Labour Leaks – Go to the Privacy Commissioner

Apparently Labour is appealing to the Privacy Commissioner….not sure that is the right term, imploring? begging? perhaps.

Labour is appealing to the privacy commissioner about lists of supporters and donors falling into the hands of a right-wing blogger.

Details of 18,000 people were on the databases downloaded by blogger Cameron Slater, severely embarrassing Labour, which had to email donors and people who had contacted it through its website to apologise for the breach.

Slater has revealed on his blog how he obtained the databases, which appear to have been publicly available and easy to download without needing to hack into the site.

He has threatened to reveal any conflicts of interest, potentially compromising Labour supporters in sensitive positions who have contacted it in support of its Stop Asset Sales campaign and others.

Some of the information downloaded includes lists on which there had been communication on other issues – for example, the increasing cost of early childhood education.

I sincerely hope that Labour is doing more than appealing. They should be laying a complaint against me. So far I have released only one name, but I can release more than 18,000 anytime I please. The more they keep lying and spinning the more inclined I am to prove them wrong.

Private Sign do Not readThey continue to put out their ridiculous spin about National helping me, or abetting me, or just plain talking to me. It is ridiculous, even Trevor Mallard thinks I work for ACT and Don Brash and I certainly wouldn’t have trusted any of this information with the muppets at National’s head office.

It matters not who accessed Labour’s data. That is missing the point. The important point here, which I am sure the Privacy Commissioner will go to great lengths to point out is that Labour is the one who is in the gun here, it is them that broke the law and it is them that needs to start being honest with the members and donors about their poor security.

Labour mentions that they fixed the problem when they found it on Saturday. This is untrue as well. They were alerted to the problem by David Fisher asking questions on Saturday night. The site was still open at 0900 on Sunday morning. I know because I have screenshots of it. So far all Labour has done is lie. Time and again I have proved their lies.

Labour needs to own their problem and not go blaming other people for their screw ups. This is a systemic failure on their part, they know it, we know it and they should just own it. To use silly descriptors like “politically motivated” shows just how pathetic they are. Of course my actions were politically motivated. It involved a political party, all their members and some of their donors, why wouldn’t it be politically motivated.

The last word about my alleged involvement with National or that they are my pay-masters (how can that reconcile with Labours attacks about me being a beneficiary?) or controllers really rests with Peter Goodfellow:

National had no interest in Labour’s information of that kind and was not looking for it.

“We don’t condone that sort of behaviour at all.”

He declined to comment on Slater or his actions.

“I don’t have any control over him. If you see what he has written about me you would probably say I probably don’t have any control over him. I mean you are talking to the wrong guy there,” he said.

Damn right they have no control over me, no one does, not even me.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • geoff

    Have you thought about getting Nicky Hager’s opinion on all this?

  • The Privacy Commissioner can’t take any action against you – you have shown how you were able to obtain the information on a public forum, namely a Labour Party website. However, the PC could take action against Labour – especially if a donor were to complain about it.

  • royaloaks

    Are we going to see any of the lists soon?

  • dt12

    Unless they have a court injunction, you can publish. So what is stopping you? Are you being a tease and trying to get as much personal attention? Or is it that there isn’t much to it – just a long boring list of names that isn’t very interesting? Or something else? Whatever, time to make good on your publicity.

  • spiker

    Perhaps he just needs to get all his ducks in a row? so to speak..

  • If any one wants to read the lists they are already in the public domain, in Goggle cache. If you wanna look why don’t you check them out? They have already been PUBLISHED by Labour. If WO puts them on his site it will be the equivalent of a faxed copy of the original.
    The original is already out there thanks to Labour. It has been there for the world to read for months and months. I am sooooo sick of them trying to shift the blame for the breach of privacy onto WO. He alerted the world to Labour’s breach of privacy for goodness sake.
    I know everyone always wants to shoot the messenger particularly when he is he laughing so hard and is happily rubbing their noses in it. I don’t think I have ever seen him so cheerful! Oh well, how sad, too bad, never mind.

