0b] but he can confess and god will forgive him don’t you know. When he outs innocent people on his blog , he is not a hypocrite he is just doing a gods work.

  43. felix 43
    12 June 2011 at 10:25 pm

    1. There’s plenty to attack Slater on without playing “internet doctor”.

    2. This is all bullshit anyway. Slater and Farrar and the rest have successfully distracted you all with this red herring of a story.

    3. And now the gullible and easily led media are going to be reporting this bollocks tomorrow instead of “John Key borrows 100 million a week to gamble in the money markets”.

    Eyes on the ball, people.

    • mickysavage 43.1
      12 June 2011 at 10:29 pm

      Aye Felix and the last poll saw a significant narrowing in the margin and people seem to be really worried about the budget and the made up numbers.

      Oh look over there …

        • felix 43.1.1.1
          13 June 2011 at 5:11 am

          Yes, precisely Nick. There are more important things to deal with than what Slater’s been up to and whether it’s theft or not.

          • PeteG 43.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2011 at 5:56 am

            Like whether political parties have been stealing resources (Parliamentary Services) off us taxpayers?

            Surely it’s very important that the validity of that accusation should be examined.

            • felix 43.1.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2011 at 8:41 am

              That’s always important and I support all ongoing efforts to make spending accountable.

              However it didn’t suddenly become the most important issue of the day just because Slater wants some attention. There are more important rorts being perpetrated right now.

              For example the govt is borrowing 100 million a week to gamble in the money markets, and using this very borrowing as a justification to sell our energy companies.

              • Nick C …
                13 June 2011 at 11:56 am

                The point is that when National Party information was leaked Irishbill declared: “Focus on what the fact that there is a leak shows about the National Party, not on whether or not the information was stolen”

                Now that Labour Party information has been stolen the line is: “Focus on the fact that there has been a theft, not what it shows about Labours lack of any sort of security”

                [lprent: Links please. As far as I’m aware Irish hasn’t commented particularly on how the information on the legality of obtaining the data in the latter or the former (he has commented on who looked at the data first in another post).

                I cannot find either quote from Irish. Now you may be paraphrasing but you have not declared that you are, and you haven’t provided examples to validate your paraphrase.

                I suspect that you’re simply putting words into IrishBills mouth – in which case you should be very glad I saw it before he did to give you an opportunity to expand more accurately. ]

                • Nick C …
                  13 June 2011 at 4:54 pm

                  Look up a bit Lprent…

                  [lprent: You are aware that when I’m moderating that I don’t see the same view that you do right? That I’m traversing the comment stream by date/time across all threads and posts?

                  I already checked the post content and the comment thread you were in. The post didn’t state anything like that, and Irish wasn’t in the comment thread. I’m not going to do your frigging work for you.

                  A weeks ban for wasting my time by not providing links when asked. I’ll let a single comment through with the relevant links – otherwise it will escalate for an extra two weeks. ]

  44. Brett Dale 44
    12 June 2011 at 10:41 pm

    The left is amazing, if one of your bloggers had this information and if they would do what Slater is going to do, you would make him/her out to be a hero, heck Minto and Locke will be clapping like trained circus seals.

  45. ianmac 45
    12 June 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Wonder if the MSM will actually publish the list of donors? Ethical?
    It would be pretty boring to read the names of say a thousand people or so.

  46. SHG 46
    13 June 2011 at 1:11 am

    for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.

    Greatest Standard post of all time.

  47. MarkM 47
    13 June 2011 at 6:36 am

    *for a sickness beneficiary, Slater’s pretty active, eh? Full-time blogging, breaking into websites, hunting, cycling (well, if you can call only being able to cover 20km in 50 minutes on a brand new racing bike ‘cycling’). Might be time for WINZ to take a closer look at this guy who’s living off the public teat.

    might be time to review all sickness beneficiaries , boxing matches, cycle races , Labour are right in attacking benefit bludgers

  48. chris73 48
    13 June 2011 at 7:04 am

    Slater put it best:

    Wikileaks good
    Whaleleaks bad

    Love to see the lefties in a spin 🙂

  49. ropata 49
    13 June 2011 at 9:03 am

    I suspect that most National ministers are more corrupt than Slater, he’s a useful brownshirt in their assault on NZ values, but the real sociopaths are much more intelligent and don’t allow themselves to become a circus. They just quietly do deals to vastly enrich themselves while we’re all distracted.

    Slater is an immoral fool, but no real danger to the left. He blunders about like a bull in a china shop, the police are distracted while the bank manager embezzles everyone’s life savings.

  50. Share Investor 50
    13 June 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Oh dear, Labour is caught with their pants down again and does the typical thing, blame everyone but themselves. Just stop stealing taxpayer money.

    • MLC 50.1
      13 June 2011 at 4:28 pm

      Why Should we? The Nacts would do it to if they had half a chance.

      • burt 50.1.1
        13 June 2011 at 6:53 pm

        Mummy it’s not fair – they did it too….

