UPDATED 2.10pm: Cameron Slater has apparently balked at his threat to names the 452 Labour Party donors he obtained from their website.
“I am awaiting legal advice as to how much of the donor list I can legally release. It may well be in full but I need that advice to come through before relasing the list,“ he said.
Labour Party donors, you're about to be outed – and by one of your least favourite people.
Cameron Slater is brushing off the party's accusation that he is in breach of the Privacy Act and said he would push ahead and publish details of the party’s online fundraising.
Mr Slater said told Without a Word of a Lie that at 2pm he would post on his website details of 452 donors who collectively paid $11,058 to the party.
There for the taking
The high-profile blogger, who has had brushes with the courts over breaching name suppression, said he would not be in breach of the Privacy Act, but it was possible Labour was.
“It’s as if they put all this information in a box on the side of the road where anybody could access it,” he said.
Mr Slater - son of former National Party president John Slater - said he gained access to his cache of information due to poor website design that allowed public access to root directories containing the data.
What's coming at 2pm
The information to be published at 2pm includes just the names and amounts donated to Labour online, but Mr Slater said he had plenty of other information to releasing in the coming days.
“I’ll be exploring the rationale behind their social media campaigns, why they run those campaign - and the results of those campaigns,” he said.
Email addresses harvested
Mr Slater said he believed the social media campaigns, including petitions against asset sales, were designed to harvest email addresses to be used by the Party for fundraising.
“I’ve identified more than 18,000 email address of people who may have put in the details for one of their billboard generator campaigns, and now the Labour Party has those email address.”
Mr Slater said the information he obtained also showed people employed by Parliamentary Services were involved in soliciting and processing donations.
“Just because they haven’t raised much money, doesn’t make it insignificant,” he said.