The unusual case of the disappearing blog

Written By: - Date published: 10:26 am, May 12th, 2015 - 308 comments
Categories: blogs, David Farrar, Deep stuff, democracy under attack, Dirty Politics, internet, Media, social media lolz - Tags: , ,

Cathy Odgers

Social media guru Giovanni Tiso has discovered something unusual.  Cactus Kate’s blog is slowly disappearing from the internet.

The original is still there but is completely devoid of content apart from references to right wing blogs and the occasional left wing blog.  A link to the Standard is not there but to Chris Trotter’s blog is.  There is a link to the very good feminist blog The Hand Mirror with a request for people to “go wind up the ‘feminists'”.

The usual wayback devices were used by Giovanni without success.  He noted the discovery that Slater had deleted multiple references to Kate from the Whaleoil site.  Interestingly I have discovered the disappearance of one post concerning Kate from Kiwiblog, a post referring to the reasons for her deleting her previous website.  The reference is here.  For some reason Farrar saw fit to delete the reasons she advanced for deleting her first blog.

Giovanni then decided to try the National Library archive which archives New Zealand blogs.  He said this:

At some point this surviving version of Cactus Kate must have come to Odgers’ attention, and she took further counter-measures. So when I checked a few weeks later I found that the National Library archive no longer allowed to browse the blog online, but required researchers to discuss viewing arrangements with an on-site librarian. Later still, the record disappeared altogether. I asked the Library today about this, and they advised me that

Regarding the deletion of the blog in question, we are in discussion with the author and receiving advice as to its status as legal deposit material.

The legislation, it seems, is open to interpretation – if I had to venture a guess, around what constitutes ‘a New Zealand-based blog’ – and so this peculiar test case has broader implications than those that tie Odgers with the rest of the cast of Dirty Politics. As best as I can tell, the National Library is keen to pursue this distinction and assert its role.

The legal issue is an interesting one.  Under section 29 of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 an Internet Document is defined as “a public document that is published on the Internet, whether or not there is any restriction on access to the document; and includes the whole or part of a website.”  The purpose of the relevant part of the Act is “to assist in preserving New Zealand’s documentary heritage so that it is available, subject to any applicable terms or conditions, for the benefit of New Zealanders”.  Preservation of Kate’s blog is important for the preservation of the country’s heritage and in particular for future scholars to understand what happened during the Dirty Politics era.

Under regulation 8 of the National Library Requirement (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006 the National Librarian is authorised to copy any Internet document.  Under section 3 of the Act the National Librarian must take reasonable steps to make documents in the National Library available to institutions and other persons, subject to any regulations made under the Act and to any conditions the Minister may determine.

As far as I can see there should be no restrictions on allowing access to Kate’s blog.  For the sake of allowing future scholars to understand an important period of New Zealand’s political history I hope the National Librarian sees things the same way.

308 comments on “The unusual case of the disappearing blog ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    12 May 2015 at 10:38 am

    Wonder if the Minister has signed off on some ‘conditions’?

  2. Tiger Mountain 2
    12 May 2015 at 10:42 am

    attempted arse covering par excellence, and while some of us would rather not read her crappola anyway this apparent “digital airbrushing” is of note given her direct links with Nat dirty tricks, epistemologists and historians may well become interested as a case study too

    • Stickler 2.1
      12 May 2015 at 4:47 pm

      Speaking of arse covering, I bloody love that photo of Cacky Kate.

      She looks as though she’s just realised her knicker elastic has perished.

      • Anno1701 2.1.1
        13 May 2015 at 12:23 pm

        Face like a bulldog chewing a wasp if you ask me !

        or maybe a wet sack of chisels ?

  3. Natwatch 3
    12 May 2015 at 10:48 am

    I happen to have a full backup of Kate’s blog. Perhaps The Standard could “host” it for her.

    • rawshark-yeshe 3.1
      12 May 2015 at 10:54 am

      awesome .. and i hope you have backed up your backup .. just sayin’ !

      • Aaron 3.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 11:39 am

        Also suggest perimeter detection for incoming missiles etc.

        Now that I think about it, spreading it all around the internet in multiple locations is probably the best bet at this stage. For maximum security I’m thinking using every political blog in the country as a host, also Scoop, The Intercept, Indymedia, Facebook, Archive.org etc…

        People could get a banner for their site “I’m hosting Cactus Kate” so that we can count up how many there are.

        Also, I’m no technical expert but can it be hosted as a series of tweets?

        Perhaps the most important parts of the blog could also be hosted on the sides of buildings and billboards too.

        You can never be too careful.

    • lprent 3.2
      12 May 2015 at 11:35 am

      I am sure that I can find an offshore location for it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3
      12 May 2015 at 2:01 pm

      Streisand Effect strikes again.

      • MrMan 3.3.1
        14 May 2015 at 7:13 pm

        Not at all. Our attention may be drawn to the blog, but no one is looking at it. If anything she’s beaten the streisand effect – there is nothing to see here.

    • travellerev 3.4
      12 May 2015 at 9:56 pm

      Brilliant! And thanks for saving it!

  4. Cactus Kate 4
    12 May 2015 at 10:50 am

    Really? I have read some pithy rubbish on this blog but this takes the cake.

    Is this all you people have left to worry about some ergh 9 months after a book was published and 7 months after your left wing buddies lost an election they tried to steal?

    With such a glowing reference from Tiso and yourself as to the incredible importance to the tiny nation of Aotearoa of years of my intellectual property written mainly from overseas and as someone who has not resided in NZ for over a decade, I expect you will support my recommendation that the Aotearoa National Library creates a shrine in the centre of the complex for my works and that of Whaleoil, David Farrar, Matthew Hooton, No Minister, Simon Lusk’s book and all of Carrick Graham’s press releases which are obviously viewed now as Taonga for the people.

    I am enjoying this new found status of my works given my entire years of blogging you and your mates spent many hours online suggesting myself and other right wing bloggers stop blogging and piss off completely. Then when one of us actually does what you want you get all upset about it all over again.

    • te reo putake 4.1
      12 May 2015 at 10:54 am

      Nice line in passive aggressive sulking, CO. How about telling us why you are trying to edit CK out of existence? What (or who) are you afraid of?

      • Cactus Kate 4.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 11:03 am

        How about telling me why all of a sudden you miss me and want me back? That’s far more interesting. Given the large stats of my old blog you all read it and vented the crying tears of impotent rage into your hemp bags the first time.

        At least Giovanni had the good sense to finally admit my blog was popular

        “before embarking on the very popular Cactus Kate”.

        I deleted the contents of my blog before Whale’s computer was even hacked. Your leftie mates know that date rather well.

    • Robert Glennie 4.2
      12 May 2015 at 10:59 am

      More like an election that Murdoch backed media and a Labour Party meltdown handed National on a gold plate with all the trimmings.

      The Stuff-Ipsos polls were ludicrously biased.
      The Fairfax newspapers had stickers on them the day before the election – at least The Press did – saying Party Vote National.

      I can’t explain the Labour Party meltdown because as a non-member I don’t think even they know what happened.

      Three more years of National selling our sovereignty down the drain. 🙁

      • Clemgeopin 4.2.1
        12 May 2015 at 12:48 pm

        “Three more years of National selling our sovereignty down the drain’

        Actually down the dunny with the help of the ‘willing-seller-willing-buyer’ Dunne, the despicable.

    • Sanctuary 4.3
      12 May 2015 at 11:00 am

      I believe you ought to embrace the electronic storing for forever of you blog CK. After all, as Henry David Thoreau said:

      “Make the most of your regrets; never smother your sorrow, but tend and cherish it till it comes to have a separate and integral interest. To regret deeply is to live afresh.”

    • mickysavage 4.4
      12 May 2015 at 11:02 am

      So Kate why are you removing all traces of the site?

      • Cactus Kate 4.4.1
        12 May 2015 at 11:13 am

        Why does any company remove a website when they no longer do business?

        • felix 4.4.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 11:18 am

          To hide traces of their potentially criminal activity?

        • Old Mickey 4.4.1.2
          12 May 2015 at 11:19 am

          Get with the programme, you must appreciate that the left “knows whats best” for everyone, so just do as you are told, be a good girl and all that other patronising stuff…..

          • Tracey 4.4.1.2.1
            12 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

            you know not of what you speak. cactus kate was a company doing business. that business is now done with. probably the first truth from that particular laptop in a long time.

        • Tigger 4.4.1.3
          12 May 2015 at 11:30 am

          Your blog was a company website?

          • Cactus Kate 4.4.1.3.1
            12 May 2015 at 11:33 am

            Didn’t you read Dirty Politics? All right wing blogs are company websites.

            • felix 4.4.1.3.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 11:38 am

              Sorry, I didn’t catch your answer to “Why are you removing all traces of the site?”

              • Cactus Kate …
                12 May 2015 at 11:57 am

                ok I will use sm……aller words……..I ceased to make any money off the CK blog or branding in 2013 so I deleted the blog two years ago well before the Slater hack. I stopped twitter around June 2014 well before Dirty Politics was released..

