Update on dirty politics developments

Written By: - Date published: 11:37 am, June 7th, 2015 - 189 comments
Categories: blogs, Dirty Politics, journalism - Tags: , , ,

Yesterday Ben Rachinger’s story was told on The Nation – one part of it at least, the allegation (well supported by documentary evidence) that Cameron Slater offered him $5,000 to hack this blog. (Wasted money Cameron, there’s nothing here to see!) You can watch The Nation spot online here.

Coverage that followed:

Slater accused of offering blog hack payment
Right-wing blogger accused of paying off hacker
Cameron Slater denies hacking allegations (of course he does)
Slater in the spotlight
Dirty Politics 2.0

Martyn Bradbury, who hates us so much that he cannot even bear to mention our name, makes some good points in:
Compare how long Slater’s complaint gets investigated to investigations against him
Slater’s bizarre response to the allegations of hacking

Ben Rachinger is back to Twitter again, and has posted this blog with a lot more background detail. He says he will be posting further responses today.

Cameron Slater is still deleting any mention of this story on whaleoil, presumably so his loyal readers don’t learn that he keeps asking them for money while giving it (so he claims) to Ben out of the goodness of heart. He also has a bridge for sale.
 
 

A bit of Twitter:


https://twitter.com/danylmc/status/607316760354693120
Read on with Mclauchlan and Tiso for interesting discussion….

189 comments on “Update on dirty politics developments ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dukeofurl 1
    7 June 2015 at 12:27 pm

    “LOL at the ongoing obsession Slater, DPF et al have with the identities of the posters on The Standard”

    The real intent is to penetrate the communications between the Standardinistas and each other to pre-empt any posts.
    National especially uses informers at the main newspapers to get heads up of incoming stories the night before. THis would be an extension of this.

    Farrar especailly in his other role in Nationals ‘opposition research’ unit , ie black ops
    have Stasi like records of who and where of most political activists in NZ.
    This is especially handy as polling is not counted as ‘election expenditure’, so expenses run through his business is under cover.

    It may seem small cheese knowing about posts on the Standard in advance, but in election year the stakes are high

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      7 June 2015 at 12:36 pm

      Once authors identities were known, they would be attacked physically and by other means. Abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation, and assault. Attacks on their employers and places of business.

      Pseudonymity provides a measure of protection against centre-right thugs.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.1
        7 June 2015 at 1:46 pm

        Given that a good number of the authors are already publicly known, surely if your claim here is correct, they will already have been suffering physical attacks, abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation and assault?

        So, r0b, Lynn, Micky, ever had any of the above happen to you, or is OAB just takings things too far, as usual?

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 2:34 pm

          You’ve missed part of the point. If an author is using a pseudonym it’s likely to be for reasons such as not wanting their posts to be associated with their personal lives. People that use their real life identities by definition don’t have such concerns (at least not to the same degree).

          • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2015 at 2:46 pm

            You’ve missed part of the point. If an author is using a pseudonym it’s likely to be for reasons such as not wanting their posts to be associated with their personal lives.

            That is not the same as stating that people whose identities are exposed *will* be subjected to all of that abuse. It’s basically a conspiracy theory / assuming that anyone of a different political persuasion to yourself is an evil bad person looking out to commit crimes. It’s juvenile and frankly beneath OAB.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 2:57 pm

              Lanth, there is documented evidence that suggests Slater has been involved in pretty much all the things OAB listed (with the exception of physical assault). Why would this be any different?

              This isn’t about garden variety political opponents, it’s about Dirty Politics. I’m gobsmacked to have to point this out.

              • Lanthanide …
                7 June 2015 at 3:33 pm

                “Lanth, there is documented evidence that suggests Slater has been involved in pretty much all the things OAB listed (with the exception of physical assault). ”

                1. Link please.
                2. Against whom?
                3. So again, if Slater is such a nasty mean baddie, how come he hasn’t done these things to Lynn, rOb and micky? Or if he has, how come they haven’t said anything? This really is paranoia, I’m afraid.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    7 June 2015 at 4:51 pm

                    OAB actually said “abuse mail”, ie finding out someone’s postal address. That’s much more threatening than finding out someone’s email address, which is obviously much more easily done. Especially a journalist’s email address.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2015 at 4:56 pm

                      Yep, that too.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:09 pm

                      Oh, and to be clear, I mean postal address.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      8 June 2015 at 12:22 pm

                      Slater DOES have a background in thuggery.

                      He has claimed, very early on his website that he was with Gerry Brownlee when a election meeting protester was thrown down a staircase. This was during 1999 when Shipley was running for re-election. Brownlee was charged under a private prosecution for this thuggery. All very Brownshirts stuff.

                      Slater has also claimed to have been involved in brawls with what he called unionists during other election meetings.

                      Then there was the Ports of Auckland dispute, where we do know POAL used private security to follow and photograph individuals.
                      As Slater worked in the private security area before his business went bust, he was up to his eyeballs it this operation

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 June 2015 at 3:48 pm

                  Just speaking from experience.

                • r0b …
                  7 June 2015 at 3:58 pm

                  lprent has had his employers approached on more that one occasion I believe. I have had my employer approached once, and another incident about which I have my suspicions (but no proof). There are very sick and violent people out there, and yes I am afraid of them.

                  • lprent …
                    7 June 2015 at 4:24 pm

                    Usually ex-employers because Slater is a bit stupid. I am careful about what I leave on the net.

                    I warn new employers when we are doing the contract that there are unscrupulous arseholes without a moral centre in the political and local net worlds who would attack them to get at me.

                    Cameron Slater is the example I use.

                    Funnily enough he is not well liked in the business community. Thsre are a pile of companies around that he has attacked over the years – most likely because he was paid. I find that generally describing him as the arsehole who doesn’t like me now helps…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    7 June 2015 at 4:56 pm

                    I am afraid of them.

                    You may gain some comfort from the fact that my assailant learned a very humiliating public lesson. The harsh reality, however, is that he had already successfully intimidated other less…resourceful…folk, and I was left wondering if someone more capable would turn up next time.

                    The centre-right: tough on crime one minute, committing it the next.

                • weka …
                  7 June 2015 at 4:17 pm

                  Lanth, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t read much of the Dirty Politics conversations and posts on ts. Slater’s treatment of people is well known. Nicky Hager even wrote a book about some of it. You’ve now had 5 regulars on ts confirm that this happens and has been documented, including 2 authors. Time to wake up.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    7 June 2015 at 4:56 pm

                    I’ve read Dirty Politics, weka. What is notable is that you have not provided a link to back up your assertions that these things happen and are done by Slater.

                    AFAI recall, in Dirty Politics the only thing that was discussed like this was him sharing Nicky Hagar’s address with Kathy Odgers. I think there is quite a lot of difference between the authors on The Standard and Nicky Hagar, in terms of giving Slater a motive to engage in illegal things (and in providing Hagar’s address, he wasn’t actually doing anything illegal; possibility conspiracy to commit some kind of crime, but you’d have a hard time getting charges or proving that in court given nothing eventuated).

                    Scuffles on the internet is not the same as stalking and harassment in the real world. Now r0b and Lynn have provided evidence, but again “approaching an employer” is not illegal, whereas the things that OAB listed are (although just re-reading his comment again, I see he said “attacks on employers” which I genuinely did not notice until now, and as you’ll see in my comments, is not what I am focussing on).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:08 pm

                      So which of the claims I made are you having trouble with, given that I’m speaking from personal experience?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:15 pm

                      @ OAB: I was quite clear in 1.1.1.

