Did Rawshark dump and flee New Zealand?

Ben Rawshark has had another wee splurge on Twitter today and in response there’s an interesting claim – that Rawshark dumped and ran.

I’ve lost a lot of support, followers and ‘credibility’ in the last 7 days since the story broke in MSM. Fortunately the cops are digging.

He can smear any truth tellers that pop up using proxy blogs, analysis of the tellers enemies and rarking them up.

Yes, Scientology does exactly the same thing. You might want to study the history of the movement against them.

He is extremely good at what he does. Look at how they hit Catton. She is wholly light side. It’s the state of play now.

Haha Project Chanology? Or something non-hacktivist? I’m not newborn to Scientologies BS.

 This is stuff that both pre-dates and post-dates Chanology. But Chanology was a decisive moment because you can’t smear Anon.

General chitchat with Daphne Lawless who describes themselves:

Daphne Lawless

@daphlawless

Musician, indexer, translator, political activist, footballer, sci-fi geek… if you are a renaissance woman, start a renaissance (after Ché Guevara)

Auckland, Aotearoa

She’s of political and media interest, with followers like Sue Bradford, Laila Harre, Duncan Garner, Tova O’Brien, Bryce Edwards.

Rachinger retweeted…

Slater is powerful because he’s useful to those in power. The correct strategy would be to end his usefulness.

So ideally one of Slater’s good buddies could be persuaded to turn against him.

…and then exchange tweets…

But that’s the beginning and the end of it. I was burying my grandmother as I dealt with it all. I apologised to QoT.

 Even if you were a serial arsehole as bad as Slater, I STILL wouldn’t dismiss your revelations about Slater.

I appreciate that. I admire your quest for facts, proof and the truth. Don’t push them too hard though. They don’t like that.

Ever thought of doing a Rawshark? Dox dump to friendly journos then skipping the country?

That was tried and it didn’t work .. Whistleblowing under own name doesn’t work. It’s not the facts… It’s what happens after

How friendly was Rawshark to the journalists? Those who were given access to Rawshark data and reported on it were David Fisher of NZ Herald and Matt Nippert of Sunday Star Times.

Familiar names in the current hacking story.

And did they then leave New Zealand?

And a wee search finds that Cameron Slater had an interest in Daphne Lawless, claiming she had non-public information about the Rawshark hacking.

8GB OF STOLEN DATA TURNS TO 2GB. QUESTION: HOW DOES DAPHNE LAWLESS KNOW THIS?

Meet Daphne Lawless, an aptly named hard left political activist who likes to blog like the big kids

She published an article on the Marxist Fightback blog (Struggle! Socialism! Fightback!), a post titled The Whale Oil leaks: Anti-politics from above.

In it, she writes:  

qwqw

The 8 and the 2 keys are not next to each other on a keyboard, so I assume that was exactly what she meant to type.

How does Daphne Lawless know the 8GB stick only contained 2GB data?

She seems to know a bit about Rawshark and friends.

Leave a comment

46 Comments

  1. Rawshark is one of the Uruwera 8

    Reply
    • ahhhhh… that makes some sense and is the tie to Hager…. comp sci studies at Uni I assume is the guy you are pointing at

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  14th June 2015

        Certainly has the expertise and form to carry it out. Has he left NZ?

        Reply
        • And alleged form. And a recent (last year) history of contact with Rachinger.

          If it’s widely known who it is why is it officially hushed up.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  14th June 2015

          Yes, seems to be in Oz now judging from his twittering.

          Reply
    • Rewena

       /  14th June 2015

      Surely you don’t mean Tame?

      Reply
      • DaveG

         /  14th June 2015

        I doubt Tama is proficient in much, certainly not in advanced programming let alone hacking

        Reply
      • GregM

         /  14th June 2015

        Not Tame, but you’re close.
        When people finally join all the dots together, it will all appear so very obvious.
        The whole thing is huge, and the people who are implicated in criminal activity includes the usual sundry ratbags, but also serving politicians and staffers, a convicted fraudster, experienced journalists and all paid for by a political wannabe to save his own sorry fat arse.
        Ratchinger is but a pawn in the game. Pass the popcorn.

        Reply
    • GregM

       /  14th June 2015

      Correct.

      Reply
  2. kiwi_guy

     /  14th June 2015

    Well there is another example of a self confessed Marxist, and yet whenever I call Leftists “Cultural Marxists” they deny everything and accuse me of being Far Right, lol.

    Reply
  3. kiwi_guy

     /  14th June 2015

    Looking at Lawless’s accounts, she is one tough looking lesbian.

    They are all the same – “radical”, “feminist”, “queer”, “social justice activist” – and they fancy themselves as writers, musicians or poets.

    No wonder Labour is dying.

    Reply
  4. 1) Interesting that someone who’s antipathetic to Ben can read his locked twitter.

