The silence of the poodles

Written By: r0b - Date published: 8:31 am, June 15th, 2011 - 87 comments
Categories: blogs, dpf, Ethics, national, Spying - Tags: cameron slater, dirty tricks

National’s first dirty tricks operation of the 2011 election campaign has ended in an embarrassing own goal.

Cameron Slater claimed to have all sorts of “top secret political information” that he was going to “release”. In the end all that appeared was a boring set of meeting minutes that was about as politically explosive as play dough. Just as Eddie predicted it was all:

… one of his conspiracy theories -you know, the ones he runs every couple of months that never go anywhere.

Slater also had a list of individuals who had made donations to Labour. But once the IP records identified the National Party head office as the original source of the data access, the game changed suddenly. Slater’s repeated threats and deadlines came to nothing, as the thoroughly implicated Nats reigned in their pet blogger. Very wise decisions all round, neither Slater nor the Nats needed the legal liability that maliciously publishing a list of innocent private individuals would have incurred. So a grubby and amoral little operation ended in silence.

The other voice notably missing in action over the last few days has been the voice of DPF’s moral outrage. As the Nats’ primary blogger DPF was thoroughly “outraged” at the use of the Hollow Men emails (actively leaked by National insiders), and thoroughly “outraged” at the use of conversations recorded at the Nats’ 2008 conference, but strangely OK with (indeed encouraging of) the access of obviously confidential information on Labour servers. More than a few commenters at Kiwiblog (and Dimpost) have received very curt replies from DPF when pointing out his oddly selective sense of moral outrage. Between Slater and Farrar, if they ever make a movie of this affair, perhaps they can call it “The silence of the poodles”.

So fortunately on this occasion a National Party dirty tricks operation was nipped in the bud. The ineptitude of their head office (leaving their fingerprints all over the data access) meant that they couldn’t hide behind one of their blogging fronts as usual. But it’s just the beginning of the campaign, they’ll be back with more of the same. Because the last thing National wants is an election campaign focused on the issues.

87 comments on “The silence of the poodles ”

Comments are now closed

JustMal 1

15 June 2011 at 9:24 am

Oh for gods sakes STFU! Just admit this was caused by about as stupid a cock up as anyone who might call themselves a webmaster (but really shouldnt) could make and move on. The rhetoric from the standard that this is some campaign by NACT is just making you guys look immature and one of the reasons people are turning off labour. Stop trying to make a conspiracy out of a bowl of soup. Take it on the chin, apologise, grow some nads and move on.
- r0b 1.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:33 am
  
  Tell you what JM – don’t like it, don’t read it!
  
  But if you do read it, follow the link on National’s dirty tricks methods. Read it, and in particular ponder the last sentence:
  
  “But the whole system depends on you not knowing.”
  
  We’re here to make sure that people know.
  - Inventory2 1.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 5:51 pm
    
    Like John Pagani is objective. FFS; the previous administration wrote the manual on dirty tricks!
    - Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 5:58 pm
      
      The Clark Government succumbed to the National/Crosby Textor meme machine.
      
      Too bad meme machines have been found unable to actually govern a country though eh.
Jimmie 2

15 June 2011 at 9:32 am

To be honest Rob, you would do more good for the Labour cause if you asked a few questions about how the data was left open & on line in the first place? Fomenting stuff about nasty National Party dirty tricks is putting a plaster over the weeping sore which needs to be addressed.

Quite simply the Labour admin folk were completely irresponsible with their party’s information and cavalier with their supporters financial/contact information.

Instead of castigating Slater for exposing this you should be encouraging the Labour executive to inquire about what went wrong and how to stop it happening in the future – if this means incompetence needs to be removed then so be it.

If I was a labour supporter and wanted to donate $50 or $100 towards the upcoming election how could I be confident that I could do so securely knowing that the same mediocre IT folk who caused this damaging security lapse are still in charge of securing any future transactions?

This really needs sorting otherwise labour will need to go back to passing round plastic buckets at public meetings to get any $$ coming in – 18000 supporters are a lot of folk to piss off.
- r0b 2.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:40 am
  
  To be honest Rob
  
  Thanks for your concern Jimmie!
  
  you would do more good for the Labour cause if you asked a few questions about how the data was left open & on line in the first place?
  
  All done and dusted long ago.
  
  Fomenting stuff about nasty National Party dirty tricks
  
  See my reply 1.1. above.
- The Voice of Reason 2.2
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:47 am
  
  Cheers, Jimmie. You can safely donate via the Labour party website, or if you prefer, just attend any of the many functions Labour hold around the country and make a cash donation.
  
