The plot to hack The Standard

Written By: - Date published: 4:11 pm, May 10th, 2016 - 128 comments
Categories: blogs, Dirty Politics, The Standard - Tags: , , , , ,

As reported by Newshub:

Whale Oil blogger revealed as man behind hack plot

Newshub can reveal controversial right-wing blogger Cameron Slater was at the centre of a plot to hack political website The Standard.

His motivation was to embarrass and undermine Labour leader Andrew Little by unmasking anonymous contributors to the site he claimed were connected to the party.

Slater, who writes the Whale Oil blog, was charged with attempting to procure access to a computer system for a dishonest purpose on December 17 last year. However, court orders prevented the media revealing his identity, detailing the exact charge against him or naming the website involved.

IT consultant Ben Rachinger was charged at the same time, accused of deceiving Slater out of $1000. Suppression orders also meant Newshub couldn’t connect that charge, Slater and The Standard plot that was first revealed on TV3’s The Nation.

Slater sought a court order to keep his name and the details of this case secret forever. However Newshub and others, including the owner of The Standard, fought him in court and won.
…
TV3’s The Nation last year revealed hundreds of encrypted texts between Rachinger and Slater discussing “the mission”. Slater paid a $1000 down payment for the hack. The contract for the cyber break-in was worth a total of $5000 on completion. But the mission was never completed; Rachinger reported the plot to police.

At the time Slater denied any involvement, but has since admitted his role as part of the police diversion scheme that allows some offenders to escape conviction if they admit guilt. …

See also David Fisher in The Herald.

Jessica Williams at The Spinoff doesn’t hold back on the hypocrisy of Slater’s suppression.

128 comments on “The plot to hack The Standard ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ovid 1
    10 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

    The police adult diversion policy is here. Interesting how he qualified for diversion given that he has already been convicted of previous offending – breaching name suppression in 2010

    • mickysavage 1.1
      10 May 2016 at 5:35 pm

      +1

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      10 May 2016 at 6:10 pm

      Yep. Reading that he simply doesn’t qualify.

    • Hanswurst 1.3
      10 May 2016 at 6:13 pm

      The previous conviction doesn’t appear to speak directly against his being granted diversion here, since it is a number of years ago and quite a different matter (both criteria mentioned in the document, although I’ve no idea how they are usually applied). Also, it is possible that it fits the criterion of being an “underlying problem” that may benefit from counselling.

      What interests me is that his offending, at least as far as it has been reported, would seem to meet the majority of the aggravating factors listed, and almost none of the mitigating ones. Also, as linked below, he seems quite happy (as ever) to flout the spirit of a guilty plea by going onto his blog and attempting to mimimise his offending, although it would surprise me if he hadn’t already taken legal advice on what he can afford to publish.

      • lprent 1.3.1
        10 May 2016 at 6:54 pm

        The previous convictions were for exactly the same reason.

        He wanted to boost the page views for his site, and to get some media attention.

        That this required some skill levels that he didn’t have (and that he was incapable of hiring) was the only thing that prevented him from fulfilling it.

        It still caused me a lot of harm. More than week of work in a spare time to check for illegal access and build higher defenses against the higher risk. If that had been for a customer, then it would have been well over ten thousand dollars in charges.

        It is a pretty clear pattern of similar and related offending.

        Quite why the police seemed to think that it was a victimless crime is beyond me. Clearly they don’t value other peoples time.

        • Hanswurst 1.3.1.1
          10 May 2016 at 7:13 pm

          I think we are both of the opinion that his actions are of the type that warrant harsher penalties. I just don’t think it would be that fruitful in the real world arguing that his previous convictions in themselves annull his elligibility for diversion now, since it can plausibly be argued that they were several years ago, and of a different nature. It seems far more pertinent to me that eligibility for diversion requires his claiming full responsibility before the courts, and yet he is now abrogating that responsibility in public. On the other hand, you know the history and the current proceedings much better than I do.

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    10 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

    When you mess up you take the punishment meted out, accept whats going to happen to you and make sure you don’t do it again

    • McFlock 2.1
      10 May 2016 at 5:04 pm

      Which would point to a certain level of integrity and common sense, if you didn’t proceed to twice request the same protection that you violated when it was granted to others.