        FFS, it’s not about National, it’s about Labour’s classic 3-D policy.

        Deny, Delay and Denigrate.

        Hell we have even had Labour supporters bagging the whale because he’s a beneficiary. Unbelievable.

        • Draco T Bastard 50.1.1.1
          13 June 2011 at 11:14 pm

          Hell we have even had Labour supporters bagging the whale because he’s a beneficiary. Unbelievable.

          Actually, they’re slagging the bene-bashing from the RWNJs.

  51. infused 51
    13 June 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Videos up. Can believe the webdevs were so retarded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AnOAeVaU5xM I thought there would be open dirs, but complete open websites, with sql backups in plain text. wow.

    • vidiot 51.1
      13 June 2011 at 5:20 pm

      Man that’s an absolute shocker – could you make it any easier. Hack my arse, that was all public domain material the way it was served up.

    • lprent 51.2
      13 June 2011 at 6:14 pm

      It was pretty bad. I didn’t expect that they’d have the whole damn structure open. Looks like someone forgot to fix the defaults.

      • Inventory2 51.2.1
        13 June 2011 at 6:41 pm

        There go the allegations of hacking then, eh lprent?

        • Colonial Viper 51.2.1.1
          13 June 2011 at 6:55 pm

          Accessing without authorisation information which was clearly confidential, private and of a politically sensitive nature.

          The fact that this information had been badly stored and safeguarded does not alter the fact that someone took actions to case the system and test it’s vulnerabilities.

          And on finding vulnerabilities, decided to exploit them.

          It’s going to be an interesting few weeks.

          • Anita 51.2.1.1.1
            13 June 2011 at 7:12 pm

            Let us imagine, for a moment, that you are a big anti-music-piracy advocate, you regularly appear in the media arguing for jail terms for CD copying, saying that even format shifting should be illegal. Rumours abound that the music industry pays some of your costs.

            For some time I’ve been trying to prove your hypocrisy, financial links to the music industry, and generally undermine your position. One day I strike lucky, I walk past your home and realise you have left your car on the street with the door part open. I quickly nip into your car, open the glove compartment, and take a series of photos showing your collection of pirated Andrew Lloyd Webber CDs.

            I run home, and post to my blog saying I finally have proof that you are a hypocrite.

            —

            Did I break the law?

            • Eddie 51.2.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2011 at 7:29 pm

              Yes, you did break the law by trespassing and interfering without private property with license from the rightful owner.

              And it’s not analogous. Taking a photo is not the same as copying data. That’s clear in the law. Otherwise there could be no such thing as data theft.

              And the analogy is also stupid in it’s backstory – National/Slater has not taken information that shows Labour to be hypocritical, they’ve taken the private data of people who have contributed to Labour.

              • Anita …
                13 June 2011 at 7:36 pm

                That is not my understanding of the law of trespass. Would you like to try again?

                Taking a photo is exactly the same as copying data – creates a copy without depriving the owner of the original item. Would you like to cite the law which calls copying data “data theft”?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

                  Yes, it’s in a different (i.e. copyright) context but in the software and artistic industries unauthorised data copying is frequently regarded as theft.

                  The unauthorised copying of confidential or sensitive client lists/client information is also often regarded as commercial espionage and can also be considered theft.

                  In none of these cases is the owner of the data actually deprived of the date – but then again, that does not need to happen for the owner of the data to suffer a material loss.

                  • burt …
                    13 June 2011 at 7:43 pm

                    How can it be unauthorised when it was publicly viewable and there were no obvious “do not copy” warnings ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 7:48 pm

                      How can it be unauthorised?

                      Uh, because Whaleoil was not given authorisation to access that information.

                      Information which was clearly confidentially, politically and commercially sensitive.

                    • burt …
                      13 June 2011 at 7:51 pm

                      He didn’t need authorisation to access the information – just a browser ! Good lord CV have you even watched his video ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 7:54 pm

                      hey burt, I accept that he didn’t need authorisation to access that confidential and private individual info through that website.

                      He needed the authorisation to do so legally.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 June 2011 at 7:57 pm

                      burt,

                      So if you accidentally (and foolishly) leave your front door wide open, that makes it ok for me to enter your house, snoop through your wife’s knickers draw, photocopy your business accounts and personal dairy and then I publish this information as loudly as possible in the local paper?

                      So that would be okey dokey with you burt?

                    • burt …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:06 pm

                      RedLogix

                      No I wouldn’t be OK with that. But if I left all that stuff on the floor in the living room while having an open house who would be to blame ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:11 pm

                      When you say “to blame” you mean who would the cops lay charges against: you for having a messy room, or the person who actually took your property?

                      Pretty obvious right.

                      In fact I can see the rationale for the SlutWalk protests coming up here. Indeed, who is to blame for the crime, burt? 🙂

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:23 pm

                      But if I left all that stuff on the floor in the living room while having an open house who would be to blame ?