  Rest assured, Labour party supporters are pissed off about this. But they also know where their anger should be directed, which is why there hasn’t been an avalanche of complaints to the party. Indeed, I’m told that many members have chosen to donate in the last few days as a sign of solidarity.
grumpy 3

15 June 2011 at 9:45 am

Forget about Whale, how do you feel about your credit card details left lying around for Nigerian scamsters to get hold of…..?
- r0b 3.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:46 am
  
  No credit card details were exposed at any time.
- The Voice of Reason 3.2
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:49 am
  
  Hmmmm, Nigerian scamster or Hawaiian scamster? So very hard to tell the difference …
- lprent 3.3
  
  15 June 2011 at 9:58 am
  
  It appears that Whale doesn’t know what actual credit card details look like. You know the ones that are required to do online transactions.
  
  In his video he was happily pointing at transaction numbered files and calling those credit card details. I haven’t bothered to look, but those don’t carry enough credit card details to do anything.
  
  The NZLP press statement was quite explicit – there were no credit card details stored on that system. I’ve called Whale technically illiterate before. I suspect that he is here as well.
  - vidiot 3.3.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 12:09 pm
    
    Wasn’t that the same NZLP press statement that said:
    
    [deleted]
    
    But let’s not get in the way of a good story eh ?
    
    [lprent: lets do so. Put in a link. Selective quoting without a link does rather annoy me as you know… ]
    - Colonial Viper 3.3.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 12:18 pm
      
      v idiot you are living up to your name.
      
      Slater and the National Party looked for vulnerabilities in the Labour system, found them, and then decided to take advantage of unauthorised access.
      - vidiot 3.3.1.1.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 12:36 pm
        
        It was in a PUBLIC folder, which was PUBLICLY accessible – there was NIL SECURITY. Wake up, smell the coffee Viper.
        
        If they had forced a SSH connection to port 8015, faked a root user account, changed the config which then allowed the files to be marked as PUBLIC – then yes, that’s dodgy shit, but fact is they didn’t.
        
        Just ask your Cylon mate about security – at least they know what a shield is.
      - SHG 3.3.1.1.2
        
        15 June 2011 at 1:04 pm
        
        I find the “Slater and the National Party” angle to be totally implausible. Just because you hate two separate entities doesn’t mean that those entities are friends (see “Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda”).
        
        Gosman 3.3.1.1.2.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 1:41 pm
        
        Yes, it seems to be a standard (sic) position of many of the people here on The Standard that Cameron Slater is somehow managed, (if not controlled outright), by some perfidious handler at National party HQ.
        
        Their only real evidence for this seems to be that Cameron Slater himself admitted helping them a few years back on some matter or other. By extrapolating that seemingly inconsequential fact these leftist have conflated an ongoing dark psy-ops conspiracy whereby National Party hacks unleash Cameron Slater to do their dirty work.
        
        It is actually quite funny asking these people for hard evidence and seeing their replies. These tend to be variations of ‘You are a fool if you can’t see what I can see’. I am often reminded of Christian fundamentalists arguing against evolution.
        
        lprent …
        
        15 June 2011 at 2:15 pm
        
        Seems to be far far more evidence to prove that there is frequent contact between the National party and Whale (and Farrar for that matter) than other such ‘handler scenarios’
        
        *sarcasm mode on*
        
        But really we shouldn’t bee seeking such a high standard of proof as that. We should use a Whale standard. There was Whales frequent assertions that had me running this site from the 9th floor of the beehive. That was a common theme of Whale and repeated by Farrar in 2008. Not to mention his frequent posts where he asserts that authors here are various named people – evidence based essentially on no evidence than a drug induced paranoia. Hilariously, it was for a while a question of who a particular author should be this week, as it changed so frequently.
        
        *sarcasm mode off*
        
        I really don’t care about absolute proof. There are enough links to show that there are associations (like the logs in this latest exercise), that I’ll apply the RWNJ standard. It is up to Whale to do what he was asking me to do – prove that there isn’t such a link. Until he can do so, then I will make the assumption that there is.
        
        BTW: The basis on this approach is contained in a number of posts by me from just after the last election. It states that I would use the tactics that the right bloggers used from 2006 – 2008 except we’d do them better. That was the only way to ensure that the fuckwits who used them in the first place would understand exactly how stupidly corrosive they are.
        
        I can’t see any indication that the Nats and ACToids understand this yet, particularly when we see clear evidence from the logs that the Nats discovered the security breach at Labour and exploited it by passing directly or indirectly it to WhaleOil.
        
        Portion Control …
        
        15 June 2011 at 2:24 pm
        
        Lyn are you really using the “but they did it too” defence for applying sloppy standards of evidence? You are making allegations of potentially criminal conduct against the National Party. You are claiming associations between Slater and the National Party at a time when bloggers here and at Red Alert have been saying for more than a month that Slater is owned by Simon Lusk and the Act Party. Slater has also made allegations about the Standard’s associations with Labour. If you stoop to his level of evidence in making allegations about Slater’s associations with National then you are just dignifying his original claims.
        