    • Anno1701 2.2
      10 May 2016 at 5:10 pm

      unless its a debt, then bung your asserts in a trust and laugh at your creditors when they want paying….

      classic !

    • Robert Guyton 2.3
      10 May 2016 at 5:43 pm

      “When you mess up you take the punishment meted out, accept whats going to happen to you and make sure you don’t do it again but only if you get caught” (Fify)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4
      10 May 2016 at 6:56 pm

      Please link to a recent example of someone connected to the New Zealand centre-right living up to that principle.

    • Tricledrown 2.5
      11 May 2016 at 3:41 am

      Perrenial Recidivist.
      Something stinks when the right have all ways been tough on crime.
      I would like to know who in the police organisation made the decision to divert.
      SST where are you.

  3. save nz 3
    10 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

    The question is also, is Slater a middle man, did someone pay Slater to get someone to hack the Standard. And who might that be?

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      10 May 2016 at 4:55 pm

      Slater suggests in his conversations with Ben that he is a middle man.

      Hard to tell if it’s true or just more of his bluster. But given how skint he always seems to be (since he’s always begging for money), it seems unlikely he’d be paying $1k of his own cash.

    • weka 3.2
      10 May 2016 at 4:58 pm

      From what I remember Rachinger said Slater was a go between.

    • Rodel 3.3
      10 May 2016 at 11:40 pm

      I think in a text to Rachinger he referred to his ‘funder’. In the words of BHO ,
      ‘it’s anyone’s guess who she might be.’

    • Rodel 3.4
      10 May 2016 at 11:47 pm

      I think in a text to Rachinger, he referred to his, ‘funder’.
      In the words of BHO, ‘ that’s anyone’s guess who she might be’.

    • joe90 4.1
      10 May 2016 at 4:40 pm

      Alternative link.

      http://archive.is/kidgW

      • Anne 4.1.1
        10 May 2016 at 7:53 pm

        Quote from link:

        Few people will have sat through a 7 hour interview without a break, alone, facing several highly skilled professional interrogators with long backgrounds in New Zealand’s security services, where they hammer you on every detail, repeatedly. Like a criminal in fact.

        That he thinks he was so important. Delusional….

    • Ovid 4.2
      10 May 2016 at 4:40 pm

      From the diversion criteria I mentioned above :

      Accepts responsibility for offence
      The offender must accept full responsibility for the offence by:
      * admitting that they committed the offence
      * showing remorse for their actions, and
      * having intimated (but not entered) a guilty plea to the offence (optional).

      Slater’s statements:

      I did not order the hacking of The Standard blog. … Ben never hacked The Standard, and I never ordered the hack.

      don’t strike me as those of a man accepting responsibility.

      • Hanswurst 4.2.1
        10 May 2016 at 6:21 pm

        True. He states that he was guilty of “attempting to access a computer for a dishonest purpose”. His intimations of extreme emotional stress and falling victim to subterfuge, as well as the claim that he “never ordered the hack”, seem to be denying full responsibility for “attempting to access a computer for a disonest purpose”. Accepting full responsibility means saying, “I attempted to access a computer for a dishonest purpose and am fully responsible for that attempt”. Anything short of that doesn’t qualify, surely?

        Equally, if he feels that his admission of guilt is only pro forma, and he is not guilty of any “real” crime, he should either plead guilty and face the consequences of conviction (which will presumably be minimal if the court agrees) or plead not guilty and argue his case for that before the court. He appears to be trying to have his cake and eat it too. The purposes of diversion are stated to be rehabilitation, i. e. for improving the behaviour of individuals who have committed a real misdemeanour requiring personal correction (which Slater appears to deny), or for giving first-time offenders a second chance (he isn’t a first-time offender). He really seems to be undermining his eligibility at the moment.

        • lprent 4.2.1.1
          10 May 2016 at 7:00 pm

          He was charged under section 311 of the Crimes Act for trying to procure an offense under s 249(2)

          311 Attempt to commit or procure commission of offence

          (1) Every one who attempts to commit any offence in respect of which no punishment for the attempt is expressly prescribed by this Act or by some other enactment is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years if the maximum punishment for that offence is imprisonment for life, and in any other case is liable to not more than half the maximum punishment to which he or she would have been liable if he or she had committed that offence.