                      Exactly. An open home is an event when you have explicitly given permission for members of the general public to enter your home. It’s planned and advertised as such. There is a sign out the front advertising the location and time.

                      That is absolutely not the case here. Someone left the front door open accidentally. Slater went snooping (which by itself may not have been a crime) but then he copied stuff that is obviously meant to be private.

                      And when a tradesman is caught sniffing in the panty draws he may not have committed a crime (in that case you have given him explicit permission to be on the premises)… but hell you know he’s a scumbag.

                    • burt …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:25 pm

                      “to blame” – as in who would be responsible for people having access to it.

                      I understand that you don’t want to face it BUT… Labour (or parliamentary services…) are responsible for this data being in the public domain.

                      I know you want to blame anyone but you beloved, and apparently incompetent, Labour party but lets see what happens next….

                      Either Labour remove the info from the living room floor or anyone who sees it there is suddenly called a criminal. What is you pick for that CV?

                    • burt …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:26 pm

                      RedLogix

                      If you can access a directory on a web server then you have permission to do so.

                      The days of thinking putting stuff in obscure locations is sufficient are long gone.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:32 pm

                      Just because a place you’ve found free access to does not have a sign on it saying “Private Keep Out!!” does not mean that it’s automatically ok for you to snoop about, copy whatever you find there and republish it as loudly as possible.

                      You know this already, you’ve said so above.

                      The point is that grown-ups know the difference between say, looking at painting on the wall in a private home they may have entered, and copying business accounts that may have been carelessly left lying around. Slater ain’t a grown up.

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:38 pm

                      RedLogix writes:

                      The point is that grown-ups know the difference between say, looking at painting on the wall in a private home they may have entered, and copying business accounts that may have been carelessly left lying around. Slater ain’t a grown up.

                      Yes yes yes!! 🙂

                      IMO the issue is one of accessing private information – the rest of the noise is just distraction.

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 8:48 pm

                      I agree that is the most likely avenue to get a result. However I also think that if Slater does publish private information then it would be useful for each person affected to seperately lay a complaint with the police because slater is holding personal information that he is not entitled to have and has no permission implied or explicit to hold (as well as to the privacy commission). Labour should do so as well.

                      It is up to the police to decide if there is a criminal charge to be laid based on what he uses the information for. To do this they will have to investigate the complaint. Even if this does not lead to charges or a conviction, it is an extremely uncomfortable position to be in. It will also help with bringing subsequent civil actions

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:01 pm

                      lprent,

                      My guess is that WO won’t publish the details, or at least not in bulk (he may identify individuals where he can argue public interest), simply to avoid that flood of complaints.

                      The fact that he has the names, and has made the threat, is probably enough for him.

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 9:15 pm

                      Yep. I am anticipating a backdown (although he will call it something else) as his lawyer points out the full ramifications.

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 10:06 pm

                      WhaleOil writes (elsewhere):

                      My intention was not to name donors and members, rather to get the Labour party to realise that they had majorly let the side down.

                      I have not published the donors. I may still if Labour continues the fantasy that they were hacked and they are not at fault.

                      I will not however publish full names as I believe it is every citizens right to belong to which ever party they wish.

                      I know that will make a whole bunch of public servants feel a little better, tho the fact the Nats have their names already is bad enough.

                • burt …
                  13 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

                  Anita

                  I was wondering about that as well. Eddie seems to be saying that if I snap a picture of a top secret document sitting in full public view I have broken the law. But I guess that’s how he wants the law to read.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 June 2011 at 7:55 pm

                    If you took the photo with the express intention of obtaining that top secret information for passing on to other parties, then its quite likely you would be charged with treason.

                    Which is of course a capital offence in most parts of the world.

                  • Eddie …
                    13 June 2011 at 9:12 pm

                    No. I’m saying that accessing a computer without authorisation and know that you don’t have it, or being reckless as to whether you have it or not, is illegal.

                    I’ve said nothing about taking pictures of documents. Because we’re not living in a 1930s spy novel.

                • felix …
                  13 June 2011 at 7:46 pm

                  Anita,

                  Not that I think the analogy is necessarily relevant, but is it your contention that it is not illegal to enter someone else’s car? Or house?

                  Because as far as I know it’s called “breaking & entering”.

                  • burt …
                    13 June 2011 at 7:52 pm

                    felix

                    More like shelter from the rain in a bus stop and find something interesting on the walls. The website is a public place. Normal security would have made the bits whale found private but sadly they were all over the front lawn with the advertising billboards.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:01 pm

                      The website was a public portal from which you could access areas where confidential and personal data was stored.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:01 pm

                      The website is a public place.

                      But not the part of it Slater accessed. Clearly Slater went snooping places that were obviously meant to be private.

                    • felix …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:03 pm

                      Hi burt, if you’d bothered to read my reply to Anita you’d have noticed that I wasn’t actually buying the analogy, rather questioning her apparent assertion that entering someone else’s car is not illegal.

                      But thanks anyway.