        You have also just undermined the argument that National had a duty of care to tell its political opponents that it had found a security hole, when you yourself failed to tell Whale of a hole on his website. Your excuse? Because Whale said something nasty and untrue about you a few years ago. This might be news to you but Trevor says nasty and untrue things about National every day. So if you had no duty of care to inform Whale how can people here claim that National had a duty of care towards Labour’s fuckups?
        
        felix …
        
        15 June 2011 at 2:20 pm
        
        Gos, why did you write “(sic)”?
        
        Vinsin …
        
        15 June 2011 at 6:00 pm
        
        Do you think he’s trying to be ironic?
Blighty 4

15 June 2011 at 9:56 am

It’s hard to believe that we’ve gone from Monday morning Slater self-labelling this ‘Whaleleaks’

To Monday afternoon the line becoming ‘ha, ha, you left your door unlocked and I took your (private and not politically useful) stuff’

To today when Slater and National don’t want to talk about it and is playing the victim because people dare to ask whether he is entitled to the benefit he receives.

I think they were honestly expecting Labour to roll up in a ball and cry. When Labour came back at them hard, they realised they had nothing to stand on and gave up the ghost.
jackal 5

15 June 2011 at 9:58 am

I’m not convinced that there were any credit card details. Slater’s “look at these details” in his video didn’t appear to be credit card details at all. So it’s more smoke an mirrors if you ask me.

All bark and no bite… Pathetic little poodles.
jackal 6

15 June 2011 at 10:15 am

Yap yap yap!
Peter 7

15 June 2011 at 11:01 am

Imagine the MSM interest if this had been Labour accessing the National website. Bad leadership, weakness, poor management, divisions etc etc. Why have they gone quiet?
John D 8

15 June 2011 at 11:04 am

Nice to get mickeysavage’s email address and mobile though. That was very generous of Whale
- Colonial Viper 8.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 11:08 am
  
  These things cut both ways John D. Be careful admiring this escalation.
  - John D 8.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 11:13 am
    
    Why do you imagine that I was admiring this? Don’t you do irony?
    - Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 11:18 am
      
      Indirect threats =! irony
      
      And the threats of using this personal information for political ends isn’t hypothetical, it has moved on to actual intimidation.
      
      This is not “generosity” to be admired at all.
Nick C 9

15 June 2011 at 11:36 am

The sort of mediocraty that you are willing to tolerate within the Labour Party is shocking. ‘If they can’t run a website they can’t run a government’ is a bit of a stretch. But if you don’t want to hold someone accountable for a monumental cock up like this and just want to blame National, how can we trust Labour to hold itself accountant when it makes mistakes in government?

[lprent: You’re on a ban. Deleted content and adding you to auto-moderate. ]
- Colonial Viper 9.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 11:50 am
  
  The web server security vulnerability was Labour’s fault.
  
  Exploiting it and accessing the personal details of thousands of people without authorisation was National’s.
  
  how can we trust Labour to hold itself accountant when it makes mistakes in government?
  
  Labour is holding itself to account – promising not to repeat the asset sell offs of the 80’s and 90’s.
  
  National hasn’t learnt that one yet. Further you don’t see National apologising for lying on matters like GST increases or KiwiSaver changes, do you.
graeme 10

15 June 2011 at 11:53 am

as much as i abhor whale oil and his methods, you people have stooped to his level in your lame arse attempts to deflect blame every where but where it lies. I suspect slater has a bit more than he is letting on and is going to drip feed this for a long time. this reeks of an inside job along the lines of the information hager got.there is no other plausible explanation for such a glaring error. its not human error, surely there are cross checks and references made with respect to such crucial information, which leads me to the obvious conclusion, some one from with in the orginisation opened the door. as for the publication of gregs details, he asked for it, he got it.
- The Voice of Reason 10.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 12:45 pm
  
  You suspect wrong, graeme. Slater has been given legal advice which, in a nutshell, is that to publish means jail. So he has wussed out and will not be providing any more details. He’s just a coward hiding behind his supposed mental illness, his taxpayer funded lifestyle and his odious mates at National HQ.
- lprent 10.2
  
  15 June 2011 at 12:50 pm
  
  graeme – You are wrong. This kind of accident happens with computer systems all of the time.
  
  I spend significant amounts of time trying to make sure that it doesn’t on systems I’m responsible for. But similar things occasionally happen to my systems. If you hunt back in the posts on this site, you will find some posts where I explain where breaches and vulnerabilities have happened here.
  
  I’m far more skilled than anyone inside Labor at this stuff. They have to largely rely on contracts with external companies without an internal IT person to take care of this stuff, with all of the usual confusion that happens under those circumstances.
  