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

          He was clearly guilty by his own admission in court and in his statements of trying to procure :-

          249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
          (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
          (a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
          (b) to cause loss to any other person.

          • Sacha 4.2.1.1.1
            10 May 2016 at 7:27 pm

            Yet now that he has hoodwinked the court and cops into deploying the wet bus ticket and letting him off, the cowardly scumbag is claiming he thought he was buying information already procured rather than inciting its procurement. So why not plead ‘not guilty’?

    • Richardrawshark 4.3
      10 May 2016 at 4:43 pm

      listen enough, the mere linking to,, he that shall remain nameless, and his .err site, is a no no. please remove it. Before it spreads like a virus.

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    10 May 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Thanks for the effort you put into this, lprent, and friends of The Standard.

    And I do appreciate that Rachinger went to the police, eventually.

    • weka 5.1
      10 May 2016 at 5:02 pm

      Thanks from me too. I’m guessing more effort was involved than is immediately obvious.

    • lprent 5.2
      10 May 2016 at 7:06 pm

      I will be going along to support Rachinger.

      I really wasn’t aware that there were any arseholes around willing to pay for trying to hack into my home computer.

      It wouldn’t have been much of a problem for The Standard apart from the time if they trashed it. The paranoid fantasies of that spectacular idiot Cameron Slater that MPs post on here anonymously was just strange.

      However my server contains a lot of material from decades of volunteer work and working with others on their projects. Not to mention my personal email system, photos, legal documents, and god knows what else.

      Cameron Slater is the kind of arsehole who’d take a great deal of pleasure in spinning that. Just look at what he did to Matt Blomfield when he was probably paid to trash him using his hard disk.

      • McFlock 5.2.1
        10 May 2016 at 8:59 pm

        Rachinger’s charged with theft by deception.

        Silly bugger time: surely the deception was that he promised to commit a crime in exchange for money – but if contracts to do illegal acts aren’t binding, so legally Slater only paid the cash on the off chance that an illegal act might happen. If not, does slater get a refund?

  6. Meany Beany 6
    10 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

    Unbelievable hypocrisy!

  7. Repateet 7
    10 May 2016 at 4:41 pm

    If it were someone else, particularly if of another political persuasion, Slater for the rest of his life would refer to the person as a ‘criminal”. Probably enriched with “that low life leftist scum” criminal.

  8. Nessalt 8
    10 May 2016 at 4:42 pm

    lol, did the [deleted] think that would fly?

    Coincedentally, he slowed linking to you as examples of idiocy around the time this happened IIR

    [ Yawn. Think about your put downs. Cheers] – Bill

  9. save nz 9
    10 May 2016 at 4:50 pm

    If you are the son of a National party, you get off even if you are a recidivist offender and offer zero remorse.

    Slater should be checking out Serco conditions personally.

    In fact Julie Christie could make a reality TV version of it!

  10. Rodel 10
    10 May 2016 at 5:00 pm

    When asked about his relationship with Mr Slater the Prime Minister said..’Panda’s coming soon..look!’

  11. Allan Rattee 11
    10 May 2016 at 5:01 pm

    This surely qualifies as “Hypocrit of The Year” for the Guiness Book of Records???

    • NZJester 11.1
      10 May 2016 at 6:15 pm

      I think he is in the running for “Hypocrit of The Year”, but his good old txting buddy might take that crown from him after all these panama paper dumps are properly looked at!

  12. weka 12
    10 May 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Have I got this right? The police laid charges against Slater and Rachinger without actually talking to anyone at The Standard Trust?

  13. McFlock 13
    10 May 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Should have paid him via an offshore trust.

  14. Michael 14
    10 May 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Woooooooow.

  15. adam 15
    10 May 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Silly question, but BLiP as the master of keeping good records.

    Is there enough to make a list of Slater’s criminal behaviour?

    Also another silly Question – Lprent can you now do a private prosecution for damages?

  16. Et Tu Brute 16
    10 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

    What is the difference between Cameron Slater and the ghost backers behind Rawshark? Cameron Slater got caught. Rawshark on the other hand got the hacked information and it became a matter of public interest. If Slater had got the information he was looking for, if it ever existed, it would also have been public interest. Surely the judge saw that when sentencing as well.