                  • Roflcopter …
                    13 June 2011 at 7:54 pm

                    He didn’t break anything, and whatever was in the car is still there.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 7:58 pm

                      Hey ROFL just tell the movie industry that you’ll return their DVD’s after you copy them so they will not have lost anything, and see what they have to say to you.

                    • felix …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:00 pm

                      Breaking & entering doesn’t actually require anything to be broken.

                  • Anita …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:04 pm

                    It’s odd, but AFAIK if someone enters your unlocked home, does no damage, commits no crime while inside it, and doesn’t intend to commit a crime when they enter it then they have broken no law.

                    Burglary (a.k.a. breaking and entering) requires intent to commit a crime while inside, or committing a crime while inside.

                    The Trespass Act requires you to be warned off.

                    Weird but true afaik.

                    • Eddie …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:08 pm

                      you’re getting distracted, anita. stick to s252(1)

                    • Vinsin …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:10 pm

                      Anita – By your logic everyone is free to walk into anyone’s home, car, room because they hadn’t been told otherwise? Would you seriously use that as a defence, actually don’t answer the analogy is already to moronic for words.

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 8:17 pm

                      It has been used as a defense. A couple of animal rights people I know have had charges and convictions dismissed against them where they have filmed intensive farming. The police were unable to prove that they caused damage or had any criminal intent.

                      Have a look around the site for posts by rocky. I am sure that she has documented at least one.

                    • lprent …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:12 pm

                      It isn’t that weird A. Imagine that you enter someone’s home to find out if the sound of a trashing body is that of someone dying? Or power people coming to repair a electrical arc after an earthquake.

                      There are all sorts of reasons for people to be on someone elses property without permission that are legitimate. The law reflects that by looking in particular at intent.

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:24 pm

                      Eddie writes:

                      you’re getting distracted, anita. stick to s252(1)

                      Why?

                      1) You are arguing that copying data is “theft of data” and a crime, that is clearly not what s252(1) does. You need to find different legislation.

                      2) As discussed elsewhere in this thread, you need to consider s252(2) alongside s252(1).

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:26 pm

                      Vinsin writes:

                      Anita – By your logic everyone is free to walk into anyone’s home, car, room because they hadn’t been told otherwise? Would you seriously use that as a defence, actually don’t answer the analogy is already to moronic for words.

                      It’s not my logic, it is the Crimes Act and the Trespass Act (both of which I have linked to several times). If you think that’s wrong then go lobby an MP to get them changed.

                • Anne …
                  13 June 2011 at 7:53 pm

                  @ Anita
                  And the analogy is also stupid in it’s backstory – National/Slater has not taken information that shows Labour to be hypocritical, they’ve taken the private data of people who have contributed to Labour.

                  That is the over-riding point which you seem to be ignoring.

                  • Anita …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:29 pm

                    Not ignoring it, no. I have already stated (yesterday even) that the issue here is one of privacy.

                    The whole argument about “taking data” or “theft of data” is completely bogus and a red herring. People need to drop that argument and focus on either the computer access (which I happen to think is not going to meet the test for the crime) or the privacy breach (which might have legs, although I am also not so hopeful).

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:35 pm

                      People need to drop that argument and focus on either the computer access (which I happen to think is not going to meet the test for the crime) or the privacy breach

                      Nah in the final analysis its up to the police prosecutors to decide what charges there are to answer, if any, based on the facts of the case.

                    • burt …
                      13 June 2011 at 8:58 pm

                      CV

                      How hard would whale be laughing if the police say ‘not in the public interest to prosecute’ ?

                    • lprent []
                      13 June 2011 at 9:14 pm

                      Ah, that is not a decision that the police can make when it comes to charging. There are a lot of ways that that they may decide not to bring charges. That is not one of them. That is a matter that the courts will decide.

          • infused 51.2.1.1.2
            13 June 2011 at 10:23 pm

            Except that’s not what happened. It was not a vulnerabilities. Nothing was exploited.

  52. Jum 52
    13 June 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Anyone on that base is there because they believe in a better government than we have now.

  53. burt 53
    13 June 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Just incase anyone believes Eddie that the Nats stole Labour’s data. The whale has a video here showing how easy it was and how you can go and have a look for yourself (no passwords or security hacking required)

    http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/index.php/2011/06/labour-leaks-how-i-did-it/

    Labour should be absolutely ashamed of this situation…

    • Eddie 53.1
      13 June 2011 at 7:32 pm

      I think you need to read the law. http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330430.html#DLM330430

      the question is authorisation. Not ‘hacking’.

      Was National/Slater authorised to take this data? Clearly not as shown by both Labour and National/Slater’s behaviour.

      Labour failing to set its setting properly is no more authorisation for that data to be taken than you forgetting to lock your back door is authorisation for me to come and take your TV.

      • burt 53.1.1
        13 June 2011 at 7:34 pm

        I think Labour need to employ a competent web administrator. Actually, is it Labour or parliamentary services that needs to do the hiring ?

