What security?
Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald writes:
The Labour Party is investigating what it calls a “malicious breach” of its website after right-wing blogger Cameron Slater began to release inside party information he had obtained.
Labour’s president, Moira Coatsworth, said yesterday that the party was concerned personal information of donors and members could be used in a “politically motivated” way after an online contact database was “exploited” through a weakness in security.
A weakness in security? That implies there was some security at all. Why doesn’t someone ask Labour exactly how secure this data was? On a scale of 0 to 100, would it not be a zero?
Whale has put up some extracts of their donor data, being the $10 Cactus Kate declared she would donate to buy one of their illegal stop signs. He also states:
One of the most startling things I noticed from these transactions, is that some are being processed by parliamentary services staff. Through out the files you can see transactions processed by David Talbot. He is a staffer, paid by parliamentary services who works in Phil Goff’s office.
This is a huge conflict, and raises questions about how the Labour party is handling its affairs.
Why would a Labour Party Leaders Office staffer be handling credit card transactions?
I’ve not seen the files, so can’t comment directly on the allegation, but I suspect Whale will be happy to post the file proving this.