    • weka 16.1
      10 May 2016 at 5:33 pm

      Who are the ghost backers behind Rawshark? I was under the impression they acted from their own intiative.

      How is the identity of pseudonymous bloggers a matter of public interest?

      “Surely the judge saw that when sentencing as well.”

      You just made that up right?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2
      10 May 2016 at 6:30 pm

      Rawshark has “ghost backers”? Via their zero-rated trust account?

    • Hanswurst 16.3
      10 May 2016 at 6:31 pm

      If there were something improper about the identities of those running or authoring on The Standard, then it may be of public interest, depending on whether those people were public figures etc.. However, seeing as Mr. Slater doesn’t have that information, or, apparently, any tangible grounds to believe that it exists, there can’t be any assumption of public interest.

    • Macro 16.4
      10 May 2016 at 6:49 pm

      If Slater had got the information he was looking for, if it ever existed, it would also have been public interest.

      Anyone with half a brain would know that that assumption is flat wrong. So what the idiot was looking for never existed in the first place. Only a rwn could even make that assumption because they think that everyone else behaves as they do.

    • lprent 16.5
      10 May 2016 at 7:24 pm

      What is the difference between Cameron Slater and the ghost backers behind Rawshark?

      You appear to be a simpleton in your approach towards how you think about computer systems.

      Everything I have seen from the way from what is known about how they got in to how they trashed the site before leaving indicates that they were just amateurs pissed off at an arsehole.

      Anyone who was a professional would have left without a trace after grabbing the data that they wanted, and after setting up a continuing tap into the system.

      Think about it. What would any hypothetical backer have wanted. Continued access over time so that they could glean everything.

      At worst if they wanted to cause the maximum of torture, they would have left the system setting it up so that they could eliminate all backups over time. If they really wanted to get nasty they would have caused the system to have an increasing crescendo of failures before zeroing out the media and the backups media. Or started impersonating Cameron to his ‘friends’. Or even better flogged the intellectual property of the site on a new location in a hard to stop location and turned it into a Winston Peters fan site.

      I should point out that it is a good thing that old very experienced programmers are law abiding.

    • lprent 16.6
      10 May 2016 at 7:29 pm

      Surely the judge saw that when sentencing as well.

      No judge sentenced. The police offered diversion before it went before a court while making damn sure that neither I, not the trust found out it had been offered.

      It makes it hard to object when the police silence all trace of the crime going to court.

      I have to wonder who would have the influence to get the police to do that? A quiet word from a incoming minister of police perhaps?

      • Anne 16.6.1
        10 May 2016 at 7:33 pm

        A quiet word from a incoming minister of police perhaps?

        😎

      • Sacha 16.6.2
        10 May 2016 at 7:52 pm

        Recalling how fast the popo were to order a raid on Hager overseen by their deputy commissioner, it wouldn’t necessarily require Ministerial involvement. The boys just seem to love protecting the establishment, even black/blue sheep like whaleoik.

  17. Scott Poynting 17
    10 May 2016 at 6:29 pm

    ‘it appears that [name] seems to want to enjoy academic freedom of
    expression but wants to restrict the freedom of expression of a media outlet and journalist’ (sic). — Cameron Slater, 5 December 2015.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
      10 May 2016 at 6:33 pm

      Is there a universe where Mr. Slater’s public statements can support their own weight?

  18. Matthew Hooton 18
    10 May 2016 at 6:53 pm

    I think it is important to remember that Slater did not in fact hack The Standard while Nicky Hager’s criminal friends did in fact hack him.

    [lprent: You pretentious fuckwit. The test in the law about victims is the amount of harm. It cost me more than a week of very hard work.

    Bloody Cameron even with his pathetic skill levels was up after a couple of days after his hack because he was able to pay someone (with his sleazy earned cash – which you appear to have facilitated) competent to do it and because it was obvious what had happened.

    It is a lot harder looking for something that may have happened.

    Banned permanently. ]

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 18.1
      10 May 2016 at 7:15 pm

      Also: no criticism here of whoever hacked Mossac Fonseca.

      [lprent: Banned permanently also. I rather think that I am a bit angry and intolerant today. I really don’t like the idea of having someone trying to pay another to commit a offence on my personal computer.

      And repeated false equivalences piss me off.