  Whale’s site itself was always used to a source of amusement to me for much the same reason – more open holes than you could really be bothered locating. I never bothered to extract anything from them, and never bothered to tell him either (as I’d normally do) because the arsehole ran a story in 2008 trying to attack my previous employers.
- ghostwhowalksnz 10.3
  
  15 June 2011 at 12:51 pm
  
  Do you listen to the news, there are major security breaches announced all the time, and plenty more kept quiet
  Citibank said a few days ago its credit card details have been compromised. One of the worlds biggest banks ( to big to fail !) made a slip up. Labour wouldn’t have a fraction of the resources a mega bank has and yet they have slipped up as well.
  The odius orca has made a big slip up. he cant announce the data has been compromised AND release it. Hes stuck now by trying to justify its in the public domain, as the google bots would have trawled through the site as well. But google will remove it when asked and slater has stuff he cant use.
  - John D 10.3.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 1:28 pm
    
    “But google will remove it when asked ”
    oh really? Not sure why Google should flush their cache at your request, but it’s worth a try
    
    Well, it might turn up in the Wayback machine eventually, if anyone can be bothered to look
  - Draco T Bastard 10.3.2
    
    15 June 2011 at 3:27 pm
    
    If he still has the stuff he downloaded then he has it illegally.
SHG 11

15 June 2011 at 1:10 pm

So what’s going to be done now at the Labour end? Heads should roll, but that would involve someone taking responsibility for a mistake, so that won’t happen.

The only sensible response from an IT security point of view is basically “nuke the site from orbit”.

– Identify every machine that’s ever been on the same network as the insecure server

– Image the hard disks of those machines

– Format the hard drives of all machines and reinstall from known trusted sources

– Perform forensic analysis on the hard-disk images to try and identify the absolute worst-case scenario (e.g. “the bad guys have the passwords to everything and know every credit card number we’ve ever had”) for ass-covering

Given that this is the only sensible option this won’t happen either.
- lprent 11.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 1:36 pm
  
  To date I have seen no evidence that credit card details have been visible on the site. I have heard Whales boasting, and him showing evidence of transactions (ie after the web page comes back from the secured payment site). But those don’t contain credit card details that you could buy anything with.
  
  The NZLP specifically said that there were no credit card details on the site.
  
  Whale is a technical illiterate and I suspect he doesn’t know what credit card details look like. You are usually less technically gullible than this. Have you had a recent lobotomy ?
  - SHG 11.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 2:05 pm
    
    This has nothing to do with the credit card angle. For some unknown time the usernames and passwords were public knowledge for an internal SQL server that either contained party data or was connected to a network where party data was stored.
    
    Given the apparent lack of oversight of security matters I think the safest thing is to assume that the box was totally owned, don’t you?
Colonial Viper 12

15 June 2011 at 1:39 pm

I see the Righties here blaming everyone except those who chose to perpetrate an unauthorised penetration of Labour’s IT systems.
- Portion Control 12.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 1:50 pm
  
  By “unauthorised penetration of Labour’s IT systems” you mean “visited the front page of a website and saw all the data published there for all the world to see.”
  
  I don’t know what your partisan inclinations are CV but Labour have a long way from getting back into office if that is the best argument you can come up with when Labour’s pants are down around their ankles.
  
  Slater has broken no law, and the Privacy Act doesn’t apply to him. Labour have broken a lot of laws by not protecting private information. So instead of putting pressure on Labour to take responsibility for it you continue to deflect and spin that somehow it’s National’s fault.
  - seeker 12.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 2:39 pm
    
    @ Portion Control
    
    By “unauthorised penetration of Labour’s IT systems” you mean “visited the front page of a website and saw all the data published there for all the world to see.”
    
    If this were the case why is WO bothering to make ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is’ that he has actually got, public again? What is the point of making it public if it is already “public on the front page of a website.” ??
    Sorry to be so blunt, but you are beginning to sound as nonsensical and puerile as John Key on Hardtalk (and everywhere else come to think of it)
    - Portion Control 12.1.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 2:42 pm
      
      Well duh, he’s doing it because it’s bloody embarrassing to the Labour Party to be shown up for the incompetent twits they are. Just as when the next time a politically neutral commentator stands up and writes a letter to the editor, comments on TV or appears at a conference attacking the government, it will be very embarrassing to them when Whale exposes their dishonesty by pointing out they’re actually a Labour Party member. Just as it will be embarrassing when Trevor Mallard next gloats about how successful Labour’s stop signs campaign has been and how successful the fundraising efforts are, Whale points out just how much they’ve actually raised.
  - bbfloyd 12.1.2
    
    15 June 2011 at 2:47 pm
    
    weak pc, very weak.. i doubt even the slowest of your brethren would waste time on that excuse for an excuse…
    
    the nats, and their coterie of pooles are exposing themseves as no more than immature children caught with their hand in the sweet jar, who then try to deny that you saw it at all… you’d punish your five year old for that kind of dishonesty… but then, i suppose it’s all hunky dory for the nats to do that seeing as how gutter politics are part and parcel of their modus operandi.
randal 13

15 June 2011 at 2:24 pm

this is more than just a dirty trick. just because the knuckledheads want to laugh it off they have comiited a crime of some severity. all it would take would be for labour to find a deep throat and bye bye mr key and his government. breaking and entering is breaking and entering no matter if it is comitted physically or electronically and lying about it is perjury.
- Portion Control 13.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 2:39 pm
  
  Please point to where in the Crimes Act visiting a front page of a website and clicking on a link is a crime randal.
busman007 14

15 June 2011 at 2:54 pm

why is my comment not showing ?