                Quite why this is all suddenly relevant in a conspiracy now is interesting considering these are events of more than 6 months ago. Tiso must not have any boycotts to arrange this week because he is well out of date.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  12 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

                  So you’re investing time, money and effort to do work around a blog which hasn’t been making you money for years. Seems legit.

                  • felix …
                    12 May 2015 at 12:39 pm

                    Weird how she keeps bringing up “Dirty Politics” in relation to her cleansing, eh? Keep talking, Cathy…

                    • Cactus Kate …
                      12 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

                      Yes. To me it describes a glorious moment in NZ politics when the left lost an election they could have actually won.

                    • felix …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:09 pm

                      Key words there are “in relation to her cleansing”.

                      Carry on…

                • lprent …
                  12 May 2015 at 12:03 pm

                  What the post is about is that you appear to have been making the site disappear from the web history sites. It takes quite a lot of effort to do that. Rather more effort than the passive actions you are describing.

                  Perhaps you’d like to explain why you found it expedient to do that? Was it career problems or a guilty conscience or a need to destroy evidence? Or all three?

                  But hey, if what you say is correct and there was no guilty reason, then you won’t mind me putting up a static copy of your site and linking to it eh?

                  • dukeofurl …
                    12 May 2015 at 12:37 pm

                    Didnt she ‘lose’ her HK job once dirty politics came out.

                  • Cactus Kate …
                    12 May 2015 at 12:49 pm

                    It actually took as much time LPrent as I think the author took to research and write this post.

                    What you suggest is a commencement of something more juvenile than I would even expect from you. Because you then really cannot argue if someone copied your site and linked to it, eh?

                    Anyway lets review this morning in lefty land.

                    NZ’s real issues affecting the workers:

                    OCR
                    Housing affordability
                    The economy?

                    Nah…..

                    Cactus Kate’s blog that has been offline for 2 years.

                    That should bring back the missing million overnight,

                    • felix …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:07 pm

                      lol.

                      In spite of your best efforts at bluster, I note two things:

                      1. You still haven’t denied anything. And I don’t mean deleting your blog posts from blogspot, I mean your efforts to erase all other copies and archives. So it’s fair to assume this part is true or you would have denied it by now in one of your half-dozen comments on the matter.

                      2. You still haven’t given any answer as to why you’ve done this. Again, not deleting the posts from blogspot, but the further efforts to erase all other copies and archives.

                      And also, why would Lynn care if someone mirrored this site? Has it escaped your attention that thestandard is still online and hasn’t been deleted???

                    • Aaron …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:08 pm

                      The lady doth protest too much, methinks

                    • appleboy …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:23 pm

                      Losing your job post Dirty Politics was fiction? Ha! Heard your senior partners at Shithouse and Co Legal in Hong Kong received emails with links to NZ media coverage and your dirty and vile workings – and it was just coincidence you weren’t working there shortly after. Lovely.

                    • lprent …
                      12 May 2015 at 3:35 pm

                      That happens every day, several hundred times per day (and I sometimes rant against scraperbots). I simply write and use code to discriminate against most scraping tools.

                      I’d be happy to host a copy of your site. You can retain copyright. I just feel that leaving it public might prove useful to explain to people who you are.

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:35 pm

                      its like you and matty are mutually expunging lots of history like tge collusion to knee cap hager.

                      what a grubby bunch…of ptotesting too much.

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:37 pm

                      so can we put it back up, in full, you didnt say. must have been an oversight

                  • Sacha …
                    12 May 2015 at 1:51 pm

                    Yes, just taking your website down is a different thing than erasing all trace of it from official repositories. What could motivate someone to do the latter?

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 12:46 pm

                  Yet one cannot help but notice that after Dirty Politics was published your desire to have the blog properly deleted seems to suddenly spike.

                  • Cactus Kate …
                    12 May 2015 at 12:52 pm

                    “Properly deleted”?

                    The only thing that was properly deleted was the dignity of the left on election night after they thought “Dirty Politics” was going to win them an election.

                    • Giovanni Tiso …
                      12 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

                      And still you refuse to answer why the publication of Hager’s book prompted you to get Slater to take down all the posts that mentioned you, and to try to get the National Library to delete what they considered a legal deposit.

                      That is quite some coincidence, eh?

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:38 pm

                      ggiovanni

                      i think the question is too hard for someone too clever by half

                • Bentham …
                  12 May 2015 at 4:01 pm

                  Poor little silver spoon, nasty government saved your hate filled blog.

        • appleboy 4.4.1.4
          12 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

          Ah, your blog was a business. That explains the right whinge ethos in a nutshell.

        • the pigman 4.4.1.5
          12 May 2015 at 7:22 pm

          “Why does any company remove a website when they no longer do business?”

          A business, ha! Only in your wildest tory wet dreams would the cacktus’ blog posts have been bought and paid for. You weren’t doing business. You were getting off on pretending to be part of a VRWC that had no use for you.

          Can’t wait to hear what you’re up to next, Catty.

    • Sabine 4.5
      12 May 2015 at 11:20 am

      while you are here and have time….

      why would you send people to another blog to wind up feminists? fun? disdain? boredom?

      really I would like to know.

      • Cactus Kate 4.5.1
        12 May 2015 at 11:29 am

        I have had so many scraps with people online over the years Sabine I have completely forgotten what that was all about. I am sure it was all very important at the time. To everyone.
        I suspect this forms most of the real reason I stopped blogging. It got boring remembering who everyone was.

        • Molly 4.5.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 12:18 pm

          … “got boring remembering who everyone was”…

          … especially yourself, I’m guessing CK.

          • dukeofurl 4.5.1.1.1
            12 May 2015 at 12:40 pm

            Dont believe for a minute the ‘ennui’ .

            Why even Farrar was saying the other day he was longer interested in ‘beltway issues’- from Mr beltway himself.

            Its called ‘all singing from the same songsheet’

          • Tracey 4.5.1.1.2
            12 May 2015 at 4:40 pm

            and the lies. hard to keep em straight when you spend your energy digitally knee capping people you dont like.

    • Chooky 4.6
      12 May 2015 at 12:54 pm

      lol..it should be preserved for posterity as a reminder and warning

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.7
      12 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

      That isn’t what schadenfreude means, trash.

    • greywarshark 4.8
      12 May 2015 at 1:00 pm

      Spiky as ever, but rather spineless.

    • Clemgeopin 4.9
      12 May 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Why did you pass ‘that’ email to Key? Was it (a) as a heads up to Key, (b) to undermine Collins/Slater, (c) because you found a conscience (d) or was Key threatening you?

      The news said, ” Hacked emails appear to show Hotchin secretly paid bloggers Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers to write attack posts undermining the Serious Fraud Office, its director Adam Feeley, and the Financial Markets Authority, who were probing his collapsed Hanover Finance in 2011 and 2012.

      The emails indicate the campaign was orchestrated by Hotchin’s then spokesman Carrick Graham, a PR consultant and tobacco lobbyist.

      Hotchin is a former part-owner of the Warriors league team who built New Zealand’s most expensive residential home in Auckland. Hanover Finance collapsed in July 2008 owing $465 million to 13,000 investors.

      Knowing Fairfax was investigating the hacked emails, it is believed Odgers (known by the blog name Cactus Kate) went through her own emails and found some that could be seen as implicating Collins. This correspondence then found its way to a Beehive staffer on Friday.

      The new documents appear to show PR consultant Graham paid Slater and Odgers to write dozens of posts attacking regulators and a possible witness.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10443223/Real-reason-behind-Judith-Collins-demise

    • Tracey 4.10
      12 May 2015 at 4:25 pm

      waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaa i am unimportant waaaaaaa waaaaaaaa but wanted to cover my tracks. waaaaaaaaa waaaaaa i know you are but what am i

      cathy lots to fear even more to hide Oddgers

  5. joe90 5
    12 May 2015 at 11:26 am

    The pre- July 14, 2014 archives of this nact stalwart have vanished too.

    http://www.donotlink.com/framed?704034

  6. Wonderpup 6
    12 May 2015 at 11:31 am

    Though the library may keep a copy of the blog, they are quite within their rights to restrict access to it. Journals, correspondence and company records are exactly the kind of thing that libraries like to collect, because they are rich primary sources for later research. In at least one library know of things like suicide notes found in correspondence that are archived, and kept for visitors, but not digitised and published, out of respect.

    I really respect Cactus Kate’s will to remove her work from public view, but I’d implore her to let the library keep it for the future. She was a central character in a very interesting part of NZ history, one that will be studied closely – especially when official records are released, and considered historical work can be done.

    It goes against every fibre of a librarian’s being to not release information, but when it becomes an archival matter, things do change a lot. Something this government completely misunderstood when it merged the library and archive.

    • weka 6.1
      12 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

      Good points, although there is a world of difference between something intensely personal like a suicide note and a publicly published blog.