      As far as I am concerned that is an order of magnitude more effensive to the public good than simply deciding to whistle blow on your boss which is what appears to be. ]

      • stunnedmullet 18.1.1
        10 May 2016 at 9:07 pm

        Shouldn’t that be an offence…………..won’t anyone think of the n’s !!!!

        • lprent 18.1.1.1
          10 May 2016 at 9:19 pm

          Shouldn’t that be an offence.

          As I understand it, it is generally not unless it involves theft or fraud of some kind or required access that you weren’t granted. It is however generally a civil offence.

          For instance in NZ In the Crimes act.

          252 Accessing computer system without authorisation

          (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.
          (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.

          My bold.

    • Hanswurst 18.2
      10 May 2016 at 7:17 pm

      It isn’t important to remember that until you can claim a public interest in the information Slater hoped to obtain about The Standard. Until then, there is no equivalence between the two.

    • Sacha 18.3
      10 May 2016 at 7:19 pm

      ‘Friends’ is a nice try. Did you and whaleoik swap lines about how to spin this?

      • weka 18.3.1
        10 May 2016 at 7:26 pm

        +1

        And Slater only didn’t hack The Standard because of incompetency. It’s not like he is more virtuous because of that.

        • Sacha 18.3.1.1
          10 May 2016 at 9:07 pm

          Poor slob has probably spent his whole life commuting duncery into victimhood. A whining alchemist, if you will.

    • Anne 18.4
      10 May 2016 at 7:24 pm

      No, he hacked into the Labour Party’s computers instead. Don’t give a stuff about ass-legal technicalities about whether it was a hack or not. His intention was to gain entrance to Labour’s membership and supporter files with a view to publishing names and any other material he could twist and spin for political purposes. He would also have been able to bully, intimidate and slander individuals in the name of “Dirty Politics”. Pity his lawyer warned him of the consequences.

      • infused 18.4.1
        10 May 2016 at 8:02 pm

        yeah, we’ve done this hacked in to labour party website thing to death. next time set an .htaccess file and don’t leave your not so public files on a public web server.

        • Draco T Bastard 18.4.1.1
          10 May 2016 at 9:30 pm

          And you’re still not accepting that what Slater did was wrong and illegal.

        • Johan 18.4.1.2
          11 May 2016 at 4:17 am

          To infused:
          Another go at back tracking and avoiding to take responsibilities, is typical of RWNJ;-)))

        • Tricledrown 18.4.1.3
          11 May 2016 at 4:49 am

          Confused.your honor the door was wide open so I just went in and took what I wanted.
          Desperate logic.

    • Wainwright 18.5
      10 May 2016 at 7:30 pm

      Chop chop Nicky.

      • Gangnam Style 18.5.1
        10 May 2016 at 7:36 pm

        I think its important to remember that Wainwright, Hooton was quite happy to pass on Hagers personal information to his ‘criminal friends’. Despicable, cowardly & disgraceful.

  19. Rosemary McDonald 19
    10 May 2016 at 7:59 pm

    I can’t see this posted already…but it really is a gem

    classic Geddis.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/time-which-sees-all-things-has-found-you-out

    “But what really, really, really provides the bright red cherry of irony on top of this delicious confection of egomaniacal delusions of being able to engage in House-of-Cards-style chicanery is the fact that the blogger who used to be semi-famous (Mr Salter, I believe) sought to have his involvement in this escapade suppressed by the Courts. Yes, the same Mr Satler who pursued a wonky jihad in opposition to the very concept of name suppression went in front of the District Court and had the gall, the sheer bare-faced effrontery, to ask that he be given the protection of the very laws he had campaigned so hard to have abolished.”

    …click on the ‘cherry of irony’ link for a Morissette update.

  20. Myrtle 20
    10 May 2016 at 8:11 pm

    I think that the National party and their team have some pretty smart hangers-on, but in the pond life of NZ politics this man is just a nasty bloated bottom feeder…

    … In my opinion.

  21. Pete 21
    10 May 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Are you seriously banning anyone who raises a discenting opinion

    [lprent: Nope. If you look carefully at what both of them were doing is that they were using the ‘false equivalence’ technique. That isn’t an argument because neither of them gave ANY argument to support the equivalence. That was outright trolling – specifically astro turfing a PR line.