      • burt 53.1.2
        13 June 2011 at 7:37 pm

        Eddie the data was in public view. The argument he wasn’t authorised is like saying the top secret files were on display in the shop window and people who viewed them and took pictures with their phones have broken the law. I’m not a lawyer ( a point I’m sure you will focus on rather than the point I’m making ) but how can you be not authorised to access stuff in full public view?

        • Jum 53.1.2.1
          13 June 2011 at 7:47 pm

          The only evidence showing up with this hacking by National of Labour information is how dirty National is; we knew that already.

          But NAct are worried; Key is a basted turkey and Christmas is coming. My hope is all the people buying the turkey are checking out its use by date. The stuffing is already rank. I hope they didn’t buy one from Crosby or Textor or this new place Slater/Natsville. There have already been Aids scares; just ask the McCully Isles.

          Use by Date is pre-TPPA.

        • Eddie 53.1.2.2
          13 June 2011 at 7:59 pm

          The law is clear:

          “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.”

          National/Slater accessed the info
          They weren’t authorised by the owner of that info
          and their behaviour shows that they knew they weren’t authorised or were reckless as to whether they were authorised. Slater himself has called this ‘secret’ and ‘private’ information. that’s where the unlocked door analogy comes in. you can’t reasonably take an unlocked door as an invitation to enter a house and take what you choose.

          The law is clear. You can’t steal stuff just because people have failed to take adequate attempts to secure it.

          • Colonial Viper 53.1.2.2.1
            13 June 2011 at 8:03 pm

            You mean I have to give back that nicecompetition grade mountain bike I found unlocked outside the dairy?

            What? It was in a public place, and anyone could have taken it.

            I’m sure its not a crime given those factors, are you really sure that it is?

            • burt 53.1.2.2.1.1
              13 June 2011 at 8:08 pm

              Not equivalent CV. Your argument seems to be saying that it would be illegal to take a picture of it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 June 2011 at 8:16 pm

                I guess where exactly it falls will have to be decided off blog then, won’t it. 🙂

            • Anita 53.1.2.2.1.2
              13 June 2011 at 8:14 pm

              a) What burt said.

              b) By taking it you permanently deprived the owner of it – that is what makes it theft.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 June 2011 at 8:22 pm

                The owner of that data (or the people that it pertains to) can suffer a material loss should any copies of that data fall into unauthorised or unintended hands. This is not in question.

                Now, I understand that you are focussing on the legal charge of THEFT so it’s fair that you focus on the definition of that sole crime.

                It may not be the most appropriate charge to bring up of course. Which is one reason police talk to prosecutors.

                By the way you can thieve IP without depriving the owner of a copy of that IP.

                • Anita …
                  13 June 2011 at 10:16 pm

                  Colonial Viper writes:

                  By the way you can thieve IP without depriving the owner of a copy of that IP.

                  It’s too late at night for me to write coherently about IP, and we really need Scott but IP is generally weird cos it’s not about whether or not you have someone else’s IP, it’s about whether you use it. In fact in the case of patents the IP owner publicly discloses it to gain protection from it being used by someone else.

                  Of course I’m about to get told off for derailing the argument or something 🙂

                  • lprent …
                    13 June 2011 at 10:20 pm

                    Just ignore the derailing comments. I checked back on the post earlier and it said stole and thief. M

                    ade talking about theft as being on topic (sorry Eddie – you wrote it for effect – have to suffer the side track). IP falls out of exactly the same principle. But copyright is a closer analogy for IP in this case bearing in mind we are talking about content rather than process.

              • Vinsin …
                13 June 2011 at 8:22 pm

                Well done Anita you’ve managed to derail any coherent logical debate in this thread. I almost forgot that it doesn’t matter if it’s theft or not, it’s a black and white invasion of privacy.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  13 June 2011 at 8:26 pm

                  Anita is about one of the most logical bloggers on these here nets, as it happens.

                  I for one welcome her return greatly.

                  Not that I’m going to read a 300+ comment thread to find out what it’s all about,

                  so what’s the skinny, anything come up that demonstrates WO isn’t a creepy little shit?

                  • lprent …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:38 pm

                    He isn’t little. The rest applies though.

                  • Vinsin …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:43 pm

                    No Pascal’s nothing so far that proves he isn’t a creepy little shit, simply an exchange of semantic arguments based on laws and clumsy emotive writing by myself and others on the site.

                    @ Anita these sentences, “By your logic everyone is free to walk into anyone’s home, car, room because they hadn’t been told otherwise? Would you seriously use that as a defence, actually don’t answer the analogy is already to moronic for words.”

                    Were related to your earlier analogy about the car and the cds, I think your analogy is wrong because as others have said it’s not a close comparison, and I don’t think using that particular defense for your particular analogy would stand up in court.

                    Also the problem I have is with these clumsy analogies that I myself have fallen into the trap of saying when the main issue with WO as I see it is with the invasion of privacy. I cannot find any reason for them to copy the information, cc details and whatever else they grabbed, it’s a black and white invasion of privacy whether or not it was hacked or not is just scenery to a clear cut crime, committed by both Labour un-knowingly and WO knowingly.