      • Matthew Hooton 6.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 1:40 pm

        What if you type the suicide note on the blog you write but no one reads – except the National Library surveillance system?

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 2:35 pm

          Surveillance system (rolling eyes).

          If mean a private blog, then it’s private. If you mean a public blog it’s public.

      • Sacha 6.1.2
        12 May 2015 at 4:22 pm

        and a *political* blog at that.
        hard to think of topics more central to a public discourse.

  7. Colonial Rawshark 7
    12 May 2015 at 11:32 am

    Haha final positioning for a political career no doubt – or a career move with many political sensitivites.

    • leftie 7.1
      13 May 2015 at 12:58 am

      @CV.
      That’s what I thought, she’s been lying through her teeth, that’s why she is trying to sanitize herself. Too late, she will never be able to wash off that filthy dirt, no matter how hard she tries.

  8. Charles 8
    12 May 2015 at 11:55 am

    Well here’s something new. Never knew the pointless utterances of every blog in NZ were so important to… a future communist witch-hunt? Jaysus.

    Is it possible for the Left to focus on constructive policy first, and this communist pogrom-style thinking much, much, much later… maybe never?

    I support the idea that authors (of any political colour or style) may take reasonable steps to remove material of their own that no longer serves their purpose or no longer represents their opinions or attitudes.

    (To be fair, online feminists are already tightly wound all by themselves. No special visits required.)

    • weka 8.1
      12 May 2015 at 1:04 pm

      So an author who publishes a book is entitled to have it removed from the National Library/archives.

      • Giovanni Tiso 8.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

        The answer would be no, of course. But how quickly some are willing to liken the National Library legal holdings policy to a communist pogrom is well instructive as well as immensely amusing.

    • greywarshark 8.2
      12 May 2015 at 1:21 pm

      @ Charles
      Did you read the actual post? What it is, is part of the historical background of our time. Deleting anything that isn’t of personal benefit is trying to demolish history and the background to actions that occurred as a result of that documentary evidence.

  9. JeevesPOnzi 9
    12 May 2015 at 11:57 am

    I can smell the filth creeping back in…. the Luskian filthy five- who would have this country controlled for the few irrespective of the outcome for the many.

    The filth who boast of having harm done to others, who boast of their affairs with the husbands of married women, who boast joyfully at the pain others feel, who manipulate the common view towards deliberate lies, who sow malcontent among our NZ brothers and sisters, who laugh down at our hungry and our tired, who wish for power at our expense.

    Filth.

    Pure Filth.

    Get back under your desert rock where you belong, with Lusk and Ede and Graham and Slater.

  10. shorts 10
    12 May 2015 at 12:34 pm

    24 minutes from post being published and Kate commenting… spooky

    Personally I miss Kate’s blog, while I disagreed with pretty much all of it (all of it) some of her (your) writing was a good balance to those on the left, when not overly spiteful

    goodo

    • Tiger Mountain 10.1
      12 May 2015 at 1:08 pm

      dear leader’s office was rather quickly into action too with an apology of sorts when the Daily Blog published Amanda Bailey’s account of the Parnell Puller

  11. Matthew Hooton 11
    12 May 2015 at 12:46 pm

    Wow. Who needs the GCSB when we have the National Library? Who knew the law requires them to cache – is that the right term? – every blog post written in New Zealand? Does this apply to tweets and so forth?

    • Chooky 11.1
      12 May 2015 at 12:56 pm

      hope so…it is an important part of our national history….future generations should be able to ponder it ….and books written analysing it

        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Er, Matthew, deliberately publishing something on the internet is just a tad different from the GCSB data-mining your email and phone records.

          • Matthew Hooton 11.1.1.1.1
            12 May 2015 at 1:25 pm

            Which the GCSB doesn’t do (so we are told anyway – and certainly the law doesn’t provide for it, for very good reason).
            But this is analogous to the GCSB putting cameras in all public areas to record what is being done and said – for “future historians” of course.

            • felix 11.1.1.1.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 1:29 pm

              I request that you sit down, take a deep breath, maybe have a bite to eat, then re-read what you just wrote.

          • Gosman 11.1.1.1.2
            12 May 2015 at 1:30 pm

            Not really.The principles are the same. Someone publishing a blog (as opposed to making a comment on someone elses) is still doing it in an environment in which they retain a certain amount of ownership of what they have published. In that sense it is similar to others having a right of privacy or ownership of elements of their life. You may even voluntary give out aspects of your private life to others for a specific use that does not mean they become public property just as a private blog is not not public property as soon as it is published.

            • Giovanni Tiso 11.1.1.1.2.1
              12 May 2015 at 1:33 pm

              Then may I suggest your beef is with the National Library Act?

              • Gosman …
                12 May 2015 at 1:37 pm

                Except the National Library seems to be not entirely sure what authority they have in this area. Even if they decide to store the material the Act in question may breach other laws in relation to privacy. I presume you don’t think the National Library Act should take precedence over laws protecting privacy and copywrite do you?

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:40 pm

                  Actually they appear entirely sure, they are just being challenged on it (stalled, more like). And yes, the National Library Act does take precedence over copyright law in requiring legal deposits, as it does in most nations. *Of published materials*. Private property doesn’t apply to something you make public.

                  Really it’s not that hard to grasp.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    12 May 2015 at 2:31 pm

                    Giovanni is right. Theoretically, if the Auckland University Animal Rights Club has a newsletter for its members, they are required by law to send NLNZ two copies. But, if they aren’t currently doing that – and I bet they aren’t, and good on them – then the NLNZ probably isn’t coming around and taking a couple of copies without telling them. Which is exactly what they appear to be doing to whatever they define as “NZ-based blogs”.

                    • Keir …
                      12 May 2015 at 2:42 pm

                      Is a newsletter supplied to members of a club supplied to the public under the terms of the Act? Doubt it, but maybe there’s contradictory authority.

                    • lprent …
                      12 May 2015 at 3:18 pm

                      I noticed that they were taking our site some time ago (2009?). In fact I blocked them and wrote a rant post about the department of internal affairs, which was where the bot IPs tracked back to. They explained what they were doing via email.

                      Now they have explicit access to the site at the same level at google and wayback engine. Complete access because they do it without interfering with the sites operations.

                      The sites are public…

            • Sacha 11.1.1.1.2.2
              12 May 2015 at 1:46 pm

              You may need to do some reading about what public and private mean in a digital age. If I post something that everyone can see, it is not the same as one-to-one or technically-protected discussions like close friends on Facebook or a telephone call.

        • Chooky 11.1.1.2
          12 May 2015 at 11:02 pm

          @ Possum….looks like you research and surveill what us chooks have said publicly on the ‘The Standard’ internet ….that is a bit pathetic !

          …and I am against covert mass surveillance by the state ….which is not the same thing as keeping records of what cactus kate has said publicly

      • David H 11.1.2
        12 May 2015 at 5:52 pm

        So how come catctus kate can erase her blog?

        • Giovanni Tiso 11.1.2.1
          12 May 2015 at 6:02 pm

          She hasn’t. The National Library has removed the record from the archive for the moment, but they still hold the material and are waiting for legal advice on their right to make it available to their patrons. My expectation/hope is that they’ll prevail.

        • lprent 11.1.2.2
          12 May 2015 at 6:27 pm

          Anyone can erase their blog. If I didn’t pay the bills for this one it’d disappear pretty fast. That is a passive action requiring nothing more than running out of money in the account that pays it.

          Erasing the history of their blog is harder. To do that you have to ask all of the sites and systems that might have a copy to erase it. You’d usually have to frame it in terms that they consider are applicable. Since most sites are very reluctant to erase content, they will usually not.

          Hiding the history of their blog is easier. Then you just ask if those sites holding it will withdraw it from public view.

    • Colonial Rawshark 11.2
      12 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

      Hopefully you can discern between the objectives of a library and that of an arm of the FVEY global surveillance system.

      • Matthew Hooton 11.2.1
        12 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

        I think I get it: “This surveillance good; that surveillance bad.”
        Is that what you’re saying?

        • Tiger Mountain 11.2.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 1:13 pm

          a nuanced dialectical view it could be called

        • felix 11.2.1.2
          12 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Are you seriously trying to equate published material with private communications?

          • Lanthanide 11.2.1.2.1
            12 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

            Snap.

          • Gosman 11.2.1.2.2
            12 May 2015 at 1:33 pm

            Published via a private blog.Just as The Standard Collective and the respectoive authors have the right to the material published here and have certain rights over it’s reuse so to does CO to the material she published on Cactus Kate.

            • Giovanni Tiso 11.2.1.2.2.1
              12 May 2015 at 1:35 pm

              You really do appear to struggle quite badly with the meaning of the word “published”.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 1:38 pm

                Is it publication/broadcasting to speak through a loudspeaker at a protest march? Surely the National Library should be required by law to collect and store all that information too? For future historians.