    Under most circumstances if I’d seen it, and because of their long history here, I’d have just chastised them in a comment or a note or a short ban and they would stop using the technique for a few weeks.

    Today I was irritated by the subject because it is my damn home computer!, have a nasty throat cold, and have gotten impatient with them using that particular technique.

    Basically when people want to skirt the policy, they take their chances with whatever mood the moderators are in. In this case me. If they’d have been lucky another mod would have given them a warning or a ban, and I would have been unlikely to extend it.

    I am surprised with Hooton. While Gormless has hit some long bans over the years, Matthew is usually smarter than getting to the point where I can moderate him. I guess he decided to stake access for his friend and comrade. ]

    • Robert Guyton 21.1
      10 May 2016 at 9:03 pm

      Elegant application of the “silencer”, lprent. I commend you.

    • stunnedmullet 21.2
      10 May 2016 at 9:09 pm

      it’s OK to ban them as neither Matthew or Gormy are women……………or are they ?

    • John shears 21.3
      10 May 2016 at 10:49 pm

      I wish we had alligators in NZ so that I could get them to cry for Hoots & Gormy
      and there wouldn’t be any tears. Great to see the back of them.
      Go The Prent

    • Reddelusion 21.4
      11 May 2016 at 9:22 am

      Can I start a bring back hoots campaign, hopefully more successful than bring back Buck Agree why you are pissed LPrent but Matthew does add to the site, it will be lesser without him

      • One Anonymous Bloke 21.4.1
        11 May 2016 at 9:28 am

        There’ll probably be some sort of general amnesty at some future time. Hooton adds little of value other than the example he provides of yet another right wing Wormtongue.

      • John shears 21.4.2
        11 May 2016 at 9:32 am

        Reddelusion,
        Not in my opinion Hooter is a constant negative contributor along with his mates.
        Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

        • Reddelusion 21.4.2.1
          11 May 2016 at 10:02 am

          he argues the negative to the prevailing narrative on this site I agree but that makes the site richer and while I know this is not a prime reason for site but also makes it more entertaining, be verybdry if it was just one big love fest and every one agreeing with each other Saying that I some times think there is more animosity between some of the lefties on this site than the so called RWNJ

    • Et Tu Brute 21.5
      11 May 2016 at 9:39 am

      I’m not banned [yet] and I have sympathy for Cameron in this instance. He was under a lot of pressure, had just had his own systems hacked and published for the world to see, and he was trying to fight back and gain some tactical awareness. People make mistakes and I find the law in these cases is more a technicality I don’t have a lot of respect for.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 21.5.1
        11 May 2016 at 9:47 am

        Fight back

        Nah, you don't get to run that line: if someone attacks me and I run across the street and punch a third party how is that "fighting back"? He's shown zero awareness of his crime, and I hope the diversion order is overturned. He belongs behind bars.

        • Et Tu Brute 21.5.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 10:16 am

          I said he needed to gain “some tactical awareness”. How do you know the person across the street is really a “third party” especially if with the waves breaking over you there is the appearance of a wider conspiracy. I’m not saying The Standard was involved at all. But there is always the ‘fog of war’ in these cases.

          • Doloras 21.5.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 11:02 am

            “Appearance of a wider conspiracy”? Only in Slater’s paranoid delusions. Are you saying that I should be allowed to break into your garage, if a voice in my head told me that the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion were meeting in there to plan to troll me on Twitter?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.5.1.1.2
            11 May 2016 at 11:06 am

            The fog of delusion. In what universe is flailing a tactic? In what universe is he charged with administering justice?

            You’re making excuses for a delusional and, assuming he isn’t lying when he describes his mental condition, quite sick man. In doing so, you encourage and enable his self-destructive and often criminal behaviour.

            Classy.

  22. georgecom 22
    10 May 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Poor old Cameron Slater.

    It’s never his fault.
    Someone else is always to blame.

    How dare some criminal apply for name suppression.
    But, um, it’s ok for him.

    How dare someone hack details from his blog.
    But all fine for him to do so.

    Poor old Cameron.
    Never his fault.

  23. Pete george 23
    10 May 2016 at 9:42 pm

    Felix Geiringer @BarristerNZ

    1. Before offering diversion, the Police MUST consult the victim. In this case they did not even tell the victim there had been an arrest.