                  • Anita …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:56 pm

                    Oh thanks PB 🙂

                    As it happens I’m not sure I’m back. While my health may be up to blogging again at the moment, every time in the past few weeks I’ve half written a post in my head I’ve remember the swipe cards in my hand bag and recognised that I have traded away my ability to speak publicly on some issues. I’m trying to work my way through that atm.

                    WO is a creepy shit, who (again and again) rides roughshod over the privacy of others for his political ends. Nothing really changes, at least we can be grateful that it’s not the privacy of a sexually abused 13 year old this time.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:03 pm

                      Glad to hear about the health, and hoping you can find ways to post about the things you want to post about. If not, post about other things!

                    • lprent …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:10 pm

                      A: good to hear about the health.

                      I know what you mean about swipe cards. One of the reasons that I write quite a lot about science and politics and very very little about computers is because of the pesky contracts I get to sign at each site.

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 11:02 pm

                      Isn’t it bizarre we can only post about the things we don’t actually know anything about? 🙂

                    • lprent …
                      13 June 2011 at 11:34 pm

                      Yep. But the nice thing about it is that I have to learn hellishly fast because of the explicit or implicit restraint of trade. It stops me from boredom.

                • burt …
                  13 June 2011 at 8:37 pm

                  I’m with PB on this one.

          • Anita 53.1.2.2.2
            13 June 2011 at 8:13 pm

            Eddie,

            The crime is about accessing a computer system not accessing data.

            Secondly, you have quoted s252(1) and ignored s252(2) – Slater had authorisation to access that system for one purpose (viewing the nice red website), which means that if he accesses that system for another purpose he is not liable under subsection 1.

            • mickysavage 53.1.2.2.2.1
              13 June 2011 at 9:29 pm

              Hi Anita

              The definitions section (s248) includes data.  Interestingly though the definitions section does not apply to section 252, probably due to oversight.

              The language used is not ideal either and is not web savvy.

              If Slater is right then if someone comes across an obviously crippled website then they are permitted to look at everything.  Comparisons are always dangerous but if you come across a store that has been looted does this mean that you can go inside and presume that you can take whatever you find inside?

              BTW I agree that I should remove my considerations of Slater from discussions about sickness benefit eligibility.

              • Anita …
                13 June 2011 at 9:53 pm

                mickysavage writes:

                The definitions section (s248) includes data. Interestingly though the definitions section does not apply to section 252, probably due to oversight.

                The language used is not ideal either and is not web savvy.

                Yeah, the whole Crimes Involving Computers section does my head in (and I believe the same is true of most people who try to use it). Mostly it doesn’t actually do what it seems to do.

                Comparisons are always dangerous but if you come across a store that has been looted does this mean that you can go inside and presume that you can take whatever you find inside?

                You would be able to photograph the remaining merchandise of a looted grocery store, yes. In general our legislation focuses on deprivation of stuff – if you didn’t prevent the grocery store owner from having the thing then there is little control.

                BTW I agree that I should remove my considerations of Slater from discussions about sickness benefit eligibility.

                Or write a handy post linking to all Slater’s anti-beneficiary comments and all his comments about his own status. I think that would be a useful resource 🙂

      • Roflcopter 53.1.3
        13 June 2011 at 7:38 pm

        So your party will be sending the lawyers after Google, Bing, and just about every other search bot on the planet then?

      • Anita 53.1.4
        13 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

        Eddie,

        I think it would help if you used the word “copied”, rather than “taken” or “stolen”.

        Slater and the Nats did not take anything away from Labour, they made a copy of it – which in no way deprived Labour of their possession.

        s219 of the Crimes Act might help.

        • Eddie 53.1.4.1
          13 June 2011 at 7:45 pm

          you’re just plain wrong, Anita. By your logic, there could be no such thing as theft of data, because it’s all just copies.

          And you’re reading the wrong section of the Act

          http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330430.html#DLM330430

          • Anita 53.1.4.1.1
            13 June 2011 at 7:51 pm

            Asserting that I’m wrong, and quoting a somewhat random section of the Crimes Act doesn’t make me wrong. s252, which you linked to, is about accessing a computer system, it has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothetical “theft of data” crime.

            If you’re going to assert that “theft of data” is a crime, how about providing a link to show that it is?

            • Eddie 53.1.4.1.1.1
              13 June 2011 at 8:10 pm

              anita, what was the data stored on?

              clue: a computer

              • Anita …
                13 June 2011 at 8:22 pm

                I am not saying that unauthorised access to a computer system is not a crime. I am saying that “copying data” is not the same as “theft of data”, and is not (in and of itself) a crime.

                I am not saying that Slater is shiny and clean, I’m suggesting that you correctly identify the alleged crime – it is not theft of data.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 June 2011 at 8:24 pm

                  Anita, this legalese is best left to the prosecutors in their determination on what charge(s) are most appropriate to consider.