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:42 pm

                  Indeed, the National Library collections include many such materials.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    12 May 2015 at 1:46 pm

                    Perhaps, but I doubt that the National Library is required by law to go out and record and store all such speeches/conversations, which seems to be the case here.

                    PS. If this blog surveillance thing is true then, sadly, the lesson is that people should be much more careful about what they put on a blog, because the state will record it even if you later try to move it from the internet. I think that threatens to make blogging more formal and less anarchic, making them less valuable to people in the here and now.

                    • Giovanni Tiso …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:51 pm

                      “Perhaps, but I doubt that the National Library is required by law to go out and record and store all such speeches/conversations, which seems to be the case here.”

                      It seems to be the case to you, maybe. Not to most other people. A blog is not like saying something in a megaphone. A blog is a publication, much like a self-published fanzine. The National Library cannot go around recording what people say at every impromptu public meeting in the country. But it can collect those other things, it’s allowed to do so by law, and it does do it.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      12 May 2015 at 1:52 pm

                      So what are you proposing they do, if not “go out and record and store” things?

                      Are the librarians supposed to go to work, then sit behind a counter and wait for people to bring in books they bought from Paper Plus so the librarians can then archive them? Do they wait for people to come in with tapes (or DVDs, or whatever) they made of last night’s 6 o’clock news?

                • felix …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:43 pm

                  Why would a loudspeaker be required, given that you’re talking about private conversations being recorded by cameras and microphones on street corners?

                • Wonderpup …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:32 pm

                  Yeah, its called ephemera. You should see the stuff at the Hocken on the Springbok Tour, and the anti-apartheid movement in general: its pure research gold. Pamphlets, posters, recordings…

                  To think that collecting cultural material, published and distributed in the public domain (though retaining copyright, and this is not the place to get into that) is “Surveillance” is nuts. Just when I was getting to think that Hooten was beginning to get a grasp on life on life’s terms.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    12 May 2015 at 2:35 pm

                    Did the Hocken go out and obtain it without telling HART etc, and then refuse to return it when asked for it back, or was it sent to them by HART or its supporters?

              • Gosman …
                12 May 2015 at 1:42 pm

                Let’s put this in terms of old school books then. If I as an author decide that my book is no longer be published and in fact withdraw all copies of it from circulation would that give a Library the right to piece together copies of it that have been made of the original and make this available if I as the owner of it did not agree?

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:45 pm

                  By law, they can’t withdraw the copy held by the National Library. This is why it’s called a legal deposit.

                  • Gosman …
                    12 May 2015 at 1:48 pm

                    Except in the case of the Blog the National Library is obviously looking at what the legal implications are so don’t just accept this as an open and shut situation. It would be interesting to see if her Blog qualifies as NZ as I know she wrote it while based in Hong Kong.

                • felix …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:46 pm

                  ” If I as an author decide that my book is no longer be published and in fact withdraw all copies of it from circulation “

                  There is no mechanism to withdraw a book from circulation.

                  I have many of them in my house, unable to be recalled for destruction.

                  • weka …
                    12 May 2015 at 3:52 pm

                    This would have to be one of the more bizarre conversations I’ve been in on ts.

                    Goldman,, if a blog is visible on the internet it’s not private it’s public. When you publish something you have rights over reproduction but you don’t have rights over legally obtained copies.

                    The issue here is that too many people don’t understand that much of the Internet is publishing. See, this standard just published my comment. If I ask admin to remove this comment they might but they have no control over removing it from the rest of the Internet.

                    Having said that I’d sti like to know how people get things removed from the internet archive.

                    • Sacha …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:27 pm

                      bugger all, would be my guess.
                      most of us have ‘nothing to hide’. 🙂

                    • Giovanni Tiso …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:53 pm

                      “Having said that I’d still like to know how people get things removed from the internet archive.”

                      You just have to ask them nicely, same as Google’s cache. They have a form on the site.

                      To remove Google links to material you don’t own, on the other hand, outside of Europe you’d need some sort of court to intercede. That’s what the so-called “right to be forgotten” is about.

            • lprent 11.2.1.2.2.2
              12 May 2015 at 3:36 pm

              Except where overridden by legislation.

        • Maui 11.2.1.3
          12 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

          Can the National Library search through a database of your personal emails & telephone records as well as the public content that’s been put out there, it’s starting to get scary the power digitisation has given them…

        • b waghorn 11.2.1.4
          12 May 2015 at 1:21 pm

          The fact you’ve turned up to run interference proves you and ya grubby mates up to no good. Go take the arvo off and have a drink.

          • Matthew Hooton 11.2.1.4.1
            12 May 2015 at 1:28 pm

            Can’t. Crosby Texter ordered me to show up here and comment on this.

            • Gosman 11.2.1.4.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 1:45 pm

              The fact that you, Cactus Kate (and to a lesser extent I) are commenting on this is likely to cause many here to assume the worst. We may have to go to Plan B and eliminate all possibility of this information being made public by recommending the National Library is privatised and sold to Saudi Arabia as part of any Trade deal.

            • b waghorn 11.2.1.4.1.2
              12 May 2015 at 2:05 pm

              And here’s me thinking you’re showing initiative obviously I over estimated you’re abilities.

        • newsense 11.2.1.5
          12 May 2015 at 7:26 pm

          Are you getting paid to help Cactus Kate Matthew? In what capacity are you posting here?

          • Matthew Hooton 11.2.1.5.1
            12 May 2015 at 9:10 pm

            As a secret undercover CT agent, obviously. That’s how high these stakes are.

        • travellerev 11.2.1.6
          13 May 2015 at 7:37 am

          “This surveillance good; that surveillance bad.”

          Collecting public record publications by a public body for public purposes such as research good. Secretive private data collection for nefarious purposes by undisclosed agencies bad. There I fixed it for you.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11.2.2
        12 May 2015 at 1:10 pm

        State surveillance is unacceptable unless carried out by librarians. Got it.

        • Matthew Hooton 11.2.2.1
          12 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

          +1000
          (And it is definitely OK if they are librarians with connections to GTiso).

        • felix 11.2.2.2
          12 May 2015 at 1:23 pm

          Please tell me you know the difference between published literature and private information.

          Please, gormy. Restore my faith in you.

        • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.2.3
          12 May 2015 at 1:24 pm

          State surveillance is unacceptable unless carried out by librarians. Got it.

          Some state surveillance is used to kill civilians with drones and to undermine democracies.

          Hope you can tell the difference.

    • Kevin 11.3
      12 May 2015 at 1:00 pm

      Hands getting sweaty Matthew?

    • adam 11.4
      12 May 2015 at 1:09 pm

      Matthew – can you please ask your friends at the GCSB to repost the CK blog – seems a much simpler solution.

      So archiving is wrong now? Or is CK a winner and she gets to write her own history? No historical documents allowed – unless sanctioned by the national party? I thought you had libertarian pretensions Mathew?

      • Matthew Hooton 11.4.1
        12 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

        The libertarian principle is you can write a blog, and then you can take it down, and you retain copyright so that you can ask others – including the STATE – not to give it to others for free, or at all if that is your wish.
        Since when did have legislation that said an arm of the state can do mass surveillance of all NZ blog posts, permanently store that information, and then make it available to any one who asks for it?
        Shouldn’t the author retain control over the content?

        • greywarshark 11.4.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

          An arm of the state, I assume you are referring to the National Library, is not conducting mass surveillance when keeping records of events and publications!
          It is recording history for open scrutiny purposes. Surveillance is when people or a person, are being spied upon, listened to, and having their lives interfered with by some spying entity for purposes of control of society. Is that a new idea for you Matthew? If so glad to be of help.

          • Matthew Hooton 11.4.1.1.1
            12 May 2015 at 1:36 pm

            It obtains the information by mass surveillance of NZ-based blogs. And then you – as the writer – have to request (not always successfully) that it destroy that information, or at least not distribute it, when you have decided to take if down, off your blog.
            How is that any different from the National Library/GCSB putting up cameras and installing listening devices in Lambton Quay and Queen Street – just for historical purposes of course – to record who is in and talking in those public spaces, and what they are saying? And then requiring you to contact them if you want it deleted (but without any guarantee it will be)?

            • felix 11.4.1.1.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 1:40 pm

              I don’t publish my conversations on Lambton Quay.

              I’m truly having trouble believing you don’t understand that.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 1:44 pm

                You make statements in a public place that others can hear. How is that different from writing a post, especially on a little-read blog?
                And, it seems, the state is REQUIRED to conduct surveillance of all those blog posts (or just those of political interest?), store that information and make it available to others – even if you, the author, might have taken it down.
                I’m having trouble believing you can’t see the parallel.

                • felix …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:53 pm

                  “You make statements in a public place that others can hear.”

                  Only if they’re spying on me, or I want them to hear.

                  “How is that different from writing a post, especially on a little-read blog?”