    2. Reparation is one of the two primary purposes of the scheme. In this case, Slater was not required to do anything by way of reparation.

    3. Diversion is generally only offered to first time offenders but http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10673417

    4. Diversion is only offered for minor offending. In Hager case, Manukau District Manager described offences under this section as serious.

    5. To qualify, Slater had to admit responsibility and show remorse. His media statement claims he has never done so and still does not.

    6. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where the “offender refuses to identify co-offenders”. Who was Slater’s mysterious “funder”?

    7. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where offender was the organiser. Eg, the offender was soliciting others to commit crime.

    I’ve run out of steam. There are probably more.

    • Draco T Bastard 23.1
      10 May 2016 at 10:11 pm

      In other words there was no way that Slater qualified for diversion and so we should be looking for the police corruption that gave it to him.

    • mpledger 23.2
      11 May 2016 at 8:53 am

      I have no clue about the law but wouldn’t the Court take this as being incredibly offensive to itself. Courts don’t like being hoodwinked and take extreme offense.

  24. WILD KATIPO 24
    10 May 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Stupid is as stupid does…

    Bon Voyage,

    Mon Petite Sasquatch Slater…

  25. Pete 25
    10 May 2016 at 10:27 pm

    So can someone please tell me why hacking by rawshark is OK and by John Doe but Walters ham fisted attempt is worthy of such odium

    • Draco T Bastard 25.1
      10 May 2016 at 10:40 pm

      Public interest but as you’re obviously a RWNJ trying to divert the thread/post I doubt that you’ll accept that.

      • Pete 25.1.1
        11 May 2016 at 6:34 am

        Wow two questions and I’m
        A right wing nut job

        • framu 25.1.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 7:55 am

          when you use an all to common argument that has been used time and again, and explained why its wrong time and again, people will make assumptions about your intent

        • Draco T Bastard 25.1.1.2
          11 May 2016 at 10:58 am

          When they’re the same two questions that have been asked and answered ever since Dirty Politics came out showing how corrupt National actually are, yes.

    • lprent 25.2
      10 May 2016 at 11:51 pm

      The point is that Rawshark would be charged and convicted if they were caught and the police had sufficient evidence. As they should be if they intruded as they claim. That is why we have sections 249 and 252 in the Crimes Act.

      John Doe is probably unlikely to face criminal charges, because so far it looks like an inside job (how else do you get a couple of terabytes of data without being obvious). However I suspect that Mossack Fonseca could probably have some pretty good civil claims.

      And for the idiots who go on about “receiving” by Hager, there are way too many defences. For instance the Evidence Act with respect to journalists and public interest. That it was in fact a copy of data rather than the original. After all both of those were used by Slater – so the must be legitimate right?

      Just like his position that name suppression should be granted in only the most onerous circumstances – ones far greater than he was in.

      Hypocrites obviously are always right. After all just look at John key..

      • pete 25.2.1
        11 May 2016 at 10:30 am

        fair comment
        if only others here were willing to enter actual debate
        without discenting voices this becomes a fan site and a lot less interesting to read

    • Reddelusion 25.3
      11 May 2016 at 9:24 am

      Two wrongs don’t make a right, hopefully they do the lot of them

    • Jack Ramaka 25.4
      11 May 2016 at 9:42 am

      Didn’t Slater and National hack the Labour Party website?

  26. Pete 26
    10 May 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Sorry slaters effing autocorrect

  27. RRM 27
    10 May 2016 at 11:41 pm

    It’s “public interest” when the left does it pete.

    • Tricledrown 27.1
      11 May 2016 at 4:59 am

      Who said it was the left RRM it was a pissed of West Coast friend of the young Driver who died in a car accident.
      Slater a Recidivist hypocrite may have a right to complain about driver behaviour but he can’t help himself his comments were way over the top, he is out of control.
      Maybe the judge went lightly on him because he can:t control himself with his mental health issues.
      Its probably the final warning.

    • Gangnam Style 27.2
      11 May 2016 at 5:21 am

      Knowing who I am in real life ain’t public interest, whereas PMs office giving top secret briefings to dumbass right wing blogger is public interest. See the difference?