    • abjv

      It is all a fiendish plot to take him away from his bicycle training…

      Back onto Labour. Why don’t they try to injunct Google, to require them to take this information down from their cache? And require everyone on the internet to return to Labour the private data? Of course, they’d have to describe what the private data was to ensure we all recognised it correctly, and we’d all have to read it to make sure that what we had was the private data that we needed to return…Streisand effect, anyone?

      Also, if this was a house, one cannot be done for ‘breaking and entering’ if the front door was unlocked, and one cannot be done for ‘unlawfully on private premises’ if the premises are not private. Labour’s site is not a VPN, it is on the internet so it can’t be private, and they not only left the front door unlocked, the whole fucking front wall was missing.

      I wonder if insurance covers you if you leave your house unlocked…

      I guess they’re running around looking for someone to blame. I wonder if that someone is going to be treated to fair process before they are sacked?

      • Hey that got me thinking. Our neighbours called the council to complain that our $150 Warehouse pool was not fenced. The council explained to me that I had to put up a fence in order to be allowed to have the pool otherwise I would be prosecuted. As we are tenants I emptied the pool immediately and put it away.

        Since Labour did not put up a fence they should not be allowed to have website!
        Poor WO through no fault of his own fell in and was drowned in private e-mail addresses !

      • rouppe

        If the front door was unlocked then ‘breaking and entering’ is not appropriate as you say.

        But burglary still is (Crimes Act 1961 No 43 s231).
        As is being found in an enclosed yard (Summary Offences Act 1981 No 113, s29(1))

        Neither of those applies to WO as information was public and he was not in a physical place. But the analogy is bad.

  • johnqpublic

    Whale, you personally know at least one of the donors; why don’t you have her lodge a complaint to Ms Privacy, to test that out?

  • peterwn

    dt12 – OK it seems a ‘fun’ thing to do to publish the donors’ names and amounts. But unless there are special reasons otherwise (eg illegal donations or as evidence that he had the goods – he used Cactus Kate as an example knowing she would not object), it will not do anyone any good at the end of the day. It was not the donors’ fault that Labour Party officials were terminally inept.

  • daveg

    This is sooooo funny. The lunatic fringe dwelling dribble monsters on The Standard are wetting pants and shedding tears of outrage that this happened. Of course they blame Whale and not the poorly educated moron who set their sites up.

    • ‘ Damn right they have no con­trol over me, no one does, not even me.’

      What a lot of Hooie! Wo sat on this for 3 months and didn’t tell ANYONE about it, even me, until the day before he did his first post. Control? He has it in spades. Also strategy so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

  • cadwallader

    This is an early (mid-winter) Christmas to me. The Labour Party is in worse shape than the CHCH Red Zone. The difference being they did this all to themselves! They can’t even blame Goof for this round of idiocy.

    The Labour propensity to blame all others rather than standing up and being held accountable is so typically pinko. The finger-pointing will continue as it is an engrained part of the socialist make-up.

    • mediatart

      And the IMF got breached the other day ? Virtually every other day a major organisation has people sniffing around their private data. It happens !
      The first big one I remember , which I was on the fringe of, was when Vodafone got breached by a 15 yr old some 12 years ago

      • cadwallader

        Tart: The only breach here was the Labour Party’s breaching the confidentiality of its donors. If I was silly enough to donate to that absurd bunch I’d be seriously pissed off! Go WO!

  • symgardiner

    As Mrs WO alludes to, there is actually no need to publish the lists. The damage has been done (ie Labour have been shown to be incompetent, misusing public resources and not man enough to ‘own’ the issue) and if people are interested in the bulk lists they can get them off Google cache. What is useful is some ‘analysis’ of the data… which presumably why there have been a few less than normal WO posts recently. And of course some serious training to smack McDuck about in the cycle race… GO THE WHALE!

  • dt12

    Then symgardiner, why did Mr Slater go on justifying his actions with passages like this:

    “Labour makes a great deal of fuss about political donations, in fact they even passed the odi­ous Electoral Finance Act to shed sunlight upon donations. Likewise the Greens have made representations on electoral law reform that suggests that all donations be made public.

    “Accordingly in line with their previous assertions Labour has made about donors and dona­tions, I think sunlight is the best disinfectant here and so their online donations will be pub­lished.”