                  It’s different because I don’t publish my private conversations. Are you still having trouble with what “publish” means? The clue is in the first 5 letters

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    12 May 2015 at 1:57 pm

                    It’s not different. In both cases (taping what you say on Queen St and downloading all blogposts), the state is required to go out and get the information, which is in the public domain.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      12 May 2015 at 2:03 pm

                      A conversation I have with a family member on Queen St is not in the fucking “public domain” thank you. Except in the new security state “normal” that is.

                    • te reo putake …
                      12 May 2015 at 2:14 pm

                      ‘go out and get’

                      Aren’t blogs more push than pull? Isn’t anything that’s published, for that matter?

                    • Macro …
                      12 May 2015 at 3:13 pm

                      There is a huge difference Matthew – and you know it – or you haven’t learnt from your friend Mike’s case in 2003.
                      The majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal concluded:

                      So the majority concluded that there is a tort by which someone can sue where:
                      2.7.1 there are facts about which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
                      2.7.2 a third party publicises those private facts;
                      2.7.3 the facts would be considered to be highly offensive from an objective perspective.

                      So if you were to overhear me talking to my friend on a street corner about a private matter; although it is a public place if you were to subsequently published what you heard and cause me great offense I would have grounds to sue. And that would go for the National Library too. Talking to a friend is almost always a private conversation where ever it occurs -unless for instance it done on a Radio station. There it is obviously intended for publication.

                • Lanthanide …
                  12 May 2015 at 1:57 pm

                  “You make statements in a public place that others can hear.”

                  Thankfully we have precedence to draw on here.

                  You might recall a conversation that John Key had with John Banks in a cafe, in front of media they invited to report on their meeting. It turns out, a reporter accidentally recorded the conversation. The courts declared that John Key and John Banks had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, despite the 20+ reporters staring at them from 2m away, some of whom were right next to an open door (so no glass between them and John Key). Therefore according to the courts it was a private conversation and the reporter was found to have broken the law by eavesdropping on a private conversation.

                  So, a conversation carried out between two individuals on Lambton Quay would have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.

                  A public protest, especially one involving a megaphone, would not.

                  I’ll note that the word “publish” comes from the English word “public” and the Old French word “pulier” and means “make generally known”.

                  Publishing on a blog, is therefore quite different from a private conversation. Much as you might wish it weren’t.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:12 pm

                  You make statements in a public place that others can hear. How is that different from writing a post, especially on a little-read blog?

                  How is it different from writing a book and having a publisher print it, advertise it, distribute it via bookshops and web sites, and put you through six months of author interviews and promotional tours? How it is different is less important than that it is different. If you post something on the public web, you published it – no amount of bluster or weaselry alters that.

                  • Matthew Hooton …
                    12 May 2015 at 2:18 pm

                    So you think a blog post is more analogous to “writing a book and having a publisher print it, advertise it, distribute it via bookshops and web sites, and put you through six months of author interviews and promotional tours” than to “mak[ing] statements in a public place others can hear”.

                    That appears to be the point of disagreement.

                    What is not in disagreement is that, in the case of the book, the NLNZ requires you to send them one, they don’t go out and download it without telling you, as in the case.

                    And I know ignorance of the law is no defence, but who gets to define what is, say, a blog set up by some kids to record their holidays for their friends and one that should be automatically downloaded by NLNZ?

                    And shouldn’t the writers whose work is being systematically downloaded get told that is happening to their blog?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      12 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

                      “And I know ignorance of the law is no defence, but who gets to define what is, say, a blog set up by some kids to record their holidays for their friends and one that should be automatically downloaded by NLNZ?”

                      The NLNZ only archive things that are relevant and of public interest.

                      It’s unlikely the activities of kids could ever be considered of public interest. But if it was a blog about how John Key went on a holiday with Bill English to Hawaii and they played golf with Obama, then yes, I imagine that could be very interesting to historians of the future, if they wanted to understand the links between NZ politics and American politics in the 2010’s.

                      “And shouldn’t the writers whose work is being systematically downloaded get told that is happening to their blog?”

                      If they’re afraid of their content being “systematically downloaded”, then they’d better have set up their robots.txt file correctly to stop Google and other search engines from “systematically downloading” their content. You know, something that routinely happens to *published works* on the *publicly accessible* internet.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      12 May 2015 at 3:44 pm

                      That appears to be the point of disagreement.

                      Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant – among those for whom the question of what constitutes a publication is a professionally-significant one, it’s a commonplace that posting something to the public web is in effect publishing it. The National Library Act was revised specifically to take that into account.

                      What is not in disagreement is that, in the case of the book, the NLNZ requires you to send them one, they don’t go out and download it without telling you, as in the case.

                      That’s a matter of the logistics of print publishing rather than one of principle. If you publish something on the web, the National Library may well download a copy of that publication and store it in its collection. It doesn’t ask you to send it a copy because it doesn’t need a copy delivered – that’s what we have the web for. None of your publication’s readers will or should ask you if they’re permitted to store it in their computer’s cache, either.

                      And shouldn’t the writers whose work is being systematically downloaded get told that is happening to their blog?

                      The National Library Act isn’t classified information, and the web site harvesting role that was imposed on the Library was well-publicised at the time (among librarians, at least – I doubt it was considered important news by the nation’s media organisations, but that’s not NLNZ’s fault).

                    • Sacha …
                      12 May 2015 at 4:50 pm

                      This was not a random thing. The National Library of NZ, like its counterparts in other places, considered how best to handle archiving digital publications in the national interest. I believe there was a Cabinet paper, etc.

                      Like others, they decided it made more sense to programmatically gather most digital content in their top level domain (.nz) than to rely on individual publishers to submit copies – and the web’s core technology enables exactly that. I’m sure if there were a magic hyperspace portal attached to every printing press they would have gladly used that earlier.

                      Librarians have solid professional ethics about how the resulting archive is *accessed* that is far more enduring than those of the journalism, politics or PR industries. I therefore trust them to act in the overall interests of New Zealanders current and future than I do any of those others. And it’s also why I’m asking abut the grounds Cathy offered to them to restrict access.

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:13 pm

                      isnt the point that they indeed do appear to have archived it suggesting they made a decision based on their criteria And then, after ms odgers who was just closing a redundant company and doesnt really care, contacted them.

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:16 pm

                      you mean like Ede Slater al immediately told the LP when they were taking info?

              • Anno1701 …
                13 May 2015 at 1:05 pm

                he is just indulging in pure sophism ….

            • Maui 11.4.1.1.1.2
              12 May 2015 at 1:50 pm

              When you write a book, blog, newspaper article, etc it enters into the public domain. The public/anyone are free to (within reason) do what they like with that information. I thought that was a pretty basic fact of publication. Information is not being “collected” disingenuously as your scenario outlines.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 1:54 pm

                That depends on where you place blogs on the spectrum from “publishing War & Peace” through to “talking a bit loudly to a friend at a pub”, all of which occurs in the public domain.

                Do you really think the GCSB/NLNZ should keep permanent records of every post and comment on every New Zealand-based blog? And do you really think they should be made available to people (even in your lifetime) even when you have taken them off the internet and asked the NLNZ not to distribute them further?

                • Maui …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:19 pm

                  Writing a blog is publishing to the entire world via the internet… far from a private communication.

                  Yes I do think that the National Library should be collecting a record of our modern day written publications. That’s their job. Now I can search through previous editions of say the Maoriland Worker from a century ago for instance. It’s history. Far more valuable to have that, than our written history just vanish or have gaps in it. Comments on a blog add to the content of the article, so are just as meaningful for historical purposes.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    12 May 2015 at 2:23 pm

                    But but but how will Matthew help his clients tell lies if the bloody historians are allowed to archive everything?

                    It’s government interference in the free market, and destroys the value of Matthew’s investment in lying.

                    • Tracey …
                      12 May 2015 at 5:19 pm

                      LOL

                      Matt is only arguing that blogs are irrelevant cos he hasnt shat on that territory ….

                • JeevesPOnzi …
                  12 May 2015 at 4:19 pm

                  That’s why an awful lot of our statutes contain the phrase

                  “…what a reasonable person would…”

                  to exclude this sort of deliberate bullshit.

                  If a reasonable person thinks it would be private, then the courts agree. If a reasonable person thinks it would be within the Public domain, then that’s what the courts would agree.

                  Simple.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 1:58 pm

                Of course it is being collected, and systematically so. The whole internet (or a defined part of it, in this case NZ-based blog posts) don’t end up at the GCSB/NLNZ without the GCSB/NLNZ going out and getting it.

                • Maui …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:10 pm

                  And what have libraries always collected and still do? Books, newspapers, magazines, diaries – writings that have been either made public or given. Blogs are just the modern equivalent of what libraries have always collected. My key word was “disingenuously”. They aren’t going round stealing people’s diaries or breaking into the Herald offices for old editions.

                • Sacha …
                  12 May 2015 at 4:54 pm

                  ‘Collection’ means whatever a politician or spy boss wants it to. Ask that nice Mr Key. Or James Clapper. Both a bit forgetful, though, apparently.