                    • weka …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:27 pm

                      “What is notable is that you have not provided a link to back up your assertions that these things happen and are done by Slater.”

                      I’m not doing that work for you. There is plenty in the public domain on this, including in this very thread. You can start in with the semantics about mail vs email, or try and redefine this to what you want to talk about, but if you think that Slater hasn’t done these things, you’ve really not been paying attention.

                      Not sure why you are limiting this to illegal actions. OAB’s original point was that Slater is capable of harming and intimidating people in various ways.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:32 pm

                      @ weka:
                      1. I am talking specifically about the illegal actions listed by OAB in his comment. OAB specifically said “mail”, which is what I’m objecting to. if he had said “email” I would not have objected to it. I am quite particular in what I am talking and objecting to – I’m not saying “nothing ever at all happens”, I’m saying many of the things OAB listed simply do not seem to happen, and have indeed not happened to any of the authors who do have their names published here.

                      2. It is not me who brought up Slater, it is you (in 1.1.1.1.1.1), and you have failed to back up your assertion. Saying it’s “up to [me] to do the work” is a cop out, because YOU made the claim.

                      3. OAB never mentioned Slater.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 June 2015 at 5:50 pm

                      “Do not seem to happen”

                      Oh, silly me, I’m making it all up. Thanks for setting me straight there Lanth.

                    • weka …
                      7 June 2015 at 6:54 pm

                      You’re really wide off base here Lanth. You can try and redefine the debate all you want, but it’s pretty clear that this is primarily about Slater (and the DP team) and wasn’t confined to illegal activitities. If you want to broaden it out, go read what happens to feminist bloggers, esp in the #gamergate context.

                      You brought in the terms conspiracy and paranioa, and you’re actually plain wrong. Your naivity doesn’t bother me, but your denial based on ignorance does. I don’t have to spend half an hour dragging up links, because most other people here know what I am saying. Go educate yourself, I’m not doing your homework for you.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      7 June 2015 at 7:01 pm

                      @ weka:
                      As far as I’m concerned, it is you who is redefining the debate, not me. You’re specifically bringing in Slater and claiming he’s been involved in these things but refuse to provide any evidence to support this, you’re saying it’s “not confined to illegal activities” when I am exclusively talking about the short list of items OAB listed, and now you’re bringing in feminists into it, which is a completely different topic.

                      I completely agree that the real identities of authors being revealed is highly likely to expose them to some forms of harassment (mostly online), but I don’t agree with OAB’s statement that if the authors identities were revealed, they would subsequently be subject to the harassment he listed.

                      We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

                    • mickysavage …
                      7 June 2015 at 7:21 pm

                      Weird Lanth.

                      I had my cell published by Slater once. I then had a series of really weird calls.

                      Just read Dirty Politics. He attacks and is a bully. I personally consider that I am immune because I employ myself. But he has attacked many, many others. Week’s general proposition is valid.

          • te reo putake 1.1.1.1.2
            7 June 2015 at 2:49 pm

            Yep, exactly right, weka. In my case, my posts would have been associated with my then employer in an extremely negative way. I’m less bothered now that I don’t work there anymore, but te reo putake has a life of its own nowadays, so no need to switch to my real life name. Curiously, I note that the Herald’s tame lefty Bryce Edwards won’t link to posts that have pseudo-anonymous authors in his weekly round ups. Last week, that meant he was forced to write about the LP review as if all comment on it was negative. His intellectual blinkers about blogs protecting authors means he self censors in a way that must bring great joy to his bosses at Granny.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.2.1
              7 June 2015 at 3:00 pm

              Wow, I didn’t know that. How bizarre, given the Herald uses anonymous editorials.

            • lprent 1.1.1.1.2.2
              7 June 2015 at 4:49 pm

              Yeah, I know what you mean.

              I am pretty sure my posts haven’t been mentioned by Bryce since I emailed him and told him to use the name I wrote the post under.

              But just as I write millions of lines for employers, I have written under lprent on nets, bbs, Usenet, and blogs since 1979.

              • mickysavage …
                7 June 2015 at 7:09 pm

                He mentions mine but he knows who I am.

              • lprent …
                7 June 2015 at 11:08 pm

                He knows who I am as well. Met him once.

                Probably didn’t like that I told him off for using my real name when I’d posted under my pseudonym.

                He’d probably refer to Anthony Afterwit as Benjamin Franklin, or Kennilworthy Whisp as J.K.Rowling or Bagehot, Lexington, Schumpeter at the Economist as not being worth mentioning.

                Not to mention any number of other journalists, authors and pamphleteers.

      • Naturesong 1.1.2
        7 June 2015 at 4:41 pm

        I would posit that being a thug by definition rules you out from being a centre anything.

        Carry on.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1
          7 June 2015 at 5:12 pm

          They’ve had other names in times gone by: nowadays they call themselves the centre-right.

      • Anne 1.1.3
        7 June 2015 at 6:11 pm

        Been there OAB in the 80s and 90s. Abuse, false allegations, bullying, terrorising and attacks on my pets – borne out by vets who attended to said animals. Two died. Culprits turned out to be right wing thugs including a woman. Never returned to police with the information I had gathered because of the way they had previously treated me.

        I know how young women must have felt felt in bygone years when they reported assaults and rape and were disbelieved or… it was their own fault etc. It would take a herculean effort on the part of the police before I could ever regain respect for them.

        This is why progressive people have to hide their identities. We are vulnerable simply because of our politics and there is no-one who stands up for us.

      • David Garrett 1.1.4
        7 June 2015 at 6:59 pm

        I’m here for a very rare visit…so I might as well enjoy it…Do you seriously believe that? “right wing thugs” would physically attack you if they knew who you were? Good Lord…

        Noticed any funny clicks on your phone(s)? any unexpected loss of volume on your landline? Any large “right wing” type black SUV’s following you?

        • weka 1.1.4.1
          7 June 2015 at 7:14 pm

          what sheltered, blinkered lives some people live.

        • Sacha 1.1.4.2
          7 June 2015 at 7:17 pm

          it’s the helicopters above the cemetary, David ..

        • mickysavage 1.1.4.3
          7 June 2015 at 7:36 pm

          Look David Garrett is trying to be funny.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.4.4
          7 June 2015 at 8:17 pm

          It is true that people who put themselves into the public sphere risk retaliation and harassment of all sorts. I would suggest that such harassment is not the sole providence of those on the right, although perhaps it’s a little more prevalent there. Using the term “right-wing thugs” is probably implying more organisation behind than the harassment than there probably ever is.

          If you read up the thread, you’ll see where Lynn, r0b and micky say they’ve all had harassment in real life because people know who they are, and clearly it’s been solely based on their posting here.

          But I agree, saying that authors of The Standard *would* be harassed in real life if their names are known, particularly the types of harassment OAB listed, I think is a bit paranoid.

          • te reo putake 1.1.4.4.1
            7 June 2015 at 8:19 pm

            How is it paranoid if its already happened?

            • Lanthanide 1.1.4.4.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 8:23 pm

              Note my highlighting of the word would, which I did for a reason. micky spoke of phone calls, Lynn and r0b spoke of having their employers approached. That falls short of physical assault, intimidation and abusive mail.

              I’m not denying there is the *potential* for real-life harassment, merely that it is being massively over-egged here, both in terms of prevalence and severity.

              MPs get death threats (recent survey was that most MPs have been harassed), but they’re much higher profile than authors on The Standard, and actually are the people in a position to make laws that affect everyone’s lives.