      • Pete 27.2.1
        11 May 2016 at 6:48 am

        But if you were working in the labour leaders office or similar position would that be comparable to the relationships uncovered in dirty politics

        • framu 27.2.1.1
          11 May 2016 at 8:00 am

          it would be comparable in the link and the link only

          what was going on in dirty politics was nothing even remotely close to the possibility of a labour staffer commenting on a blog using an online name.

          you sure your not a RWNJ? – your using the exact same set of arguments

          • Pete 27.2.1.1.1
            11 May 2016 at 8:46 am

            My politics are rightish but I’m genuinely interested in debate. This country will never get anywhere if the right and left go at each other like rabid dogs. So far here I’m not seeing debate any more useful than at whale oil , people are just calling names

            • One Anonymous Bloke 27.2.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2016 at 9:31 am

              Here’s an idea: why don’t you on the right stop telling so many lies, and stop destroying lives, and stop whining about having to obey the law at tax time, and stop paying lip service to personal responsibility, and you won’t earn so much contempt.

              • pete …
                11 May 2016 at 9:51 am

                im pretty certain i dont do any of those things and i fail to see how this post is helping with the debate
                your contempt for me seems merely based on mystated position on the political spectrum
                i am genuinely unlikeable in real life but you didnt know that so what was the basis for your attack

                • ropata …
                  12 May 2016 at 11:06 pm

                  Maybe we need an index to RW bullshit so when someone regurgitates “Slater hacking TS” = “Rawshark hacking WO” we can just refer them to RWBS #123

            • framu 27.2.1.1.1.2
              11 May 2016 at 10:23 am

              fair enough pete – i will take that on faith and not call you names

              however – dont be surprised when people get a bit snarky at you when you use the exact same arguments that have been seen over and over again for years now.

              sure you might not be aware of that – but that will be why people are quick to react. It gets boring rebutting the same incorrect points over and over again.

              1) rawshark and john doe exposed high level corruption (or the possibility there of) – the publishing of such info is defended in law.
              Slater didnt – he went on a witch hunt for his or his backers, own ends. Its pretty fair to say based on patterns of behaviour, that he had his and his backers interests as the MO – not the public interest.

              2) Dirty politics was about an entire machine whos sole purpose was to launch covert attacks against anyone who dared say anything against the nats, while keeping the PMs hands clean.
              It wasnt about public attacks via normal media channels where the person making the claim is doing it publicly and it wasnt about MPs giving tips or info to journos as they have done since the year dot.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 27.2.1.2
          11 May 2016 at 8:04 am

          It would be up to you to draw the comparison. Good luck comparing apples with dogshit.

    • Draco T Bastard 27.3
      11 May 2016 at 10:55 am

      No, it’s public interest when the result shows a crime/immoral behaviour being perpetrated upon the public. That’s what both Rawshark and John Doe have shown – crimes committed against the public.

  28. Ben 28
    11 May 2016 at 8:19 am

    So Little has stated that Labour has nothing to do with The Standard. Does he realise that Labour staff have written for The Standard?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1
      11 May 2016 at 8:46 am

      Listen to Morning Report: Lprent answers your innocent and completely sincere curiosity.

  29. Joe Jones 29
    11 May 2016 at 8:46 am

    I have no sympathy for the political views of the standard, but as an IT professional I am disturbed at the leniency of the sentence. Computer crime is vandalism and malicious damage and there needs to be tougher repercussions.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 29.1
      11 May 2016 at 8:53 am

      There won’t be, because Slater is protected by his corrupt association with the National Party. Just remember that when you tick the box next year.

  30. Jack Ramaka 30
    11 May 2016 at 9:39 am

    Slater was successful in hacking into the Labour Party website with his National Party colleagues however nothing was actually done about it and no investigations were carried out by the Police, however they were extrememly over zealous when it came to Bradley Ambrose and Nicky Hagar, which goes to show we are living in a Police State?

    • Smilin 30.1
      11 May 2016 at 3:52 pm

      Thats the appalling level we have sunk to in politics in this country
      When little fw Key is able to use public office as the protector of his interests and not the nation then we have a serious problem .
      It was tried in 1951 and look what happened now all Key has to do is bugger off overseas to his mates Cameron Obama and Turnbull and its all over
      Key should be out on Dirty Politics alone but what a sad little country we have become