              • MrMan …
                14 May 2015 at 8:21 pm

                When you write a blog, etc it enters into the public domain on the 50th anniversary of your death. Fixed .(Newspapers are work for hire, which is different).

                Public and ‘public domain’ are very different things.

            • Wonderpup 11.4.1.1.1.3
              12 May 2015 at 2:36 pm

              The phrase “expectation of privacy” is useful here. I thought you were a journalist…?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.4.1.2
          12 May 2015 at 1:30 pm

          That depends whether trash’s effluent provides evidence of her crimes.

        • Maui 11.4.1.3
          12 May 2015 at 1:39 pm

          Under that scenario a person/body, let’s say the State in this case can publish information and then annihilate it from history later on. Sounds like a great thing for a democracy.. I mean fascist state. 1984.

        • adam 11.4.1.4
          12 May 2015 at 2:00 pm

          I see your idea of liberty and freedom are quite different from mine. I’d argue like this statement – once published in the public sphere and after careful consideration it is now a public document. I have to live with what I wrote and leave others – to form opinions or judge me as they so chose. Am I entitled to change my mind – of course.

          But, to own, then hide past opinions is by very definition – not freedom or liberty – it’s control and authority. What you seem to be saying is – liberty is manipulation and opportunism at the individuals bequest. An odd type of liberty indeed. I thought the conservative in you would have embraced the idea that an individual should take responsibility for what they publish, before they publish it.

        • Psycho Milt 11.4.1.5
          12 May 2015 at 2:01 pm

          Since when did have legislation that said an arm of the state can do mass surveillance of all NZ blog posts, permanently store that information, and then make it available to any one who asks for it?

          You seem to have difficulty understanding the meanings of the terms “surveillance,” “publication,” “library” and “legal deposit.” Maybe you should go and find out what those various terms actually mean before embarrassing yourself further?

          Shouldn’t the author retain control over the content?

          Not to an unlimited extent. If an author wants to remove their book from my bookcase, they can ask but I’m free to refuse.

          The libertarian principle is you can write a blog, and then you can take it down, and you retain copyright so that you can ask others – including the STATE – not to give it to others for free, or at all if that is your wish.

          And the principle your society actually operates under, which is that society exists and can legitimately make various claims on you in return for offering you a comfy and well-functioning society to live in, is that if you publish something the National Library has the duty to obtain and preserve it.

          • Matthew Hooton 11.4.1.5.1
            12 May 2015 at 2:10 pm

            In the case of a published book, the publisher must send it to the NLNZ. In this case, the NLNZ is just going out and downloading whatever it defines as a NZ-based blog. To say that everything “published” on an NZ-based blog should be treated the same as a book being formally published is ridiculous. Much of what happens on the internet is far more analogous to a heated conversation in a public space. I would be interested to know how many here, including Giovanni Tiso, would have viewed this issue if it had been raised in the abstract rather than with the controversial Cactus Kate attached to it.

            • Giovanni Tiso 11.4.1.5.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 2:16 pm

              So long as you’re asking me, I’ve known about it since before I even had a blog or they started doing it, as it’s within my area of research. So I knew they would be harvesting my blog when I started writing it and was (and am) completely fine with it.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                12 May 2015 at 2:19 pm

                Don’t call it harvesting, we’ll have Hooton hooting about organs and Falun Gong before you can say “shred the documents”.

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:31 pm

                  I know, sorry, it’s just the term they use. They also use “ingesting” for digital information. Librarians like to massacre language it seems.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    12 May 2015 at 2:35 pm

                    Only kidding. I’m loving the guilt-induced whinging it’s generating.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 2:24 pm

                Good for you. I didn’t. And I was thinking of getting the kids to do a blog when we take them to India later in the year so family and friends can follow them. Will the NLNZ/GCSB download that? Will they give it out ten years later to whoever asks after it has been taken down? Does a password make a difference? Who gets to decide? Do you get told?

                • Giovanni Tiso …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:30 pm

                  You won’t get told. Make it not public – a password will do – and the Library won’t download it.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  12 May 2015 at 2:32 pm

                  It must suck when the government gets into the historical archive market, and anyone can reference it. Makes professional mendacity so much harder when you have to remember all the previous lies you told too.

                  No wonder you’re so hostile to the idea.

                • Sirenia …
                  12 May 2015 at 3:37 pm

                  India is not New Zealand so not of interest to the National Library

                  • Bob …
                    13 May 2015 at 3:13 pm

                    Hong Kong is not NZ, didn’t stop them with Cactus Kate…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 May 2015 at 3:44 pm

                      Preserving the confessions of New Zealand money launderers is in the public interest wherever they are.

            • mpledger 11.4.1.5.1.2
              12 May 2015 at 3:27 pm

              I knew about it for quite a while before I even knew anything about Cactus Kate. I think I read about it in the newspaper probably close to when they started doing it.

            • RedBaronCV 11.4.1.5.1.3
              12 May 2015 at 7:11 pm

              don’t worry Matty – if you ask nicely I ‘ll email this entire thread to the NLNZ so you won’t feel that they just came along and took it. After all all the peeps in zealand can see it.

  12. Dave Kennedy (Bsprout) 12
    12 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

    In 2010 the Young Nats male leadership tried to expel one of their strongest female members. In an early 2013 blogpost I compared the social media presence of the young membership of each party I linked to the Cactus Kate blog when talking about the Young Nats:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/easter-chickens-and-political-youth.html
    Odgers had expressed concern that the male Young Nats leadership were so keen to get rid of an active female member when so few existed within their membership. She suggested that strong females upset the balance of male domination within the party. I found that Odgers quickly removed the post after I made the link.

    At least David Farrar is more principled in leaving what he writes for the sake of historical honesty and perpetuity. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/07/silly_young_nationals.html

    It is an important part of the history of National Governments to know what women within the party must have had to endure to rise through the ranks. I guess even if there is an attempt to completely remove Cactus Kate the evidence it has left in the surrounding blogosphere will be hard to entirely remove.

    • felix 12.1
      12 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

      “At least David Farrar is more principled in leaving what he writes for the sake of historical honesty and perpetuity.”

      Nah, he’s been disappearing posts at the behest of Cathy too.

  13. Sacha 13
    12 May 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Cathy, what grounds did you give to the National Library when requesting they restrict access to archives of your public blog?

    • Matthew Hooton 13.1
      12 May 2015 at 2:01 pm

      Why the fuck should she have to give grounds?
      What was the NLNZ doing in the first place downloading all posts on a Hong Kong based blog without the authors permission, and apparently without legal authority (because it was Hong Kong based).
      I would have thought you would be more concerned, as a citizen, that this mass surveillance of all NZ based blogs is going on by an arm of the state.

      • Lanthanide 13.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 2:09 pm

        “What was the NLNZ doing in the first place downloading all posts on a Hong Kong based blog without the authors permission”

        Pretty sure that if something is clearly published on the internet for consumption, is being published by the legal owner of that work, not put away behind a restricted login, and doesn’t carry disclaimers advising particular people or entities that they cannot access it, that in fact you already have the authors tacit permission to download the content.

        • marty mars 13.1.1.1
          12 May 2015 at 6:53 pm

          + 1 It is so obvious but the matt will deliberately not get it – not in the prepared narrative to muddy the trails – I’m enjoying the walking backwards one he is doing – all leading back to the same squalid crew.

      • Sacha 13.1.2
        12 May 2015 at 2:09 pm

        It was a blog for an NZ audience. Just like Public Address being hosted in the US does not stop it being an NZ blog.

        One of the responsibilities inherent in the privilege of publishing in NZ is a legal obligation to provide free copies to the National Library, acting on behalf of the long-term interests of the NZ public. There are no unfettered rights except in the fantasies of libertarian schoolboys.

        And I’m asking what grounds Cathy claimed because they may set a precedent for others. As a citizen, that interests me.

        • Matthew Hooton 13.1.2.1
          12 May 2015 at 2:13 pm

          It is not a “privilege” to “publish” a blog. It is an act of free speech. It should not come with reciprocal obligations. In any case, it doesn’t. The NLNZ just goes out and downloads it all, stores it and makes it available to others, including people motivated by political malice.

          • Lanthanide 13.1.2.1.1
            12 May 2015 at 2:18 pm

            ” The NLNZ just goes out and downloads it all, stores it and makes it available to others, including people motivated by political malice.”

            Pretty good argument in favour of pseudonymity, eh?

          • Sacha 13.1.2.1.2
            12 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

            ‘free’ speech comes with reciprocal obligations. Don’t be a baby.

          • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.2.1.3
            12 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

            Hooton – are you really trying to make a serious case against malicious online political activity? You should really have a chat to the PM’s office.

            • greywarshark 13.1.2.1.3.1
              13 May 2015 at 2:33 pm

              @ Col R
              Possibly the weather was not very good and he is doing his monkey with a stick thing, stirring up the ants. Ooh tasty and crunchy!