              • te reo putake …
                7 June 2015 at 8:31 pm

                Seriously? You don’t think approaching an employer isn’t intimidation? btw, why don’t you post under your real name (apologies if I’ve missed it if you’ve already answered the question).

                • Lanthanide …
                  7 June 2015 at 8:35 pm

                  I took intimidation to be physical intimidation, ie stalking and literal ‘stand-over tactics’ etc. “Attacks on employers” was listed as a separate item.

                  My primary reason for not using my name at this point is, realistically, so my employer doesn’t see how much time I spend commenting / reading on here when I should be working 😛

                  Also I’ve never used my real name on the internet for things like this (going back to when I was 12), and generally keep my internet profile quite low, just as in real life I am quite a private person generally. I’ve been using Lanthanide for about 15 years now.

                  • te reo putake …
                    7 June 2015 at 9:17 pm

                    Amen to the employer comment! Beats wasting time looking at pictures of cats on fb. Re: the intimidation etc. the point of that kind of behaviour is two fold, one to hurt people who are already here commenting and secondly to make others too scared to comment.

        • Skinny 1.1.4.5
          7 June 2015 at 8:30 pm

          I don’t fear anyone let alone some right wing spoilt brats like Slater. Quite the opposite from where I sit. Union thugs and all that.

          What’s your brother up too. Thinking of running against that mad lawyer who is ruining Hamilton? I think I’d actually vote for him ahead of her.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.4.6
          7 June 2015 at 8:49 pm

          Attacked. Past tense.

          • The lost sheep 1.1.4.6.1
            7 June 2015 at 10:38 pm

            Citation needed OAB?

            There are some very serious implications you are making about the nature of political freedom in New Zealand without any specific evidence at all for us to consider.

            If, for reasons of privacy, we accept without evidence that you have been the victim of an assault, what evidence can you provide that this was indicative of a wider campaign of violence and intimidation by groups you identify as ‘ thugs’ of the ‘centre right’?

            If there are so ‘many more of them than us’ that are committing these acts of violent intimidation, it should be easy for you to identify some of them, and provide evidence of their actions.
            Please do so?

            • weka 1.1.4.6.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 10:49 pm

              Paula Bennett released private information of two beneficiaries who were speaking up against her WINZ policies. The Privacy Commissioner found in favour of the beneficiaries and against the Bennett. Bennett said too fucking bad. The purpose of her releasing the information was to shut people up. That’s the milieu we now live in, where Ministers of the Crown think it’s ok to breach the law when it suits their purpose, and where they openly use intimidation to further their political agenda. The NZ government behaves like this, why do you think that their lackeys wouldn’t?

              That was before Dirty Politics was make public, so now we have multiple examples. It’s astounding that people here are wanting definitive proof of intimidation. Do you really not get how intimidation works?

              • The lost sheep …
                8 June 2015 at 8:19 am

                This (highly exaggerated) account is meant to provide evidence to back OAB’s claim that there are large numbers of centre-right thugs out there actively pursuing violence against left wing bloggers?

                Again, the fact you have to produce such abstract ‘evidence’ only shows how ridiculous such a claim is.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 June 2015 at 8:22 am

                  I claimed there are large numbers? This story gets better every time you tell it.

                  • Gosman …
                    8 June 2015 at 9:35 am

                    Even if it was limited to just a few how did you know they were center right? Did they threaten you at the same time suggesting they belived in a mixed economy with more emphasis on the private sector driving the direction of economic development?

                • weka …
                  8 June 2015 at 1:25 pm

                  what’s exaggerated about it? Please, I’d really like to know.

                  And speaking of exaggeration, what’s with the large numbers bit?

                  It’s not abstract evidence, it’s a complex dynamic of power and control and using fear to intimidate people. It’s in the culture and goes as high as Ministers in the National govt and as low as Slater. If you are unaware of how this works and how it affects people, that’s on you.

                  I wonder if you are centre right and are thus taking OAB’s comments personally. He’s not talking about all righties, he’s naming something that exists on the right (people using intimidation to suppress political expression). Have you read Dirty Politics?

              • The lost sheep …
                8 June 2015 at 8:14 am

                Thanks McFlock.
                As you point out, the fact you have to go back 32 years to find the most recent of NZ’s extremely rare acts of politically motivated violence puts OAB’s claims of current and real danger to people expressing left wing views into perspective.

                The chances of such an event occurring are exceedingly remot

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 June 2015 at 8:21 am

                  😆 at your naivety and selective memory.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    8 June 2015 at 9:18 am

                    So lets drag up the far left attack on the Whanganui Computer Centre then, or death threats received by Gerry Brownlie and other Centre Right politicians….

                    Hey, we still end up at the same place OAB.
                    These are aberrations that do not effect the fact that NZ is as safe a place to engage in political activity as any country on Earth.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 June 2015 at 9:38 am

                      The main difference is that the Right covertly employs people like Slater to sponsor such behaviour.

                      The nature (very specific) and source of the prior warning I received suggests to me that it happens a lot more than you think.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      8 June 2015 at 10:27 am

                      I was a highly active proponent of Left Wing Politics for nearly 40 years up until 2011 OAB, and based on that experience I am quite happy to say it is bollocks to suggest there is a significant risk of intimidation or physical attack when expressing Left Wing views in NZ.

                      On the other hand, I would suggest that, regardless of which side of politics you are on, or even outside of politics, treating people like shit is always likely to increase your chances of interaction with other people who treat people like shit.

                      As you have told me so many times what a morally corrupt idiot I am, I hesitate to suggest to someone of your intellectual and ethical superiority that there is a lesson here.

                      Fini.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 June 2015 at 10:32 am

                      Keep telling yourself that, while ignoring the significance of the fact that I was number three on the list.

                • McFlock …
                  8 June 2015 at 2:18 pm

                  Actually, the most recent one I recalled offhand was 15 years. I guess you can’t count.

                  But then I’d forgotten about the bullets fired at Hone’s office.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.4.6.1.3
              7 June 2015 at 11:45 pm

              Take it or leave it your acceptance is of no consequence to me.

              • The lost sheep …
                8 June 2015 at 7:51 am

                As this conforms to your usual pattern of making a claim and then refusing to engage with a fact based discussion, I’ll leave it then.

                If you really believe there are gangs of Centre right thugs actively targeting left wing supporters with violence, your worldview is even further removed from reality than I had thought.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 June 2015 at 8:18 am

                  That’s ok, I wouldn’t have believed it either. In fact, when I was warned of the risk I dismissed it (while raising an eyebrow at the authority of the source). Oh, and it was just one thug, not a gang, although whether he was responsible for all of the various incidents involved is unclear.

                  I should also say that this was while I was still using my real name – or a derivative of it – online.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    8 June 2015 at 8:30 am

                    An (alleged) isolated incident stemming from your behavior online.?

                    Given the consistently bullying / intimidatory / abusive nature of behavior I have observed from you on this blog OAB, I would find an irony in that. (if it were true).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 June 2015 at 8:33 am

                      Perhaps that is so.

                      However, maybe you missed the fact that I was number three on the list.

                      Edit: I note Sheep has gone from “Nyah nyah it never happened prove it!” to “You deserve it”, in one foul swipe.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      8 June 2015 at 9:35 am

                      I don’t see any ‘facts’ here OAB. Just unsupported allegations.
                      And I do not say you ‘deserved it’ (if it happened).