[Please read the recent post on exactly that question. r0b]
Colonial Viper 15

15 June 2011 at 2:56 pm

Slater has broken no law, and the Privacy Act doesn’t apply to him. Labour have broken a lot of laws by not protecting private information.

I rather believe that this will be a matter for police prosecutors to decide upon, not you.
- Portion Control 15.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 3:11 pm
  
  That is true CV, I am not a police prosecutor. But it is you guys who are saying he has or will break the law, yet you haven’t come up with anything closely resembling an unlawful act. What I have seen is a pretty long-winded interpretation of the Crimes Act from Mickysavage, the basis of which makes me question not just how he manages to maintain any of his clients but also how he got his law degree in the first place.
  
  Going to the front page of a website and clicking on a published link is not theft of data.
  
  Whether Cam Slater storing and republishing the information he found is only a breach of the Privacy Act if it can be established that the Privacy Act applies to him. On that point I suggest you exercise your acute legal mind and read Judge Harvey’s discussion of blogs as new media in Police v Slater.
  - Colonial Viper 15.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 3:18 pm
    
    Going to the front page of a website and clicking on a published link is not theft of data.
    
    Of course not. Although its also irrelevant to this case.
    - Portion Control 15.1.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 3:31 pm
      
      Of course not. Although its also irrelevant to this case.
      
      Then go and read Mickysavage’s long winded comment here earlier this week (I can’t be bothered finding it for you if you can’t keep up) that was a supposed legal opinion on how Whale had stolen personal information.
      
      And then come back and tell me why you think the Privacy Act applies to Whale’s blog.
  - r0b 15.1.2
    
    15 June 2011 at 3:18 pm
    
    Going to the front page of a website and clicking on a published link is not theft of data.
    
    And nor does it require a 10 minute video to explain how to do.
    
    As to the legal situation, the Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern at National’s antics. I think she knows a bit better than you PC.
    - Portion Control 15.1.2.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 3:27 pm
      
      rob you are spinning again rather than stating a fact.
      
      The quote is: “The Privacy Commissioner has raised concerns and is monitoring the situation.”
      
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10732187
      
      There is no quote from the Privacy Commissioner and we don’t know whether that statement means she is concerned that the Labour Party failed to protect personal data, or that Slater has indicated he will re-publish some or all of it.
      - r0b 15.1.2.1.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 3:35 pm
        
        Let’s have it in context shall we PC. Thanks so much for the opportunity to repeat this by the way!
        
        The National Party has admitted exploiting a security hole in the Labour Party website but denies passing data to a right-wing blogger who plans to release the names of Labour Party donors.
        
        National’s president, Peter Goodfellow, confirmed a head office staffer accessed the data but denied it was passed on.
        
        The Privacy Commissioner has raised concerns and is monitoring the situation.
        
        The confession means lawyers’ opinions sought by NBR now apply in part to Natonal’s situation as well as Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater, whom earlier today threatened to release the names of 452 Labour Party donors.
        
        Portion Control 15.1.2.1.1.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 3:42 pm
        
        Yes if you don’t mind rob I think I’ll wait until a specific statement from the Privacy Commissioner on whether the Privacy Act applies to Slater’s blog comes out first.
        
        On the one hand we have from Labour a privacy breach that is against the law, of a magnitude it would be almost impossible to beat. Labour is subject to the Privacy Act.
        
        On the other hand Slater is arguably not subject to the Privacy Act, so by definition him republishing that information isn’t subject to the Act.
        
        r0b …
        
        15 June 2011 at 3:45 pm
        
        I think you can draw your own conclusions from Slater’s sudden silence. Please do not further encourage him to get himself into deep legal shit by publishing, that’s exploiting the mentally unwell for supposed political gain. Disgusting.
        
        Portion Control …
        
        15 June 2011 at 3:55 pm
        
        Slater’s record shows that he doesn’t err on the side of caution with respect to conflict. You can take whatever interpretation you wish. On the other hand it would be bloody stupid for him to publish everything immediately and lose any advantage of stringing it out as long as possible between now and the election.
        
        As for your disgust at capitalising on the mentally unwell for political advantage, several bloggers here already said that he’s not ill and that his sickness benefit should be removed. On the other hand, if he is unwell that is a perfect defense to criminal intent.
        
        Be careful that you’re not passing yourself off as a concern troll when you’re doing it though rob. I know concern trolls upset you.
        
        r0b …
        
        15 June 2011 at 4:02 pm
        
        Look back through my posts and comments PC. I have never questioned his illness, and my concern for his state of mind has been consistent. Doesn’t mean that I approve of him or his tactics though.
        