    2) As I told Ben, all the stuff about him doxxing and revenge porning might be true, which would make him an arsehole (which is part of what I’m trying to learn – I do write for a leftie website, after all). But that doesn’t change the credibility of what he says about Slater.

    3) Everybody knows Rawshark dumped and ran. That’s what Rawshark said he did. Slater’s piece on me was paranoid rambling based on a MISTAKE I made in my article/

    4) Yeah, “one tough lesbian”.

    Reply
    • Thanks for commenting here Daphne, you are always welcome to respond here.

      I agree that there appears to be some credible evidence supplied by Ben that is at the least embarrassing for Slater, and some believe proves criminal behaviour.

      But some of Ben’s claims and his mess of information does raise some credibility issues. So care should be taken believing what you want to believe and discounting what you don’t want to believe, it’s an easy trap to fall into.

      I’m pretty sure Ben hasn’t told the full story yet. Some of the gaps may be filled by others. It may not just be Slater who ends up being embarrassed by all of this.

      Reply
    • “1) Interesting that someone who’s antipathetic to Ben can read his locked twitter.”

      I don’t have any particular aversion to Ben, possibly no more than you – “which would make him an arsehole”.

      I’ve been following and recording Ben’s information releases with interest, wanting to see what comes out of it. I still don’t know the full story but pieces of the jigsaw continue to turn up.

      How do you know what’s locked on Ben’s Twitter? I’ve had open access, and Ben has replied to me and retweeted and favourited my tweets at times. Except for when his account seems to be taken down, like now: “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”

      Reply
    • kiwi_guy

       /  15th June 2015

      4) Yeah, “one tough lesbian”.

      Yeah, it certainly explains the astronomically high violence in lesbian relationships.

      Reply
  5. Exactly. Credible accusations have been made against Ben too, and he admits to having done some pretty awful stuff. If it turns out he did send those photos of the journalist to Slater (to brag about his love life? as quid-pro-quo?) I will be disgusted with him.

    I can’t understand why this blog seems to think I’m part of the conspiracy, though. I know nothing about Rawshark that wasn’t already in the public domain. And I interviewed Miriam Pierard because she was a major Internet Party candidate and there was about a week when it seemed she’d get into Parliament. I have a lot of respect for her.

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  15th June 2015

    Still can’t figure why Hager isn’t in jail for receiving stolen property. Not only received it but then sold it on for profit with malice aforethought.

    Reply
    • I’ve seen legal opinions that say it wasn’t ‘receiving stolen property’. It may depend on how separated he was, I presume he was very careful, and he should be well aware of then law on hacking, he’s had past experience.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  15th June 2015

        I can’t see how separation helps him. He clearly knew it was stolen. Neither does there seem to be much separation between him and Rawshark assuming he is who we think he is.

        Reply
        • Hager and others claim that ‘public good’ overrides illegality of obtaining information.

          I’d like to see that tested (but doubt the police will go there) – it’s not the first time Hager has tried to manipulate democratic processes using illegally obtained material. That can’t be ‘public good’.

          As much as he andn hisn friends have tried they can’t define ‘dirty politics’ as excluding their tactics.

          Reply
        • Andrew Geddis on The case for (and against) Nicky Hager

          First of all, the Police are investigating a real crime here. Even certain bloggers whom we do not name have a right to keep others out of their computer systems, and this right is protected by criminal sanction.

          As such, the Police do have the legal right to obtain a search warrant to try and get evidence that may help them identify who “Rawshark”. It isn’t entirely unreasonable to think that Mr Hager’s data devices might have some information on them that helps with that identification.* I’m sure he’s been very, very careful to try and avoid leaving anything that will assist in that way … but maybe he’s slipped up and failed to eradicate all such traces (if it is even possible to do that these days).

          Of course, a “legal right” is not the same thing as a “legal duty” to act. The police have investigative independence, so nothing says that they must search Mr Hager’s property (and take away his devices and materials) in this way. Furthermore, Mr Hager is not a suspect in any offending – he’s an “innocent witness”, in the sense that he’s simply lawfully** in possession of information that might help with identifying the hacker.

          (1) Is Mr Hager a “journalist” in terms of the privileges conferred by the Evidence Act (because only “journalists” can claim the right to keep their sources confidential). All I’ll say on this is it would be a moral outrage if the courts were to regard the work he does as “not journalism”, while that of a certain blogger whom we do not name has been deemed “journalism” (albeit not being worthy of any legal protection).

          (2) Is this a situation where the privilege journalists generally enjoy under the Evidence Act should be set aside because of “public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant”? That is an express balancing test – how important is it to try to unmask Rawshark, in light of the potential damage that accessing Mr Hager’s materials might do to his (and other media’s) ability to do their jobs properly?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  15th June 2015

            All of that is irrelevant to the crime of receiving stolen property.