    Was he just talking S#*T? Or was he serious? Or is he now scared? Come on, he got us interested and not he won’t follow through. And he calls Trevor Mallard a coward (well, he is, but Slater is the same).

  • symgardiner

    Good try dt12. If you are really interested, do some work and check out Google cache. But I doubt you will be able to persuade WO to release the data just because to are calling him chicken.
    Personally, I think it is much more fun watching the chaos on The Standard as people wind themselves up worrying what could come out. Who knows… maybe WO has something else he might release under the smoke screen of this!

  • dt12

    Well lets hope we get something interesting syngardiner, or else I WILL have to learn how to use the google cache. And I am lazy, so not that keen.

    • symgardiner

      Awesome dt12. You must be an economist (economics = how to get as much as possible for as little effort as possible = lazy).
      You might have to wait a few days. CHCH is taking all the MSM time.

  • dt12

    Okay, now having fun searching the google cache. There is a cached page at, and it comes up with the directory that Mr Slater shows in his clip. But most pages aren’t caches so can’t be accessed now.

  • thor42

    Go WO! This kerfuffle is great! There is NOTHING like seeing the pinkos running around as if their bums were on fire…. ;)

  • johnboy

    “Labour is appeal­ing to the pri­vacy com­mis­sioner about lists of sup­port­ers and donors falling into the hands of a right-wing blogger.”

    Labour doesn’t appeal to anyone these days (unless it’s their own members) and they would have to stick their arse’s in the air to get most of them interested.

  • mediatart

    Remember this whale.
    There was a guy Kees Keizer who recorded “his own conversations” with Bill English and made them public.
    Guess who went ballistic back in 6th November 2008. You were waving obscure portions of the Crimes Act around- none of which apply- and irony you claimed a breach of privacy as well.
    You have potentially done far worse than Keizer if you release the information you have, which is why all we know is Oggers has given $10 .

  • reid

    Notice that Liarbore haven’t questioned the amount of donations – approx $11k.

    They’ve questioned, smeared, insinuated and obfuscated on most other things, but nothing at all about that.

    Which were I a Liarbore supporter, personally it would make me think, WTF am I doing supporting such a tremendously unpopular national political party that, in election year, with supposedly all the stops pulled out, can only manage $11k?

    Only a loser supports a loser, would be my message to myself, were I one of those donars.

    Greens are much, much better. Vote for them. Bet they have more than $11k in the campaign kitty – all those urban housewives…

    If the Nats had any sense, they’d start trying to woo the union members at this point. Make serious inroads into them.

    • cadwallader

      I would have expected that Dazza could have raised more than that with a bunch of university students in a bar! Perhaps he did?

    • mediatart

      The said national party HQ was snooping around just before Whale got tipped off, and Goodfellow has confirmed this as TRUE

  • positan

    It’s also fascinating that TV1 in particular, hasn’t made any reference to this matter – and I don’t think TV3 has either, although I can’t say for certain. Yes, the latest Christchurch shakes would have excused things to some extent last night – but even so, given the media-shaking potential of this self-inflicted act of idiocy by our (at least, said to be) second largest party, I’d still have expected some mention of even the bare facts at least.

    Tonight also – nothing. Well, that pronounced leftist bias in TVNZ news is fully ascertainable. NewsTalkZB carried the item this morning and Leighton Smith handled it as well – but nothing whatsoever on TVNZ, even on CloseUp. Remember too, how both TVNZ news and CloseUp got all smarmy-faced, wet-panted and so ugly in their “coverage” of the theft of Don Brash’s e-mail? How they made some mention of the matter at every available moment for months afterwards?

    Well, I suppose some Labour panty-waist in TVNZ news is still hoping it’s all going to blow away – even with the officers of that silly party working even harder at developing their very-bad-news potential in taking it to the Privacy Commissioner.

    What an unparalleled bunch of ultra-irrational, incompetent pretenders. I’d have used stronger language – but I was gently reared.