        However, my contempt for those who use him, and hide behind his illness, knows no bounds. They are scum.
        
        lprent …
        
        15 June 2011 at 4:32 pm
        
        On the one hand we have from Labour a privacy breach that is against the law..
        
        Wrong. Have you actually read the frigging act or do you just make this bullshit up as you go?
        
        The sanctions you are probably referring to apply to deliberate attempts to violate privacy. Are you suggesting that Labour deliberately released that information?
        
        I bet that you cannot even read the Act to the point you can find an appropriate remedy.
        
        You really are a bit of an idiot at this blogging thing aren’t you..
        
        Portion Control …
        
        15 June 2011 at 4:45 pm
        
        Yes I’ve read the frigging Privacy Act Lynn. Have you? It wasn’t apparent that you had earlier in the week.
        
        For your enlightenment, here is Principle 5:
        
        Principle 5
        Storage and security of personal information
        An agency that holds personal information shall ensure—
        
        (a) that the information is protected, by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take, against—
        
        (i) loss; and
        
        (ii) access, use, modification, or disclosure, except with the authority of the agency that holds the information; and
        
        (iii) other misuse; and
        
        (b) that if it is necessary for the information to be given to a person in connection with the provision of a service to the agency, everything reasonably within the power of the agency is done to prevent unauthorised use or unauthorised disclosure of the information.
        
        Read that once, and if you don’t understand it, read it again. A breach of Principle 5 does not require a commission, but an omission. They do not have to deliberately release it. Most privacy breaches are actually accidental. I did not refer to sanctions, but breaches of the Privacy Act frequently do result in financial redress.
        
        Now if you think that posting the directory onto a campaign website, which allows anybody with one click to access personal information of 18,000 people constitutes “such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances” then you don’t just need to go and study law. You need to learn elementary English.
        
        I’m quite new to this blogging thing but if you’re going to call somebody an idiot for not reading a piece of legislation, you should at least be familiar with it yourself.
        
        lprent …
        
        15 June 2011 at 5:16 pm
        
        The specific words in my comment were ‘sanctions’ and the more appropriate ‘remedy’.
        
        As you said, what you quoted was a Principle, which more in the order of a preamble to explain what the act is all about. What you were stating was that it was illegal. The principle you quoted does not do that, in fact the ‘reasonable’ is going to take up quite a lot of time in the eventual ruling.
        
        Perhaps you should keep reading the Act to find out what it actually says rather than what you think it says. I could explain it to you, but then it would probably not penetrate through your rigidity of assertions.
        
        BTW: You’re doing a lot better on the interacting today.
        
        Portion Control …
        
        15 June 2011 at 5:25 pm
        
        The privacy principles define what constitutes an Agency’s responsibilities with regard to personal information held by that Agency. You will note that there is no definition of privacy in the Interpretation section of the Act. You will also note if you’ve ever bothered to read a decision made by either the Privacy Commissioner or the HRRT that each of them cites a breach of one of the privacy principles. The privacy principles effectively codify the privacy tort for agencies holding personal information.
        
        lprent []
        
        15 June 2011 at 5:50 pm
        
        I have and they do. And as I said there will be a considerable amount of verbiage on the ruling about “reasonable”.
        
        However you said it was “illegal”. To date you have not shown that something under that principle or any other part of the act would be. What you have pointed to is a set of factors that would be used when making a ruling.
        
        Frigging hell, I’ve given you enough hints…. Do I have to hit you with a frigging shovel?
        
        BTW: Removing your IP’s from auto-moderation. Please don’t go wild.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        15 June 2011 at 9:56 pm
        
        Oh good, you read the principles, now go the read law, specifically:
        
        3) Anything done or omitted by a person as a member of any agency shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as done or omitted by that agency as well as by the first-mentioned person, unless it is done or omitted without that agency’s express or implied authority, precedent or subsequent.
        
        Really, we’re not even going to get into the delicious discussion of reasonable here.
  - The Voice of Reason 15.1.3
    
    15 June 2011 at 3:21 pm
    
    Slater’s silence since he went to see his lawyer on Monday says it all, PC. He doesn’t fancy double bunking, so he isn’t going to carry out his threat to publish the details. Slater is a typical bullying crim, reduced to excuses and lies as soon as the possibility of jail time is put in front of him.
    - McFlock 15.1.3.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 3:24 pm
      
      The concept of wo “double-bunking” is wide open for a number of distasteful comments that Judith Collins will leap at, no doubt.
  - mickysavage 15.1.4
    
    15 June 2011 at 3:37 pm
    
    Gee PC I do not think that you should think about diplomacy as a career, nor law.
    
    The specific allegation is not “theft” of data but unauthorised access.
    
    I thought section 252 of the Crimes Act may be applicable. There are other legal opinions floating around as well suggesting that section 252 may apply. Including this (paste I understand from the NBR).
    
    For Lowdnes Jordan partner Rick Shera, the Crimes Act comes into play.
    Mr Shera told NBR “The test is contained in section 252(1) of the Act.” That is:
    
    Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 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.”
    