                      The irony I would see is that a bigoted bully who regularly attacks people who express different political views online in the most abusive manner possible, should end up receiving attention from some lone nutter who takes abuse a step further down the path.

                      I would suggest in that case it was highly unlikely that it was the political content of the bigots behavior that caused offense.
                      Your political views are not particularly offensive and I hear people expressing such views all the time without it being considered an incitement to violence.

                      My pick is that if someone did find your behavior offensive, it would be the abusive nature of the manner in which you treat people with differing views that caused offense, rather than the political content.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 June 2015 at 9:55 am

                      Clearly you have failed to grasp the significance of the fact that I was number three on the list. Or it’s convenient for you to ignore it.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  8 June 2015 at 10:47 am

                  Trades hall bombing.

                • Grant …
                  8 June 2015 at 1:53 pm

                  http://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/179826/Prinsloo-25-Nov.pdf

                  Account of violent attacks by groups of thugs attacking protesters in the wake of the cancellation of the Hamilton game in 1981.

        • DoublePlusGood 1.1.4.7
          8 June 2015 at 8:42 am

          I routinely have unusual clicks and volume loss on my phone, and there’s always a van from a spy parked out on the street nearby. Your point?

  2. Charles 2
    7 June 2015 at 12:27 pm

    re: Clifton tweet

    When did the identity of commenters become an interest to alleged hacking activities? I thought it was an “admin”/post authorship hack they were attempting.

    • Sacha 2.1
      7 June 2015 at 12:43 pm

      Clifton just wouldn’t understand the distinction. #oldskool

    • te reo putake 2.2
      7 June 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Rachinger was asked to get the lot, charles.

      While the identity of the authors was the prime target, if he’d got the email list and failed to find any LP hacks amongst the authors, Cam would have moved onto the commenters to try and establish a link to the party. So anybody that comments here and is friends or family with LP MP’s or staffers would have been subject to attack. We know from previous behaviour that there is no line Slater won’t cross.

      Luckily, we’ve got some pretty robust systems here to prevent that kind of bullying, thanks to Lprent’s tireless efforts.

    • whateva next? 2.3
      7 June 2015 at 12:46 pm

      one of the texts shown on The Nation mentioned something about commenters being an optional goal, but not a priority….

    • whateva next? 2.4
      7 June 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Having seen the treatment Slater dishes out to naieve commenters on his site, I dread to think how he would abuse information about people celebrating our democratic rights on The Standard

    • Tigger 2.5
      7 June 2015 at 1:08 pm

      Does Clifton not understand casting a wide net in the hopes you’ll catch valuable fish? Or that anything, anything that can be used to discredit the left is of value?

      Look, my identity could be of use given my past. I’m not a Labour staffer, nor have I ever. I imagine the identities of other commenters might throw up some ‘interesting’ information that could be spun to look off. Would outing us bring Labour down? No. But it’s all about throwing mud, any ‘mud’.

      Clifton should know that.

      • Shona 2.5.1
        7 June 2015 at 3:21 pm

        Clifton is Wellington centric. She wouldn’t know which way the ground was /is pointing.On the rare occasions she was on The Panel before I switched Nat Radio off permanently, her ignorance of world affairs ,particularly anything to do with the Middle East used to take my breath away.

      • David Garrett 2.5.2
        7 June 2015 at 7:02 pm

        Ah…since Clifton is currently married – quaint old fashioned notion I know – to Trevor Mallard, you can expect her to be pretty well briefed on matters left wing…Or is poor old Trevor now on the list of those airbrushed (or whatever the computer equivalent is) out of the pictures of the Old Comrades?

        [lprent: What does left or right have to do with it? This is the net.

        No politicians know anything much about The Standard. This is quite deliberate. Why would we want them to? They are generally techno-morons, clumsy in the social interactions there, and quite unaware of net cultures.

        At Red Alert for instance, none of them seemed that aware of the downstream effects of them using IP/email backtracing – even after I warned them. After the third detectable release of information that should have been secure there, I and others warned people that they left comments there at their own peril. The site kind of died as a functioning community after that. That was a pity as it’d been pretty good up until then.

        The same thing happened back in 2008 when we detected that net arsehole Cameron Slater using IP backtraces on comments left by left wingers.

        Trevor is relatively competent for a politician, but he is still a noop simply because of his age and lack of early exposure. I suspect that the mental image of him advising Clifton about left wing blogs will simply bring tears of laughter to everyone’s eyes.]

        • McFlock 2.5.2.1
          7 June 2015 at 7:27 pm

          Dude, even if Clifton receives a “briefing” every evening on confidential Labour Party information, it’s completely irrelevant to the concept that the alleged purchased hacking was not to get proof against a specific, known individual, it was fishing to find anything the alleged purchaser could use to slander or harrass the left and (in the alleged purchaser’s dreams) Labour.

          And if mallard was being airbrushed out of photos (now bring out dancing cossacks), the biggest inconvenience for him would be when some ACT fucktard tries to steal his identity.

          • David Garrett 2.5.2.1.1
            7 June 2015 at 8:11 pm

            Ah…the passport…can’t blame you I guess, since Mr Prentice found it necessary to mention my 31 year old offence in his post on three strikes today..

            But what happened to all that forgiveness and second chances you chaps are so fond of? Or is that only for chaps like Mr Macskasy, who was also caught in the same sweep that got me? Only three of the 40 odd detected HADN’T used their bogey passport for nefarious purposes…I was one of them ( a matter of public record before you dispute that)…don’t know if old Frank was one of the other three…He’ll be happy to tell us, since we are bringing up ancient history…

            [lprent: I was hoping you’d point that out.

            Passport fraud is an offence carrying a large max sentence these days (10+ years?). Bearing in mind its use for terrorist activities, it seems to me that it is an ideal candidate for adding to the 3 strikes – for exactly the reasons you give for being caught dealing in P.

            Like your other dumbarse ideas, it wouldn’t matter if you’d used it. It only mattered that you were sentenced. Time makes no particular difference to a first strike notation. So it’d have to had been on your record forever.

            Clearly if you want to arbitrarily add crimes to the 3 strikes regime, then this should be one to be considered. Possibly even made retroactive?

            Hey, I’m sure that we could help to make that happen… Frank would probably even help. ]

            • Psycho Milt 2.5.2.1.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 8:31 pm

              Assuming your allegation against Frank Macskasy is true, it’s worth pointing out that he, unlike you, didn’t try to make a political career out of cracking down on lawbreakers while not mentioning that he was one himself.

              • David Garrett …
                7 June 2015 at 8:43 pm

                No, fair comment Mr Milt, he didn’t …But then do you think any party would have put old Frank on their list?

                You know New Zealand is such a small place…every time I see Frank’s uniquely spelled name I remember the one and only time he and I met…20 odd years ago…Too funny…I would elaborate, but the ah…circumstances in which we met might embarrass him.

                But seriously now, I certainly wouldn’t suggest he had also been pinged for a bogey passport if it wasn’t so…law of defamation and all that…

                • Psycho Milt …
                  7 June 2015 at 9:08 pm

                  Your own experiences at the hands of the media suggest it wouldn’t be a good idea to for a party to put on its list anyone with a long-past criminal conviction they didn’t think was relevant now – which is depressing, and for what it’s worth, which I thought was depressing when they were busy hounding you about it, and which I still find depressing when no-one on the left can write a comment about you without bringing it up. That said, Frank strikes me as a potential asset to any left-wing party, for all that I spend a lot of time disagreeing with him in comments threads.