            Reply
      • Its interesting what you seek to justify when it favours your side of politics, isn’t it. The same people say “Public Interest” for hacking WOBH were pretty much in favour of a lynching for Slater wandering around the unsecured and Open Labour Party Website ……

        What makes politics so effed in this country is the 3 monkey attitude of all sides to there own misdeeds and full throttle cries of foul and we want BLOODY JUSTICE when the opposition use the same tactics….

        Reply
        • kiwi_guy

           /  15th June 2015

          Yep, its one big episode of The Muppets. Think I will join the “missing” million at the next election cycle.

          Reply
      • Reginald Perrin

         /  15th June 2015

        A charge of receiving may no fly. But what about S249 of the Crimes Act:

        249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

        (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
        (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
        (b) causes loss to any other person.

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

        (3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).

        Section 249: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

        By using data he knew to have been obtained by hacking, didn’t Hager indirectly access Slater’s computer, then get a pecuniary advantage by writing and selling a book based on the hacked data? He certainly has no “claim of right” to the hacked data. I would have thought that to be an open and shut case.

        Reply
        • BUCK WIT

           /  15th June 2015

          perhaps an arrest is close?

          Reply
        • The indirectly seems to fit the bill…. but doubtless serious legal eagles would queue up to defend Nicky Hagger and the whole thing would hinge on a Public Good defence… and who knows where that would go in the Courts…

          Reply
          • kiwi_guy

             /  15th June 2015

            I’m not so sure, doesn’t “indirectly” mean you directed someone else to do the dirty work for you? Hagger wasn’t involved, he got the info dropped in his lap by whoever wanted WO exposed.

            I’m all for hacking info that exposes rat bags, who isn’t?

            Reply
            • I don’t know about directing someone, but accessing information second hand knowing it was stolen could be term indirectly accessing…..it would be typical legal stuff hinging on a Judge deciding means etc if not defined in the relevant ACT I suppose

            • I sort of agree but have a problem with “hacking info that exposes rat bags” in politics – each side thinks the other lot are ratbags.

              Politically motivated hacking, especially when used to try and influence democratic processes, especially elections, should be excluded from ‘public good’.

            • jamie

               /  15th June 2015

              I tend to agree that “hacking info that exposes rat bags” is not a helpful yardstick to measure anything against, because as you say Pete it’s quite subjective this ratbagism.

              Having said that, there’s a world of moral difference between going after information about behaviour you disagree with as Hager/Rawshark did, and going after information about people you disagree with as Cam Slater did.

            • “there’s a world of moral difference between going after information about behaviour you disagree with as Hager/Rawshark did, and going after information about people you disagree with as Cam Slater did.”

              Yes and no Jamie.

              Rawshark/Hager hacked Whale Oil to prove collusion between Key’s office and some bloggers.

              Slater tried to have The Standard hacked to try and prove collusion between Little’s office and some bloggers.

              You can argue about degree, but the intent from both sides was very similar – to politically damage their opponent through illegal means.

            • jamie

               /  15th June 2015

              Sorry, I was thinking of Slater accessing the Labour Party membership database.

              On the other matter yes I agree, very similar.

            • Yes, the Labour data lapse is quite different. Labour left their data wide open – if you could find it.

              It’s very likely Jason Ede or Slater or someone went looking for vulnerabilities on the Labour website. They found a wide open public door. It was fair enough for them to expose this and to ridicule Labour’s lack of security.

              But Slater took it too far by extracting data that he knew wasn’t intended for his or public consumption.

              So it was legally found but possibly illegally extracted, and at least crappily extracted.

            • jamie

               /  15th June 2015

              Yes that’s more or less my reading of it too.

            • Shortly I’m posting on our history of hacks and data breaches.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  15th June 2015

          The public good defence is applicable to journalistic privilege for protecting sources or to accessing information in a computer system. I don’t see it having any bearing on a charge of receiving and using stolen property for his own pecuniary advantage.

          Reply
          • I don’t disagree Alan, but I am sure Hager would claim journalistic privilege based on the Public Good and that the material contains evidence of illegal activity. It would be some case, take months and months and would require Hager to prove illegality and public good as a defense… but i am sure some Legal Eagle will have a simpler way of defending it all,,,

            Reply
          • To take this a little further, had Hager passed the information directly into the public arena he might have some hope of relying on a public good defence. By withholding it for his own purpose and advantage he surrenders that.

            Reply
            • Yes, if ‘public good’ was critical in this then surely it demanded publication as soon as possible, not waiting to be packaged in a money making venture and timed to have maximum effect on an election.

  7. i guess Hagar using it for percuniary gain leaves him rather exposed – the problem i see, which helps those involved, is that i am not so sure the NZ Police are well enough equipped to actually put such a complicated case together – there does seem to he a lot of heirsay at this point

    Reply
  8. RAMBONE of RAMBONIA

     /  15th June 2015

    Agree with Pete on them not having the “will” as it seems like a cat fighting with hand bags

    Reply
  1. Daphne Lawless and the Internet Party | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s