    “The issue is whether Cameron Slater was authorised to access the material for any purpose. If he wasn’t, or if there was doubt and he just did it anyway without caring – that is, recklessly, then he may be liable.”
    
    “In my view, authorisation carries with it the idea of an intention to allow access and not just an implicit authority through a lack of security, but the issue has never been tested,” Mr Shera said.
    - Portion Control 15.1.4.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 3:51 pm
      
      You have another opinion to back up your claim Micky. But even then Shera is not as stupid as you have been to insinuate it’s an open and shut case.
      
      I note that Shera’s opinion went up on the NBR website before Slater’s “How I did it” video went up. Shera might take a very different opinion had he seen the video first.
      
      I would argue that unauthorised access, with respect to information that is published on the internet, requires a deliberate attempt to get around existing security. By definition, if you are going to post links on the front page of a campaign website, then the assumption is that everybody who visits the page is entitled to access it, unless there are specific security measures to prevent it.
      
      It would create an absurdity on the one hand for Labour to have breached the privacy of its donors by not providing adequate security of that information, and yet for all those who accessed the information to be liable for clicking on an open and unsecured link.
      
      Which might explain why Chris Flatt’s correspondence to Whale so far have been so singularly lacking in aggression. He knows Labour haven’t got a leg to stand on.
      - Vinsin 15.1.4.1.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 6:58 pm
        
        Um what correspondence have you been reading? On whale’s website there’s a clear cease and desist letter, to quote directly, “The continued retention of that personal information is not necessary for the purposes of your blog and is likely to be a breach of the Privacy Act 1993. Its retention and/or further disclosure may leave you susceptible to further action under the Privacy Act from any individual or individuals whose privacy has or have been compromised by your actions.”
        
        Do you not know what further action means? I know it might be hard when it’s written without grunts and ludicrous rantings but please try to understand the ramifications of what the letter says. I’ll pray to god help you through this worrying time.
      - mickysavage 15.1.4.1.2
        
        15 June 2011 at 9:18 pm
        
        PC
        
        I never said it was an open and shut case but I did suggest it was fairly clear.
        
        And you have chosen to question my competence, and I am not sure why.
        
        You do not understand that breaches of the Privacy Act principles may be illegal but they do not of themselves create criminal offences.
        
        On the other hand unauthorised access of a computer system is a criminal offence. But yet you have reached firm conclusions on my competence even though you do not understand the difference. You should learn a bit more before you form such strong conclusions.
        
        Yes, if the access was authorised then downloading the data was fine.
        
        But I struggle to understand how it could be authorised. If I was confronted with an obviously compromised server then I would think “this is an obviously compromised server and the site owner has not authorised me to check out all of the server’s directories.”
        
        You and Cameron seem to think differently, although it looks like Cameron has taken responsible legal advice and realised that if he continued he could be charged with a criminal offence.
        
        But you still choose to insult me even though your understanding is poor.
        
        Why is that PC?
busman007 16

15 June 2011 at 4:05 pm

????
Craig 17

15 June 2011 at 4:41 pm

TS, they’ll get one. You should see the angry emails I’ve been getting agreeing with me about the Key/Destiny-Parents Inc axis over welfare privatisation. They have definitely sacrificed the metropolitan LGBT vote if they continue to go down that road- which they will.
Murray 18

15 June 2011 at 5:31 pm

National’s first dirty tricks operation of the 2011 election campaign has ended in an embarrassing own goal.
I guess you will believe anything if your a Labour party Lap Dog Charged with spreading
Misinformation
- Tangled up in blue 18.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 6:13 pm
  
  Marrey, do you not think it’s a bad look that National turned it’s back on citizens who unknowingly had their confidential information made public?
Murray 19

15 June 2011 at 7:18 pm

What on Earth has it got to do with National.
It was Labour that had the unsecured server and stuffed up .
Then their lab dogs try to blame National
It used to be fun to come over here for a bit of comedy, But quite frankly The Level of petulant whinging and whining here from the left has become rather tedious.
You Guys need to grow up and get a life.
- Draco T Bastard 19.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 10:41 pm
  
  National found it and did nothing about it.
  - Colonial Viper 19.1.1
    
    15 June 2011 at 10:51 pm
    
    National found it and did nothing about it.
    
    I doubt that this is strictly true.
    - Draco T Bastard 19.1.1.1
      
      15 June 2011 at 11:40 pm
      
      Well, they didn’t report the breech to Labour which is what they should have done.
      - Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1.1
        
        15 June 2011 at 11:43 pm
        
        Just sayin that they probably reported the breach to a whole lot of other people though 🙂
      - lprent 19.1.1.1.2
        
        16 June 2011 at 12:44 am
        
        Breach? Damn the other version sounds right as well. For some reason I keep thinking of calving time on the farm.
Vinsin 20

15 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

Murray you need to learn how to spell and possibly do some reading comprehension, actually a grammar class or two wouldn’t go a miss either. To answer all your questions directly.