                • Eddie …
                  13 June 2011 at 8:25 pm

                  I’ve merely been using the term as a shorthand.

                  Really, Anita, do you see nothing bigger in this issue than petty semantics over whether taking data by illegal accessing a computer can be called ‘theft’ in common parlance?

                  • Anita …
                    13 June 2011 at 8:50 pm

                    I do see bigger issues in this, yes. As I have said many times this is an issue of privacy; although I think there’s also an interesting issue about the impact of having ones political allegiances outed in the current climate, particularly for public servants.

                    As for your “shorthand”, I have politely suggested you stop using it as it’s inaccurate and confusing. If you’re going to accuse someone of a crime it makes sense for it to be the right crime (and even an existing one).

                    Finally, I must admit to being frustrated by the fact that we went round this in intricate detail in 2006 (a time at which I suspect you were clear that copying is not theft).

                    • Eddie …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:15 pm

                      I’m a bit frustrated that you’re now running Slater’s line that this unauthorised access of a computer system that resulted in private material being taken is somehow analgous to the emails and other information that Hager was given by several senior Nats.

                    • SHG …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:28 pm

                      At least Don Brash’s emails weren’t indexed and searchable by Google.

                    • Anita …
                      13 June 2011 at 9:54 pm

                      Eddie,

                      I’m not running that line, there are clear distinctions (in particular the treatment of personal information). It is the same legislation tho – so if it was understood in 2006 I’d’ve hoped it would be understood now.

          • infused 53.1.4.1.2
            13 June 2011 at 10:27 pm

            That’s why copyright and illegal downloading laws are bullshit Eddie.

  54. Inventory2 54
    13 June 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Might be Eddie who gets the lawyer’s letter rather than WO

    • lprent 54.1
      13 June 2011 at 7:43 pm

      Nope that is rather hard to do bearing in mind that there is no known person as Eddie. It is a pseudonym. They would have to send it to The Standard Trust. I would have some fun with it. Bu I suspect no lawyer would be silly enough to write such a letter based on an opinion and the available facts – which are quoted from elsewhere….

      • burt 54.1.1
        13 June 2011 at 7:46 pm

        lprent

        If you know who Eddie is then would you not be breaking the law by pretending you don’t by “have some fun with it” ?

        • Anita 54.1.1.1
          13 June 2011 at 7:54 pm

          burt,

          There is no obligation that I can think of in law that would require any person to redirect a misaddressed letter to the recipient at a different address.

          Now I shall go read the postal legislation I guess, oddly a part of information law I don’t know so I shall consider this work activity I guess 🙂 I shall report back if I find a section which would require lprent to send on mail to “Eddie”.

          • burt 54.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2011 at 7:55 pm

            I’m sure Eddie can find one….

          • lprent 54.1.1.1.2
            13 June 2011 at 8:05 pm

            Can’t imagine any obligation for me to pass it on.

            They could try doing the court route to get us at the trust to give up Eddies details. But that is where it all starts being fun. To do that when Eddie clearly does not wish to be identified will require quite a lot of arguing in front of a judge. I suspect just doing that would require virtually the whole case to be tried right there.

  55. Murray 55
    13 June 2011 at 6:53 pm

    How smart do you muppets think it is to libel a political party during an election year with no evidence whatsoever?

    Do you think it help your agenda to get taken to court and reduced to your component parts as a result of your lying?

    Stuck.on.stupid

    • Jum 55.1
      13 June 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Hey, S.O.S. Murray (Stuck.On.Stupid.Murray)

      ‘Muppets’ That’s a giveaway, John. Or clone of John – no diff.

      I have all the evidence from the previous election sosmurray that apparently, when you clones lied about Labour nothing happened. Now you are suggesting when Labour knows that the information was downloaded to a Nat site and given to Slater that that’s libel? Tui…

  56. felix 56
    13 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Just watched Cameron’s latest video. Hard to see what he’s crowing about.

    I mean the Labour security is non-existent and that needs to be sorted yesterday, but where’s the scandal?

    I thought he said he had all sorts of sensitive info and documents proving corruption. It’s like he thinks the crime is that Labour have some websites.

    Where’s the beef, Cameron?

    All I see is the oldest trick in the liars’ book – claim one thing (“I have evidence of corruption”) then studiously prove another unrelated thing (“I didn’t do any hacking”).

    Now watch all the dullards say “See! He was right all along and he proved it!”

    • Eddie 56.1
      13 June 2011 at 7:46 pm

      yeah, the actual data is nothing, so now he’s crowing about stealing private info because some admin fucked up some security settings.

      It’s pretty pathetic.

    • burt 56.2
      13 June 2011 at 7:48 pm

      See! he was right all along and he proved it!

    • The Voice of Reason 56.3
      13 June 2011 at 7:54 pm

      He claims on the video that he always checks the background of sites he links to on the blog and it was after linking to the ‘lets not’ site that he found the information. Funnily enough, that link was in the first week of May. 6 weeks ago.
       