        • mickysavage 13.1.2.2
          12 May 2015 at 2:16 pm

          And with a blogpost.co.nz url.

          Besides this is not the point. If it is no big issue what she posted then why is she going to these lengths to try and make sure it cannot be read.

          • Matthew Hooton 13.1.2.2.1
            12 May 2015 at 2:22 pm

            She doesn’t have to give reasons. She is the one whose work has been downloaded and recorded by the NLNZ. Maybe she doesn’t like the posts about her short-lived return to hockey and cricket being held by the NLNZ.

            • Giovanni Tiso 13.1.2.2.1.1
              12 May 2015 at 2:28 pm

              “She doesn’t have to give reasons.”

              The law says different. We’ll see how this thing develops, but my expectation is that she’ll be unsuccessful in her bid.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                12 May 2015 at 2:33 pm

                Yep, see above. The law does indeed give reasons. It needs to be reviewed, in my view.

                • JeevesPOnzi …
                  12 May 2015 at 4:30 pm

                  I’m going to download this, for my own purposes- some of it to sell to others, some of it to twist into a new truth. I’ll keep it forever, and if anybody wants me to stop you have to ask me nicely, and I’ll refuse.

                  How’s that?

                  • Sacha …
                    12 May 2015 at 5:01 pm

                    You are not the national library, with your own act of parliament. How’s that?

                    • JeevesPOnzi …
                      13 May 2015 at 8:43 am

                      Because this is in the public domain. Its like taking a snap of Queen Street and getting all those people in your pic. You don’t need anyone’s permission. And they can demand to be removed from the pic, and I can refuse.

                      That’s how.

                      FWIW- I may not be the National Library- but there are plenty of Acts of Parliament to protect me.

                    • Sacha …
                      13 May 2015 at 12:55 pm

                      No point in discussing copyright etc with someone so clearly clueless. Run along.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  12 May 2015 at 9:13 pm

                  If you think publishing something on the internet gives you any reasonable expectation that it won’t be copied, you literally don’t understand how the internet works. You have copied this page right now to view it. Hence why it says “downloading” in the browser as it loads, because you are copying it to your browser in order to render it.

                  The NLNZ making their archived copies available to other people would be interesting if it were subject to copyright law. Fortunately it isn’t. There is a legitimate interest for political, sociological, and archival purposes to holding New Zealand internet data made public for reasons of public interest. You may not like it, but I think it’s reasonable that if you legitimately publish something on the web that it may never disappear. (Now, things that were never published with permission, that’s a different beast altogether) It may not be how copyright law works, but it’s certainly how the architecture of the internet works.

                  • felix …
                    12 May 2015 at 9:53 pm

                    “You may not like it, but I think it’s reasonable that if you legitimately publish something on the web that it may never disappear”

                    But Matty and Cathy are running businesses here. They need to be able to lie and deceive and change stories to suit the moment.

                    Besides, Cameron told them there were no rules and no-one would ever know.

            • felix 13.1.2.2.1.2
              12 May 2015 at 3:25 pm

              “She is the one whose work has been downloaded and recorded by the NLNZ.”

              Yep, because she PUBLISHED it.

              Everyone who ever read a word of her blog also downloaded a copy.

            • appleboy 13.1.2.2.1.3
              12 May 2015 at 4:21 pm

              Maybe she doesn’t like her involvement in vile dirty politics being there to haunt her career – not to worry I will take great interest to see where she ends up working and I’m sure her employers will receive reminders of her involvement in dirty politics long into the future as all the important stuff is indeed archived…

            • Tracey 13.1.2.2.1.4
              12 May 2015 at 5:30 pm

              you know she never set the boys onto hager after you passed over his street name? i only ask cos your support is unfathomable

              • Sacha …
                12 May 2015 at 9:19 pm

                ‘the boys’ were probably pissing themselves laughing at the time. Zero credibility then or hence. #pffft

              • Clemgeopin …
                12 May 2015 at 10:02 pm

                “you know she never set the boys onto hager after you passed over his street name?’

                Tracey, who were you replying to? Hooton? If so, did he pass on the street name of where Hager lived? Why?

                • Invisible Axe …
                  12 May 2015 at 10:18 pm

                  Its in the dirty politics book. http://pundit.co.nz/content/cri-du-c%C5%93ur

                  ” It would be a disaster if [Chinese people who use these havens] knew where he lived. He may even need police protection. I’ve spent all day telling clients it is not our company but have asked a few how they would react if they knew a bit about the people publishing the material. I was delighted to assist with the full details for Mr Hager. Those Chinese can be very vicious when they lose face. … Chop chop for Nicky. Shame Russians don’t seem affected but our Chinese friends need a helping hand. (p. 92)

                  [She is then provided Nicky Hager’s address by both Matthew Hooten and Cameron Slater.]”

                  (Yo, The Standard, I have good reasons for changing my Name, thank you)

                • felix …
                  12 May 2015 at 10:28 pm

                  Because Cathy wanted to pass it on to her gangster friends.

                  She wrote this in an email to Hooton and Slater:

                  I’ve done a post for Saturday on whale blog as can’t run myself as too close to work. The leaks he is involved with include tens of thousands of rich Chinese. Mainland and HK. It would be a disaster if they all knew where he lived. He may even need police protection. … Chop chop for Nick.

                  Hooton replied by supplying her with Nicky’s home address.

                  (Just in case you’re thinking these fuckers are just loveable rogues)

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    12 May 2015 at 11:15 pm

                    Bloody hell! Unbelievable nastiness. Why haven’t the police taken any action yet?

                    • Giovanni Tiso …
                      12 May 2015 at 11:20 pm

                      Lately when I remind Hooton of this incident (which is every time he calls me a bully, which is roughly once a week), he has taken to denying it, because if you read the book again it turns out he only gave out Hager’s street name but not the street number. So you see he’s a nice man and it’s other people who are bullies.

                    • weka …
                      12 May 2015 at 11:26 pm

                      It would be hard for him to do his job if he wasn’t nice.

          • Alpha.z 13.1.2.2.2
            12 May 2015 at 3:02 pm

            (why is she going to these lengths to try and make sure it cannot be read.)

            to save her ass and of blubber, hooton, farrar, key…& others

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.3
        12 May 2015 at 2:18 pm

        What do Matthew Hooton and Dermott Nottingham have in common?

        Everything, by the sounds of it 😆

      • appleboy 13.1.4
        12 May 2015 at 4:23 pm

        Hong Kong based? oh so porn downloads into NZ from an overseas site has no relevance here? Her vile writings and actions are well worth preservation, as she engaged in politics of the lowest kind and should be held to account for her shit ramblings

      • Tracey 13.1.5
        12 May 2015 at 5:28 pm

        do you understand that ms odgers deliberately made her blog/company public?

        my emails to anyone are not intended for anyone but the recipient so am entitled to privacy.

        perhaps the distinction isnt as obvious as i thought.

  14. millsy 14
    12 May 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Bit rich for for the prickly bitch to complain about stealing elections given that her wealthy Chinese sugar daddies bought and paid for it years ago.

  15. jester 15
    12 May 2015 at 2:22 pm

    If the National Library are indeed monitoring blogs, at least this solves the riddle of who was responsible for the two pages visits that Giovanni’s blog accumulated in 2014.

    [lprent: A name from the past. Lets pre-empt the usual first rounds. You have read the policy again right? ]

  16. tinfoilhat 16
    12 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

    Good grief … this blog has become infantile, I do wish the likes of Karol would come back.

    Does anyone know if she’s still blogging somewhere ?

    • Charles 17.1
      12 May 2015 at 3:12 pm

      We’re safe from the top two, since no one remembers what happens today, tomorrow – that’s the reason NZ is the place it is, and how the blogosphere keeps turning over. The memory hole is contradictory: if something is known to have gone into the memory hole, it has not disappeared without trace, and the record of knowing that history has been re-written, contributes to a history that cannot be re-written. No idea if the photo has removed something from the face of the blogger in question as per final link. She may now have no hair. I win the internet.

  18. Matthew Hooton 18
    12 May 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Keir at 2.42pm:

    The NLNZ takes a very wide view of what must be sent to them, and the Animal Rights Club newsletter would certainly be covered.

    See: http://natlib.govt.nz/publishers-and-authors/legal-deposit/publications-covered-by-legal-deposit

    And: http://natlib.govt.nz/publishers-and-authors/legal-deposit

    • Keir 18.1
      12 May 2015 at 3:19 pm

      That is more expansive than I would assume from reading the Act, and I would be interested to see what a court would say if it were challenged. But I’m not sure why an organisation would expect to be able to keep a document made available to the public secret – purely “in-house” stuff doesn’t need to be deposited, like meeting minutes. (And there are rules about commercial material, of course.)

      In practice I suspect the Animal Rights Club would be happy to have the newsletter archived for them so it probably doesn’t really some up.

  19. Matthew Hooton 19
    12 May 2015 at 3:06 pm

    Lanth at 2.21pm says: “The NLNZ only archive things that are relevant and of public interest.” And the GCSB says it only listens to things that are relevant and of public interest.