                  • McFlock …
                    7 June 2015 at 10:12 pm

                    If someone in a glass house wants to bring up irrelevant shit about other people, I’m surprised they were selected to be an MP.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    8 June 2015 at 12:19 am

                    ” … for all that I spend a lot of time disagreeing with him in comments threads.” – Psycho Milt

                    True that. Even had to apologise to you, Milt , on one occassion when I got something wrong.

                    But at least when we disagree, you put your thoughts coherently, as an issue, rather than dogma. It means one has to think through what you’ve written, before committing word-pixels-to-screen…

            • McFlock 2.5.2.1.1.2
              7 June 2015 at 8:55 pm

              Haven’t read the post on three strikes yet.

              I just think it’s really funny that the fucked-sentencing-trust-aligned party seems to have the highest MP conviction rate of any NZ political party.

              You’re a hypocrite. But that’s irrelevant to the fact that your point about Clifton and Mallard being married was completely irrelevant to the comment to which you brought their marriage up.

              • David Garrett …
                7 June 2015 at 9:11 pm

                McFlock: Please do explain how a 31 year old bogey passport offence makes me a hypocrite…without getting all dictionary on it, a hypocrite is a person who says or advocates one thing, but does another…

                Now if I had robbed a bank 31 years ago, you may well have a point…but even then, aren’t you chaps all into redemption and second chances? How long would I have had to be on the straight and narrow to be considered redeemed?

                You’ll find that passport fraud and forgery are not “strike” offences…Just so you know, they are all offences of SERIOUS violence punishable by at least seven years in the pokey…And you have my assurance that I have never committed one of them …(but then apparently we righties are all “moronic”, “idiotic” and liars…so Mr Prentice tells me…)

                • te reo putake …
                  7 June 2015 at 9:24 pm

                  I imagine it’s because you hid your own criminal behaviour while at the same time opining on the crimes of others. Yep, that’ll be it.

                  • McFlock …
                    7 June 2015 at 10:07 pm

                    As well as receiving name suppression, only admitting it when the cat was well and truly out of the bag.

                    While not just being an MP, but the party’s law and order spokesperson.

                    But it’s funny how tories only think they commit small crimes. Seven years? These days passport fraud gets up to ten years.

            • Frank Macskasy 2.5.2.1.1.3
              8 June 2015 at 12:13 am

              “I was one of them ( a matter of public record before you dispute that)…don’t know if old Frank was one of the other three…He’ll be happy to tell us, since we are bringing up ancient history…” – David Garrett

              Happy to help (if “happy” is the appropriate term).

              Indeed, that was an event in my early 20s (1983, if memory serves) – a ‘prank’ I’d committed in a geeky act of rebellion against the state. Others were drinking, doing drugs, hooning around in souped up Triumphs and Ford Fairmonts. My act of youthful stupidity was testing the system to see if it worked, with a fake passport.

              Did I use it for anything illegal? Like drugs? Hell no. That was a step too far into the Stupid Zone even for me.

              I had long forgotten the incident, until 2006, when two detectives knocked on my door. It took a while for me to realise what they were talking about – at first I thought someone had used MY passport illegally!

              I got a $2,000 fine and was sent on my way.

              However, what with the internet, that act of youthful dumbness is something I’ll bear for the rest of my days. The “sentence” is more than a fine.

              (Side note: I did not apply for name suppression. I did the deed, I took it on the chin. )

              • David Garrett …
                8 June 2015 at 9:07 am

                Ah that brings back memories Frank! (I think you have the year wrong though; it was 2005)

                I will never forget two clean cut chaps in Hallensteins suits – recognizable immediately as policemen – arriving at my office one morning, giving me a formal caution, me thinking “what the f…cant his be about?” slapping down a photocopy of an application I had filled out more than 20 years before, and saying “Is that you?”…I also had long forgotten about it…

                Mr Prentice seems to think there is no distinction between having got one – you for the same reason as me – and using it…but I see one, and I’m glad you and I are both members of the “got it for a lark; never used it club”.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 June 2015 at 9:11 am

                  No, you aren’t, or you wouldn’t have made the inept attempt to conceal it the way you did.

  3. freedom 3
    7 June 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Regarding that letter Cameron Slater has published explaining his super caring mission of mercy that shows how wrong we all are and how he is simply a misunderstood ambassador of compassionate humanity.

    Near the end, Cameron Slater wrote a very interesting line:
    “I understand he has been monitored and interviewed by officials who have concerns about him.”

    How does Cameron Slater know officials (what officials?) have interviewed and are monitoring Ben, let alone know that they have [unspecified] concerns about him?

    Did Ben tell him ? – if so, that should be pretty easy to clear up by simply asking Ben for comment on that particular statement.

    Are officials who are investigating the alleged actions sharing details of that investigation with Slater ?

    As Slater is a primary subject of that investigation why is he being told anything about other aspects of the ongoing investigation?

    On what grounds & with whose permission are highly confidential matters associated with an ongoing criminal investigation being shared with Cameron Slater?

    If, as we would assume, the officials involved did not share details of the ongoing investigation with a subject of the investigation, and if Ben did not share the details, then who else has access to such details and would pass highly personal and confidential information onto Cameron Slater?

    “I understand he has been monitored and interviewed by officials who have concerns about him.”

    There is of course one more question about that line …..
    Was Slater actually talking in the third person? 😉

    • weka 3.1
      7 June 2015 at 2:39 pm

      I think it’s a safe bet that someone else wrote the piece, and that it is very carefully worded for full PR impact. Slurring Ben in such a backhanded way is part of building the myth that Slater is the Good person and Ben is teh brilliant but troubled (but in actualy fact, criminal) one.

    • Treetop 3.2
      7 June 2015 at 3:41 pm

      I would not put it past Slater if he knows who Rawshark is. If Key knows then Slater could know.

      Slater’s reputation has ended up in him being erratic and deceptive.

      For a person to make a police complaint about being hacked and then allegedly being the go between for a hack on the TS (and being bank rolled by a third party, who may know who Rawshark is and have dirt on some TS authors) this is documented.

      1. Slater will not divulge who bank rolled him.
      2. Slater would have to pass on to the third party who the TS authors in notices and features are. Probably Slater would then be used to discredit them in his blog.
      3. There maybe no third party.

      If it is all a Slater deception, he will be found out.

      • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1
        8 June 2015 at 12:45 am

        “1. Slater will not divulge who bank rolled him.” – Treetop

        My guess is no one “bankrolled” him. Slater (allegedly) procured Ben Rachinger on his own accord, as part of Slater’s malevolent, on-going vendetta against left-wing activists.

        No one else would really care that much. The only one who does is Cameron Slater.

        Having said that, I will be surprised if the Police lay any charges against Slater. They don’t seem to view this alleged event as serious.

  4. Tracey 4
    7 June 2015 at 1:05 pm

    regarding that letter that has Cameron Slater’s name at the end

    fifu

    dont want people assuming he actually wrote it.

  5. weka 5
    7 June 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Barrister Felix Geiringer on the legal issues, including the police investigation,

    Scott Milne ‏@LostArcNZ Jun 5
    So interested in a lawyer’s opinion: enough evidence to execute a search warrant on Cameron Slater yet? Anyone? @BarristerNZ?

    Felix Geiringer
    ‏@BarristerNZ
    @LostArcNZ Two questions: Q1 Are there reasonable grounds to suspect that an imprisonable offence has been committed? A1. Yes, in spades.