    • mediatart

      Citbanks credit details hacked !!
      “Once inside, they leapfrogged between the accounts of different Citi customers by inserting vari-ous account numbers into a string of text located in the browser’s address bar.”
      Fancy that just going in the front door and typeing a few details into the broswer bar….. wait its the same as whale.

      How incompetant ….. but it happens all the time as we are all human.
      How many times has Keys office had to issue corrections to speeches after he ‘mis spoke’

      • devlsadvocate

        Its the difference between sending something confidential in a letter, vs. tacking a flyer to someone’s windshield. Whale didn’t rip open somebody else’s mail – he read something published by Labour, who very kindly made all this fine data available to any member of the public who happened by. No security systems defeated here – there were none!

        (That said the Citibank one is pretty retarded – what moron decided to pass session data for a secure site with GET rather than POST, with no permission checks on page requests? Honestly, with that much money on hand you’d think they could get a third party security audit done)

    • Positan; remember that Kris Fa’afoi (former TVNZ political reporter) is now a Labour MP, and his close confidant Francesca Mold (former TVNZ political reporter) is Phil Goff’s chief press secretary. Labour has TVNZ locked and loaded, which is why One News was running all Hodgson’s attempted smears.

      • positan

        Absolutely … and all the more reason they’ll be publicly shown as not just incompetents, but willfully manipulative incompetents to boot. How any of Labour’s personnel think they’re going to be able to contain this, simply indicates the complete absence of any tangible attachment to reality.

        Facing up to and admitting the truth is something they’ve never thought they’d ever have to do.

  • nike

    Took me two minutes to find a copy of the list on the net. Had to LOL at some of my colleagues whose names I found on it. Why are those on the left such small-timers?

  • expat

    Media Tart,

    The Citi breach is a hole in security, bad.

    The Labour breach is no security, brainless.

  • whafe

    mediatart, you never cease to amaze, your try hard little quips etc etc. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    You give tarts a bad name..

    • thor42

      I agree, whafe.
      Mediatart – I work in the IT industry and I can tell you that calling WO’s actions “hacking” is like calling Paris Hilton a virgin. Complete and utter BULLSHIT, in other words.
      Your efforts (and those of other pathetic pinkos) to call it hacking are laughable. But hey – keep it up – it simply exposes ***HOW FUCKING IGNORANT*** you are.

  • becn

    I wonder what Sharoff is saying to Labour.

    The relevant privacy principal is #5 “Storage and security of personal information (principle five)”

    To save you the hassle of clicking:
    An agency that holds personal information shall ensure –
    (a) that the information is protected, by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take, against –
    (i) loss; and
    (ii) access, use, modification, or disclosure, except with the authority of the agency that holds the information; and(iii) other misuse;

    • thor42

      Well done, becn.
      There – we can now see that the oh-so-fucking-pathetic Labour Party that mediatart has a fetish on is ***BUSTED***.
      Dear sweet mediatart – please tell us mere mortals how Labour’s ***cough*** security ***cough*** has met the standards outlined by becn.

      • mediatart

        Are you saying that ‘labour asked for it because of what they were wearing ‘

        I get emails all the time that say ‘if this is not intended for you, return immediately and destroy any copies’ .

        This means Im not allowed to use it even though the owner sent it to me!!
        Just because you make it easy doest mean you can exploit it.
        While labour has egg on their face the privacy breach lies soley with Whale

        • lowercaseusername

          Mediatart: Your analogy would be correct if rape was analogous in this situation. It isn’t. Labour didn’t put any pants on their website and is guilty of indecent exposure.

  • whafe

    I am stunned at how quiet the Labour Party are on this, a few little murmurs… A sinking branless turd has more humility than a Pinko…

    And quit with the dribble of trying to associate this whole find with HACKING…. Grow up and gain an understanding of what Hacking is!!!!

  • laworder

    Having viewed the video, this is in no way hacking, which implies some attempt to crack passwords or otherwuise bypass security measures

    I work in an IT related area, and this is the IT equivalent of walking around in public with your fly down, no underwear and half a roll of dunny paper trailing out the back of your pants.

    If I did something like this with the Trust site I’d expect to be fired, and I am not even paid for that. I am very glad I have not been a Labour Party donor, at least not in the last few years

    Peter J