“What on Earth has it got to do with National.” Um, you need a question mark here… but to answer your question. National were recorded to have been the first to notice the hole in security. To quote NBR, “The National Party has admitted exploiting a security hole in the Labour Party website but denies passing data to a right-wing blogger who plans to release the names of Labour Party donors.” So that’s what it has to do with National.

“Then the lab dogs try to blame National” Ok, first off it’s lap dogs, not lab dogs, and again i refer you to the quote above which has National admitting exploiting the security hole. It goes on to say they didn’t pass on the information, but it is possible they’re lying – especially considering they admitted to exploiting a security hole: it’s not honorable behavior that fills one with a great deal of trust.

“It used to be fun to come over here for a bit of comedy, But quite frankly The Level of petulant whinging and whining here from the left has become rather tedious.” I’m not entirely sure why you’re capitalizing a couple of words here, but, ok good to know. One man’s tedious is another man’s interesting dialogue and exchange of ideas.

“You Guys need to grow up and get a life.” Once again, why the capitalization? Is it meant to be more emphasis? And I hope the irony of complaining about whinging then whinging yourself is not lost on you, maybe you need to go read a book – or talk a walk, reading and writing doesn’t seem to be your thing. Keep your head up champ.
Murray 21

15 June 2011 at 8:03 pm

In the internet age who gives a stuff about grammar and spelling.
Its usually the people who point these things out that are the ones with the least to say
- Colonial Viper 21.1
  
  15 June 2011 at 10:52 pm
  
  Cretin.
Vinsin 22

15 June 2011 at 8:33 pm

Ok, i’ll have another shot at it.

“In the internet age who gives a stuff about grammar and spelling.” To answer simply: people that want to understand what you’re writing. In today’s “internet age” the reality is people still judge you on your aptitude for communication, messy errors like the examples I mentioned and the further errors in the second post – don’t worry I won’t point them out – make people think you are uneducated, unintelligent, mono-syllabic, and unworthy of their time.

“Its usually the people who point these things out that are the ones with the least to say.” If you read my post you’d have noticed I answered all your questions and corrected, some of your errors. So obviously your criticism of not having anything to say does not carry any weight as I said quite a lot. If mean to say “people who point these things out are often people with nothing of substance to say,” then perhaps you’d have a point, I don’t think so, but perhaps someone might agree with you. Again with correct grammar and vocabulary your point would be clearer, so why not give it a try?
William Joyce 23

15 June 2011 at 11:05 pm

You would think that with all that time on their hands (no dates, no social life, living in their mother’s basement) the RWNJs would be engaging more often in the discourse of ideas in these threads, defending their ideological positions.
Instead, it astounds me that, given that there is some moderate discourse from the right on these threads, suddenly – as soon as they are caught with their dicks in the till (a la the aquatic mammal) – they scurry out like someone turned over a rock.

People with handles you don’t recognise, are suddenly offering all sorts of defences against the indefensible and rabidly trying to convince people that that white is black.
Now if I was of a mind to foster conspiracy theories, I would say that word had got out that The Whale had been beached (through his own incompetence) and the RWNJs dropped playing Transnational Corporate Globalisation – Return of the State Storm Troopers (a cross between Monopoly and Risk complete with 5.1 surround sound death gurgles from the enslaved workers), and rushed to defend their unstable and unethical friend.
Andy C 24

15 June 2011 at 11:47 pm

On a slightly different note, the latest Whaeoil contibution appears to suggest to that the databases may well be compromised and may have been so for some time, judging that the contents of the website now appear on the search engines of half the internet.

The last email from Chris Flatt clearly states that “No credit card details were compromised.”
1) Is that still the position ?
2) If not, would it not make sense to advise members that “Details may have been compromised”
3) If not, at what point, and what cost, could the NZLP become liable to the losses of Visa or Mastercard if fraudulent transactions have occured, related to those cards, prior to the weekend ?
- lprent 24.1
  
  16 June 2011 at 12:14 am
  
  1. Yes. There are files with transaction numbers on them that are returned from a secure payment server as a transaction record but those have few details. In particular they don’t have full credit card numbers or the CVV.
  
  I realize that whale is obviously too stupid to understand this – you only have to watch him drivelling on about credit card stuff in his video to realize it (I did a couple of unfortunate years programming payment devices). But it is getting rather boring explaining it to all of the mindless fuckwits like yourself who seem to think that a serial liar like Cameron is someone to rely on for technical information.
  
  Your other questions are therefore irrelevant. Do you have anything else I can enlighten you on? Perhaps some discussion of the perilous legal position that the Naional party and their poodles have put themselves into? Discussion on the morality of their actions? Some discussion on sheep like yourself who seem to be int synchronized bleating instead of using your brains?
  
  Ok now we queue ACToid response number ? Any guesses people?