      Does Cameron seem like the patient type to you? Nah, me neither.
       
      Somebody at C/T’s Wellington office sicked him on to into a few days ago and the video merely shows the process, not the players.

      • Eddie 56.3.1
        13 June 2011 at 8:12 pm

        slater first loaded the page on june 7th, according to the logs labour is sending to people.

        so, your point seems valid, tvor

  57. Deb 57
    13 June 2011 at 7:53 pm

    It is a scandal of enormous proportions and IT people within Labour should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Pragmatically speaking and as thousands of CC details could have been, and possibly have been harvested, anyone who has donated to Labour should check their statements for fraud, immediately notify their banks and replace their cards.

    • Jum 57.1
      13 June 2011 at 7:58 pm

      Deb,
      So what you’re saying is that any information that went to NAct is now going to be used to steal money; so what else is new.

      • Deb 57.1.1
        13 June 2011 at 8:44 pm

        No, what I am saying is that Labour’s backend was apparently so easy to access that it it extremely likely that the CC information was accessed by others prior.

    • Eddie 57.2
      13 June 2011 at 8:17 pm

      no credit card information has been compromised

  58. MLC 58
    13 June 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Next thing burt will be promoting the policies of Dirty Don.

  59. MLC 59
    13 June 2011 at 8:09 pm

    Hey Burt, Give me a hand to empty my commode will you.

    • burt 59.1
      13 June 2011 at 8:36 pm

      MLC

      I was going to but then a Labour party guy grabbed it off me and tipped it all over himself.

  60. burt 60
    13 June 2011 at 9:51 pm

    lprent

    As a tech I’m sure you will understand where I’m coming from…. I just want to jump onto the nearest web server and reset the permissions to allow directory browsing then add an index.html page into that directory with the following;

    <html>
    <head><title>Access Denied!</title></head>
    <body><h1>Access denied</h1><br><br>What do you think this is – a Labour party web site?
    </body></html>

  61. burt 61
    13 June 2011 at 10:05 pm

    lprent

    I’m convinced a forensics of the web setup would be a horrific blow for the people responsible for protecting that information.

    My first question is what possible justification is there for have database backups in a location below the home folder of the web server ?
    (eg: Inside /var/www )

    • lprent 61.1
      13 June 2011 at 11:22 pm

      Oh yeah that site is crap security wise. It has a single failure point, the server index system, which is just silly. Once that was blown then the whole site was wide open. That lack of multiple security redundancy was particularly dumb.

      The SQL backups visible from the web server. Urrggh defeats the whole point of a seperated database.

      The various websites are not using seperate directories with shared cgi directories being virtualized etc and they are not separately authorized users.

      The SQL logins were visible in files as clear text.

      Data like files and temp structures were being stored in the main site area. That is where you use web server write only directories with cgi, dlls, or cron processes to remove them from harms way.

      I would take a bet that I could write and execute files somewhere in ha directory structure. Makes i a hackers dream for a takeover.

      I also suspect that they were using IIS – painful.

      Etc etc.

      Basically they were not thinking paranoid. I don’t do web for a living, I mostly do c++. But this is pretty bad for these days. The real pain is that there are a lot of sites that are like that and I have seen worse from web professionals and local companies.

      I bet that the Nats site would be a bit like that as well.

  62. infused 62
    13 June 2011 at 10:27 pm

    This is a joke. The web server is a *public* web server. The fact you didn’t secure it is your problem. This wouldn’t last very long in court at all.

  63. burt 63
    13 June 2011 at 10:28 pm

    Seriously folks, you don’t need to know much about web servers to stop this sort of thing happening.

    Besides the big issue: There is no obvious reason why anyone should be able to navigate with a browser using port 80 (unencrypted http) access to this sort of information!

    Blocking directory listing access is as easy as adding an index.html page on all major web servers. You don’t need to understand how to set directory permissions. Web servers rely on this ‘feature’ to give you a home page when you just enter the site name, it’s a feature you need to disable in almost all standard setups. It’s almost a dead certainty that a simple “access denied” index.html page as I posted above (in each not for public view folder) is all it would have taken to stop the whale.

    So that’s a simple countermeasure to stop the browser, but it won’t stop the bots. There is a file you add for that as well, it will stop the legit search engines indexing the crap, but it won’t stop malicious snoopers. So we are back to: Why was that information visible (unencrypted) via the browser.

    Who was responsible for the privacy of the members and donors information?

  64. Vincristine 64
    14 June 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Some people on sickness benefits are unemployable. That doesnt mean they lack drive or energy, but they are unable to get it together enough for someone to pay them to do stuff.

    It’s a bit of a low blow bringing in the beneficiary angle. It undermines your argument.

    What he’s done is scummy, but any attention is better than none for Mr Slater. Apparently being a Labour supporter is some sort of crime that must be ‘outed’

    Leave the rest out though. It demeans you too.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.