    Felix Geiringer
    ‏@BarristerNZ
    @LostArcNZ Q2. Are there reasonable grounds to believe search will uncover evidence? A2. There were 4 months ago, but decreases each day.

    https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/with_replies

  6. Skinny 6
    7 June 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Slater appears to have breeched a number of laws, even the cyber bullying one. I think the low life hacker is not all there in the head. He may have got away with tucking in the mug Slater for 9k, however he may not be so lucky if he pulls this kind of stunt to others. People have received concrete boots for less. My advice to these childish fools is take this as a warning your next victim may be your last.

    • David Garrett 6.1
      7 June 2015 at 7:06 pm

      Oops…I saw Mr Prentice – I think he prefers the term “sysop” – deleting someone’s comment earlier and warning them for even hinting at threatening violence…I assume – but who am I to say? – your warning will be along shortly Sir/madam…

      [Skinny isn’t threatening violence, he’s pointing out a fairly obvious potential consequence of illegal activity. As a criminal convicted of assault, I would have thought you’d be able to spot the difference. Stop whining. TRP]

      • David Garrett 6.1.1
        7 June 2015 at 8:15 pm

        Now I don’t know if it’s a banning here for pointing out the obvious after “TRP” – who or whatever that is – has pronounced…so I’d better not…I am used to very little moderation you see…Mr Farrar is very slow to anger, and even slower to punish…

        But fair do’s…when at Trades Hall one has to abide by the brothers’ rules…Sorry..of course they are not “brothers” any more…the brothers’ and SISTERS’ rules…

        [Are you drunk? TRP]

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 8:27 pm

          To be honest David, the moderating on The Standard really is generally quite fair. People have a lot of pre-conceptions about it and they’re almost always wrong. These pre-conceptions can occasionally lead to people directly falling foul of the moderation, which is a little ironic. I’d also say that the moderation is in general quite light (probably even lighter than Parliament?).

          One of the key aspects of the moderation is the context and intent of what is written is assessed, not just whether it was “bad language” or “disagreeing with others” that a lot of people wrongly assume.

          • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2015 at 8:38 pm

            Yes. I’ve had plenty of lengthy and antagonistic disputes with posts on this site, and only once had a post author even threaten banning me. The Kiwiblog ranters who go on about “censorship” here just have difficulty distinguishing between “censorship” and “low tolerance for trolling or pointless abuse.”

          • Brutus Iscariot 6.1.1.1.2
            8 June 2015 at 11:48 am

            I’ve found the moderation here generally excellent.

            Whereas on WO, i swear on occasion posts that have contradicted “the party line” have been very slow to appear, if at all.

        • David Garrett 6.1.1.2
          7 June 2015 at 8:45 pm

          Ah, no as it happens…I have been on the wagon for some considerable time..”health reasons” as they say…I do have the odd lapse…but tonight aint one of them..

          I must say I am very much enjoying the comments here…so different from what I am used to in my normal milieu…

          But could some kind person explain – I’m a bit thick as Mr Prentice has unkindly observed – how I make my reply appear beneath the comment I am replying to? In this case the one suggesting I am drunk…up thread a bit…missed the chap’s name…Ah yes “TRP” …I assume that is some person’s initials? Is s/he a “sysop” that I see frequently referred to in your rules? Thanks very much in anticipation…

          • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2.1
            7 June 2015 at 8:53 pm

            So far you have (generally) been clicking the correct Reply link.

            There is a threading system in place, so comments can appear like this:

            Post 1 by person X
               Reply 1.1 by person Y
               Reply 1.2 by person Z
                  Reply 1.2.1 by person A
                     Reply 1.2.1.1 by person B
               Reply 1.3 by person C

            In this case, if you were to reply to person X, it would be as 1.4 and appear visually after 1.3 and the others above it. So your reply to person X’s comment won’t always be immediately after their comment, if other people had replied to that comment before you did (in this example, Y, Z and C directly replied to X).

            I’m not sure that really answers your question, but it seems the clearest way to describe it to me – because you already are (or have been) using the reply link correctly.

            • David Garrett 6.1.1.2.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 8:58 pm

              Lanthanide: Thank you very much. That does explain how this site works. Farrar’s is different, as some of you will know…not that you would ever let on!

          • te reo putake 6.1.1.2.2
            7 June 2015 at 8:55 pm

            Ok, fair enough. Glad you’re enjoying the comments. I’ve no doubt that they’re different from those at your usual haunts; I hope some of the wit, passion and compassion rubs off on you.

            • David Garrett 6.1.1.2.2.1
              7 June 2015 at 9:03 pm

              te reo: Well, you might just be surprised…Farrar posted with compassion on Helen Kelly’s illness some weeks ago…Aside from one or two wankers – who were quickly stomped on by others – all of the 50 odd comments were gracious acknowledgements of the work she does, and the sincere views she holds…while making it clear that they views were not shared by the commenter.

              Rather different from the indecent glee that Margaret Thatcher’s death was marked with over here…

              But that “compassion” comment of yours is interesting…I have the greatest compassion for the victims of serious crime, many of whom I represent before the Parole Board (victims have the right to be heard now) I don’t have much compassion for those who have bashed and killed their loved ones I must admit…

              [lprent: *sigh*

              Firstly. This site isn’t there for having rather strange eulogies, early or otherwise. It is there to promote robust debate on post content and related topics. Read the about and the policy.

              Don’t try to tell us how to run our site directly or indirectly. It tends to make us irritable (try getting that for 7 years from amateurs) and given to abrupt moderating actions. If you absolutely have to, suggest alternate methods, reasons why, and a path towards implementation. Do it in OpenMike. Then I’ll merely be sarcastic.

              But lazy and ignorant arseholes who neither read those links nor contribute anything of value to the site really aren’t respected here when they try to tell us how to run our site for their benefit.

              Secondly almost all of the comments on the Thatcher posts were based around the content of the posts, or were based around the content on the comments they were replying to. This is what the site is set up to do.

              There were 313 comments on karol’s post on her experiences in England at the time of Thatcher. Most of the initial comments were on either on that or other peoples experiences (for instance Wayne Mapp for an alternate view). And there was a lot of linking to other opinions outside of the site. Rob was active moderating the usual few (xtacy for instance) who went past our policy bounds. When I got moderating the comments the following day, I found little to do and found it so uninteresting that I barely remember the post comments at all.

              There were 181 comments on a post containing David Shearer’s statement about Thatcher.
              Almost all of the early comments were about David Shearer. Some comments at the end shifted back to Thatcher – mostly remembered by me because they appeared to be initiated from visitors from the sewer trying to ignite flamewars. That post I did remember because I noticed Addison back after an amnesty up to his old tricks trying to start flamewars.

              Thirdly, Now I am sure that you can cherry pick a minority of the comment authors as being over the top about Thatcher, probably balanced by the idiots trolling from the sewer or whaleoil. But consider this….

              There looks to have been about 150 active participants in those two posts. There were 5 or 6 people who needed moderating. Probably during the month that post was available for comments, we had about 2800 distinct commenters (according to my database check at the end of 2013), and 37,141 unique visitors (google analytics).

              To me, you appear to be attributing the actions of very small minorities to “The Standard” and/or its commenters.

              You may not do that because this is not a very cohesive group.

              Commenters do what they want within site policy limits.

              Authors and moderators act cooperatively rather than collectively, and largely without bothering to talk about what each of us are doing.

              Always point to the specific people and comments you are complaining or commenting on. Don’t invent mythical entities that only exist in your conspiracy fetishes.