    • stever 19.1
      12 May 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Yes…but the NLNZ makes public the fact that is does all this collection and recording, and then makes all the material publicly available (on the whole) for posterity, future historians, curious people, nosey-parkers etc. for the good of our society (so that we know ourselves).

      The GCSB does the complete opposite.

    • Tracey 19.2
      12 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

      so do you trust gcsb now or not. i cant tell.

    • emergency mike 19.3
      12 May 2015 at 7:38 pm

      So you’re inviting us to show that NLNZ is not like the GCSB? Really?

      It’s pretty sad and pathetic to see New Zealand’s premier PR company owner slash political commentator reduced to such tr0lling.

  20. mickysavage 20
    12 May 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Gee we have had comments from Cactus Kate, Hoots, Felix, Giovanni, CV, Maui, Sacha, lprent, TRP, marty mars, Joe90 … just like old times 🙂

  21. weka 21
    12 May 2015 at 3:57 pm

    sorry if this has been covered, ffs Matthew, a conversation isn’t recorded, that’s why it’s different than a book. A book is a record, so is a blog. Talking isn’t. You of all people should be well aware of this distinction post-DP.

    • Jan Rivers 21.1
      12 May 2015 at 10:40 pm

      To show what is being talked about here is the National Library’s record for the Standard – http://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/content-aggregator/getIEs?system=ilsdb&id=1286481

      National Libraries across the world have collected national publishing for hundreds of years often, and more recently, through a legal mandate. This adds to the national record of intellectual, cultural and creative activity.

      The current National Library Act transferred this mandate into the electronic era and effectively defined websites in the .nz domain ( I think) and other NZ electronic publishing – music, pdf documents as part of NZ’s published heritage in a way that is analogous to paper publishing.

      In answer to the question about collection of low circulation paper journals there is obviously a limit but the National Library has collected an incredible amount of formal publishing using persuasion rather than legal remedies for non-supply.

  22. felix 22
    12 May 2015 at 4:03 pm

    The funny thing is in spite of all her hard work, there’s still a copy of the whole site available online right now.

  23. robby110 23
    12 May 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Oh, my word, Hooten and Kate. Hilarious.

    • phillip ure 23.1
      12 May 2015 at 4:57 pm

      i agree – this is the funniest thread in ages..

      ..enjoyment-on-a-stick…

      ..the hooten-logic – in all its’ fractured-glories – is especially awesome to behold..

      ..(and the library as surveillance-state..very fucken funny..)

      (for more hooton-humour – u can go to tv3 on demand – and see him being pwned by the gen-zero guy on the nation..and then his petulant outburst after being pwned..once again..very funny..)

    • rhinocrates 23.2
      12 May 2015 at 7:37 pm

      Oh yes, it’s Cartman and his twin sister.

  24. Stuart Munro 24
    12 May 2015 at 4:27 pm

    So the National Library can say “All your blog posts are belong to us.” I like it.

  25. Maureen 25
    12 May 2015 at 4:33 pm

    I see young Benjamin Rachinger’s blog has disappeared too – must be an outbreak of disappearing blogs!
    https://medium.com/@benrachinger/

  26. Ovid 26
    12 May 2015 at 5:00 pm

    I was a librarian working for the National Library for a few years until late 2011. My feeling is Odger’s blog will not be expunged from the NDHA, but it will probably be restricted to on site access at their services in Wellington, Auckland, Palmerston North and Christchurch. Much as many digital files of NZ music are.

    @Matthew the NLNZ’s responsibilities are laid out in law and concern public documents and publications as defined in Section 29 of the National Library Act. Your comments in the street aren’t in scope. Your comments in the NBR (or here, for that matter) are.

    • Tracey 26.1
      12 May 2015 at 5:38 pm

      now he understands the law. he wants it changed.

      • also just saying 26.1.1
        12 May 2015 at 6:03 pm

        Now that Cameron Slater is a ‘Journalist’ his blog must then be considered a newspaper in the eyes of NLNZ. If so, any post on his blog by CO or about CO would be part of the newspaper archives and therefore not able to be retrospectively tampered with yes?

        Discuss at lenght.

  27. Hateatea 27
    12 May 2015 at 6:26 pm

    This whole thread has been like watching a soap opera – drama, bitchiness, home truths, flouncing, some reasonable conversation, some childish jibes with rewinds, resets and even a hint of mystery (thanks felix).

    Nothing like a whole lot of bloggers or former bloggers duking it out on another blogs website. Primo 🙂

  28. emergency mike 28
    12 May 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Matthew Hooton thinks that if two people are having a conversation in a public place then the contents of that conversation are ‘in the public domain’. Matthew Hooton is an idiot. A libertarian without an understanding of liberty.

  29. newsense 29
    12 May 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Must be on to something. Such vehemence of denial.

    Why would they want the contents of that blog out of the historical record? A very genuine question.

    The blog is part of the media and should be archived. It’s not private papers.

    Is Matthew Hooton being paid to work on this?

    • the pigman 29.1
      12 May 2015 at 8:03 pm

      “Is Matthew Hooton being paid to work on this?

      ~30 comments from Hooton in one thread, he ain’t doing this for charity! I think it’s more like a favour for an old friend who is well-past her use-by date to their mutual patrons.

      See, the initial carrots that may have tempted the likes of Odgers to serve have now been lifted out of reach by those same RW patrons. Instead, Odgers has become a pariah whose day job career prospects are in tatters thanks to the headlines she made both publicly and privately, courtesy of her dirty politicking.

      Will be great to see where she ends up, though. Will she rise like a phoenix from the ashes? The answer is no.

  30. felix 30
    12 May 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Hooton: “The NLNZ just goes out and downloads it all, stores it and makes it available to others, including people motivated by political malice.”

    …And that’s meant to be our job!

    • emergency mike 30.1
      12 May 2015 at 10:19 pm

      Yes how dare they keep a record of the smears and rumours we’ve published for all to see on the net. We gave no such permission! Stolen websites!

      /sarc

  31. TWebb70 31
    12 May 2015 at 10:26 pm

    Cathy is in hiding.

    Something to do with outing all those Chinese investors penises.

    Oh, and karma.

  32. Silas Marner 32
    12 May 2015 at 11:51 pm

    Very interesting stuff here..right now theres a bloke on the trademe opinions and politics messageboard moaning about how poor old kate is getting a hard time from the nasty left wing ratbags on here…sob sob…is this “silas” her boyfriend ? He seems to have been paraphrasing every thing she has said for the last 3 years on the TM board..must be love 💕

  33. idbkiwi 33
    13 May 2015 at 7:30 am

    Now Rachinger has disappeared his blog, within days of begging for funds and The Standard calling on readers to support him….

    Crikey, what are the conspiracy nutjobs going to make of that?

    https://medium.com/@benrachinger

  34. Chooky 34
    13 May 2015 at 9:16 am

    I wonder how many other rightwinger Nact attack dogs are trying to cover their dirty scurrilous tracks by making their articles/comments/blogs disappear from the internet….and the National Library which keeps documents relevant to New Zealanders’ history

    (would be worth a search and an itemising outing publicly)

    ….eg the journalist ( David Cohen?) who attacked Hone Harawira and said all of Auckland was pleased to be rid of him ( not so politely)…i have not been able to find his comments/articles since….( but maybe I havent searched hard enough)

    ….maybe this is an ORGANISED CAMPAIGN of CLEANSING by Jonkey Nacts and friends to try and sanitise themselves …and make themselves look STATESMAN like…squeaky clean and upright … ( pending court cases? knighthood? Jonkey new flag? TPPA? foisted on an unwilling public to undermine their democracy and sovereignty)

    …no nasty reminders of their dirty tricks ‘journalist’ enablers and character assassinations ( eg on David Cunliffe) that got them into power by a whisker

    …they do not want history to judge them, books and PhDs written for posterity on this dirty episode in New Zealand history ….so they try and destroy the facts and public records

  35. Differentview 35
    13 May 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Those interested in more background to this apparent mystery could go to the respected American financial blog Naked Capitalism and click on the “New Zealand” topic down in the right-hand column and find 52 links to NZ-relevant posts, several of which involve the person under discussion, such as http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/new-zealands-cathy-odgers-bungles-resignation-pacific-fiduciaries.html and http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/08/new-zealand-companies-offices-612mn-money-laundering-snooze.html

    It appears that this series of (maybe a dozen iirc) exposes of NZ’s sloppy business registration practices (now somewhat improved), and the way that various entities took advantage of this sloppiness to hide their connection with questionable activities, may be relevant to what is under discussion here.

    While I would in one sense defend anyone’s right to withdraw public statements, say by apologising and correcting them, in cases where harm was done by the statements this seems to me to resemble withdrawing a knife from someone’s body, hiding it, and then denying any connection with any wounds that may or may not have been associated with said knife. Just my opinion, of course, yours may differ.