              There is no need when you have so many interesting personalities around, and it badly irritates moderators because mythical collectivisation causes irritating flamewars.

              I won’t bother warning you yet. You appear to not have read the about or policy. Read them now as they stop me having to waste time on you as a moderator. ]

      • Skinny 6.1.2
        8 June 2015 at 1:22 pm

        Just some friendly advice to the young fella. While I thought it was hilarious that Slater and his ‘so called client’ got duped, my point is don’t make a habit of breaking the law against others, taking a contract and not delivering. It is a double edged sword, either way your dicing with fire.

        You of all people know all about coming off second best against the establishment. In my humble opinion you should have got a bit of time behind bars consider Fields did for a lot less.

        Cheers TRP and a crisp salute to Colonel Mustard.

  7. Lord Donkey 7
    7 June 2015 at 3:18 pm

    I have been waiting patiently all day for Ben’s next instalment he has promised but true to form like always he seems to have now disappeared from the radar – why is it he keeps launching an attack with “part” info, and then runs for the hills.

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      7 June 2015 at 3:37 pm

      He’s either incapable of writing a coherent narrative, or there simply is no coherent story to tell. It’s looking more and more like the latter, given how The Nation were very selective in their coverage, sticking to just the things that were relevant and had evidence to back them up.

      • mickysavage 7.1.1
        7 June 2015 at 8:47 pm

        Strip out all the words that have been used in this story, Ben has been paid a lot of money and there are texts that have not been contested yet to suggest that the payments were for a particular purpose (to hack TS).

        Point out where my perhaps simplistic analysis is wrong but until someone can explain away the texts I remain very suspicious.

        And I do not think that Slater would pay money out to someone out of the goodness of his heart.

        • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 9:04 pm

          Neither would it be Slater’s money being paid out by Slater.

    • Treetop 7.2
      7 June 2015 at 3:57 pm

      I have a question for Ben.

      Does he think there is a third party or does he think it is a Slater solo?

      I have not asked who bank rolls Slater to dig up dirt for his blog.

      • weka 7.2.1
        7 June 2015 at 4:23 pm

        In the original posts on medium by Ben he documented Slater being a go between between the finder and the hacker. I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise. Slater was a go between on other things eg getting Rachinger a job.

        • Treetop 7.2.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 5:31 pm

          “I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise.”

          So far the funder is a so called third party who are not Nats. It would have to be verified who the third party is (funder for a hack) before I would discount a Slater solo.

          I am not questioning Ben, he has fronted up and it appears that he will co- operate. Slater has put himself into a corner, he cannot say that he was the funder (third party) and he cannot name the funder.

          There are probably a number of third parties who pay Slater to sling mud on his blog. For Slater to be involved in targeting TS authors, this is different and Slater could use the info for his own purpose.

          An imaginary funder is clever, and Slater’s day to day funders would fund him to sling dirt.

          • Treetop 7.2.1.1.1
            7 June 2015 at 6:09 pm

            Had Ben gone through with hacking the TS, Slater could have blackmailed him. I have also considered that asking Ben to hack the TS is a decoy for another reason. Ben would be very useful to a person like Slater.

            • weka 7.2.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 7:06 pm

              Did you read the original posts by Ben on medium? On balance it seems more likely to me that someone else funded it. Of course Slater is considered a regular liar so I guess I could be wrong. That’s the only reason I can see for thinking that the funder is fake. Soliciting a hack seems entirely consistent with Slater’s general actions in the world (not just mud slinging on site) as well as the DP community, so I don’t consider it to be that different.

              • Treetop …
                8 June 2015 at 11:47 am

                The only stuff I have seen on the matter is on The Nation and TV 3 news last Saturday. I intend to read the above links and follow the case.

                Finding out if there is a funder, this maybe with held. The main thing for me is how a person can put in a police complaint about being hacked (which they are entitled to do) and then become involved in a potential hack while a police investigation is being carried out on their police complaint.

                Bizarre me thinks.

                Eventually a timeline will throw more light on what is likely to be factual and correct.

                • weka …
                  8 June 2015 at 1:31 pm

                  a timeline would be great. I read the original posts as they went up and a third party funder seems likely to me. But it’s true that Slater could have made it up.

                  Bizarre in the extreme.

    • weka 7.3
      7 June 2015 at 4:28 pm

      I’d put Ben in the spectrum of neurally atypical. To me his tweet and post style make sense in that context. He has a disability (hearing) and has been under high stress for periods of time. That he doesn’t present or behave in what some people consider to be proper ways doesn’t mean his story is untruthful.

      (That’s different to his actions where he has harmed people (not Slater) but he states now that he regrets that and wishes to change. Different people respond differently to that).

      • Lanthanide 7.3.1
        7 June 2015 at 4:49 pm

        “That he doesn’t present or behave in what some people consider to be proper ways doesn’t mean his story is untruthful.”

        I don’t think anyone is accusing him of being untruthful per se, just that he’s failed to back up his claims. He might think he has a compelling story with lots of detail and evidence, but when published, no-one else does.

        • Sacha 7.3.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 5:28 pm

          The Nation must have thought it was worth publishing.

        • weka 7.3.1.2
          7 June 2015 at 5:30 pm

          I think his story is credible. Others do too, including Tim Watkin who produced the Nation piece.

          • lprent 7.3.1.2.1
            7 June 2015 at 5:38 pm

            I think that Ben R is pretty credible. I haven’t seen anything that is inconsistent with what I know about the participants and particularly with the strange obsession that Cameron Slater has with the authors on this blog.

            • mickysavage 7.3.1.2.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 7:04 pm

              Agreed. If Slater comes out and says that the texts are false then there needs to be an investigation. But his silence on the matter adds credence to the proposition that they are genuine.

          • Lanthanide 7.3.1.2.2
            7 June 2015 at 7:04 pm

            See my comment at 7.1: the Nation’s story was very narrow and specific and did not touch many of the other things Ben has said.

            • weka 7.3.1.2.2.1
              7 June 2015 at 7:08 pm

              And? I thought it was a good move on their part to narrow the story down and stay focussed. I’m not sure whether the wider story was relevant to what they were doing. Doesn’t mean that the wider story isn’t credible though, which is what you seem to be implying.

              • Lanthanide …
                7 June 2015 at 7:48 pm

                No, that’s not what I’m saying or implying.

                I’m not saying it’s not credible (ie, it *could* have happened the way he is saying it did), I’m saying that his communication of the story is not completely convincing because of a lack of details and evidence.

  8. coaster 8
    7 June 2015 at 5:41 pm

    As a commentor on here, its scary to think that those on the right who beleive anything goes could be wanting my name and email (no matter how far down the list i am ).
    It does make you consider commenting or not. Its like running past a known gang house, it makes you ask youself if you should just avoid it.

    Im an ordinary kiwi who has socialist views, this is twice now my data has been targeted (i know not specifically, but as part of a trawl for info) with the last time as part of the labour hack. I cant help but think that these attacks are specificcally designed to scare people like me away from blogs like the standard.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      7 June 2015 at 5:54 pm

      That’s part of it. A creeping pernicious self-censorship. Slater’s clients are getting value for money.

    • whateva next? 8.2
      7 June 2015 at 6:38 pm

      same thoughts exactly, and then look forward to the day that Labour are in government again, and respectful, rational style of communicating is restored, no matter what side you vote.
      Same happened in UK with Thatcher, everybody backstabbing, survival mode operating.

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.2.1
        7 June 2015 at 9:06 pm

        and then look forward to the day that Labour are in government again, and respectful, rational style of communicating is restored, no matter what side you vote

        Heh, is Labour going to roll back and curtail spying and data collection on ordinary NZ citizens using the FVEY technology employed by ourselves and our “allies”? Let’s be realistic. No way.

        • Ergo Robertina 8.2.1.1
          7 June 2015 at 9:20 pm

          I agree with whateva next, and think this is something missed by those who (including sometimes me) dismiss the two major parties as being alike.
          There is a different tone to the body politic under National, which actively discourages participation in politics, as shown in Dirty Politics (an aspect of the book not appreciated in my opinion).
          I suppose we haven’t seen Labour in office in a fully digital-centric age, but the party is not inherently thuggish in respect of connections to the commercial and political (the wider right) sectors.

          • Colonial Rawshark 8.2.1.1.1
            7 June 2015 at 9:41 pm

            There is a different ‘tone’ for sure between the style of Labour and National governments and that does affect the behaviour of the various arms of government. But Labour also voted for National’s roll out of additional anti-terrorism and spying powers and they won’t be taking that back.

            • Ergo Robertina 8.2.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2015 at 10:03 pm

              Sure, but I think whateva next was commenting on internal affairs, and that was my interest as well.
              Do you accept ordinary people commenting on blogs, or people commenting with identities about their work expertise (e.g teachers, nurses, academics, NGO people) have less to fear under Labour?
              It affects ability to shape public opinion and policy so is not a trivial matter.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                8 June 2015 at 10:55 am

                I don’t know much about history, but I do know that around WWII a NZ Labour Government black listed conscientious objectors, denied them promotions and pay increases, pushed them out of jobs, ensured that they would never work in the public service again, and meted out other various petty punishments.

                So relatively less to fear than a Tory Government, probably. But how much is that really saying.

                Sure, but I think whateva next was commenting on internal affairs, and that was my interest as well.

                If you think about it, there is nothing more “internal affairs” than the operations of the security and surveillance state, regardless of how the bureaucrats have divvied up the org chart.

                • Ergo Robertina …
                  8 June 2015 at 12:29 pm

                  Yes, you make some good points, I hadn’t thought it through fully.
                  Some groups, too, seem to hold back on criticism when Labour is in power, because it’s a nominally left-leaning party.
                  At least we’re getting some awareness, if not real traction, of child poverty, under this awful regime.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    8 June 2015 at 12:39 pm

                    And principled activists becoming quiet just because it is ‘their lot’ which has temporarily taken power, is a real problem.

                    In the last years of President GW Bush, the CIA identified a very disturbing problem: that of a rising tide of anti-war sentiment in western countries around the world. It was sufficient to make western allies waver on supporting the USA in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    They determined that the best solution to undermining this anti-war sentiment would be the election of Barack Obama. Because these leftist anti-war (and anti-surveillance state) sentiments would be effectively quieted by his image of making a clear break from GW. And hence the Nobel Peace Prize etc, even though in actuality, Obama was greatly expanding the drone war, the war on terror, targetted assassinations, enhancing the powers of the NSA etc.

                • whateva next? …
                  8 June 2015 at 5:46 pm

                  Good point, I am not sure they would get away with that kind of behaviour now though? are we more sophisticated? or am I being naieve?

            • thatguynz 8.2.1.1.1.2
              8 June 2015 at 10:33 am

              I seem to recall (perhaps incorrectly) it not being THAT long ago that a certain Labour MP responsible for IT or communications or somesuch specifically singled out CV for retribution within the Labour Party hierarchy….

        • Sacha 8.2.1.2
          7 June 2015 at 9:23 pm

          depends whose seats they rely on #mmp

    • weka 8.3
      7 June 2015 at 6:47 pm

      I also think that is part of it coaster, creating a climate of fear. This is what the government practices, so it’s no surprise to see the rest of the DP crew doing it too.

      One think you can do to protect yourself on ts is to use an email address that is not linked to your real life identity. You can even use a fake email address if you want (I don’t think admin here care). If you want to be really sure, change your pseudonym when you change your email address and then your comments will no longer be connected to the old address.

  9. linda 9
    7 June 2015 at 6:10 pm

    i so want to see Cameron slater in mt eden that would be a laugh fat fuk would claim hes a political prisoner

  10. mickysavage 10
    7 June 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Anyone notice that Slater’s statement was put up as a jpg? Meant that the text is not searchable …

  11. Frank Macskasy 11
    8 June 2015 at 12:40 am

    “I remember the one and only time he and I met…20 odd years ago…” – David Garrett

    We did?!

    *scratches head*

    Can’t recall that, to be honest.

  12. Mike the Savage One 12
    8 June 2015 at 2:57 am

    The more I read and hear about Cameron Slater and his nasty blog, the sicker I get of the man and his “Whaleoil” site. I have mixed feelings about Ben Rachinger, and do not quite know what to think of his adventures and communications with Slater.

    Without any doubt, they have had a nasty fall-out, and now we can see how nasty, and ruthless and dirty the whole “dirty politics” business really is.

    Once I read David Garrett’s first comments above, I gave up reading more.

    He should keep his head down and show some damned humility, in view of what he once did.

    NZ Zealand politics is at its nastiest as it has ever been under the governments we had since late 2008. Shame on them, these dirty manipulators and their hit men in front of keyboards.

  13. lurgee 13
    8 June 2015 at 6:33 am

    I thought the reason certain persons want to know the identity of authors was pretty obvious – they are convinced (in spite of all evidence) that this place is somehow run / controlled by the Labour Party, and they anticipate being able to show that ‘LPrent’ is actually a sock puppet for Trevor Mallard, or something like that.

    They also hope to find, real soon, evidence that William Shakespeare was just a grain merchant in Stratford, and that Chris Marlow wrote all the plays from beyond the grave.

    It isn’t just that these people have too much money and some of them are quite evil; they’re also really stupid, and obstinate in their stupidity.

  14. Sanctuary 14
    8 June 2015 at 8:16 am

    The whole thing about the story on the Nation is that the game really is up for Slater. His MO is widely understood, and journalists have realised he is an unreliable source, both a serial liar and a wannabe blackmailer.

    You only have to spend five minutes reading his site to see it is rubbish, full of click bait, incoherent ramblings and empty threats. No scoops to be had there anymore.

    All Slater now represents is a certain faction within the Auckland National party. This faction contains such geniuses as Cameron Brewer, John Banks, Judith Collins and a pile of other entitled sons and daughters of Remuera, and as a group they are almost comically stupid. So let’s not be to harsh on Cam, and pray that Judith roles John. Between to two of them, they have National polling around 20% in a jiffy.

    • JeevesPOnzi 14.1
      8 June 2015 at 9:48 am

      I agree- the inherent stupidity which comes with growing up being reminded constantly that you are better than the stupid working class, or Maoris, or Muslims, or Asians, or public servants, or Environmentalists ( sorry- too many syllables- ‘Greenies’ ), or ‘Lefties’.

      Has anyone noticed the pathetic numbers of comments recently on Spermblog?
      He routinely has posts up that attract single digit responses… and he knows it.

      Lets all enjoy the Whale’s inevitable, inexorable slide into deep, dark, onanistic obscurity.

  15. abouttime 15
    8 June 2015 at 10:39 am

    Having been a victim of Slater, with respect to publications about me personally which were unfounded, lies, false allegations and never backed up, I hope he gets everything he deserve’s. He is a hypocrite and nothing but a paid pen.
    What goes round comes round, Karma always wins