It’s not even close: Flatt must resign over security breach
Here’s my take on the NZ election published in Business Spectator.
A related post is here: Partisan Myopia and Whalegate
UPDATE 3: I am staggered by some the reaction to this. Am I missing something? If the general secretary doesn’t fall on his sword when head office effectively publishes confidential donor data without even an attempt to secure it in any way, shape or form, what would he have to do to warrant resignation? Run for the National Party? Arson? Serial homicide?
UPDATE 2: Here is Labour’s release on what they are rather strangely calling an “attack”. The files were sitting there, available for all-comers. Hardly an attack.
UPDATE: It was not technically a security breach at all because THERE WAS NO SECURITY. They collected donor information online and left it in the root directory for anyone with the inclination to raid it. Worse than I thought…
Labour’s General Secretary Chris Flatt should resign immediately over the breach of donor security revealed today by the WhaleOil blog. It is, as political resignations go, not even a close-run thing.
This is gross and unforgivable incompetence. It is a egregious breach of trust. It is humiliating for the donors whose financial transactions are soon to be made public. It endangers Labour’s already-parlous finances, and therefore represents a blow to its campaign coffers at just the wrong moment.
Blaming WhaleOil for publishing the information reflects another shocking example of the strategic naievete of Labour’s governing elites. Of course a right-wing blogger would run with it, just as I would happily leak the same information about the Nats or ACT. This is a contact sport. Don’t blub to the ref when you’ve been unilaterally pantsed.
Chris Flatt no doubt has a list of people he can blame internally for this mess. Perhaps even some outside consultants who let him down. Who cares? He is in charge, and this debacle is on his head.
Phil Goff must not tolerate this — unless he wants every meeting with potential donors between now and the election to start off with the question, “and when will our donation be published on a blog?”
By acting now — today — Goff can undermine the damaging perception that he prevaricates when toughness is called for. And he can begin the task of restoring faith in the party’s systems and procedures that have been shattered by this galling ineptitude.
Why should Labour lose a perfectly good general secretary because of the genuine mistakes of others?
I sometimes think it’s too easy for commentators – particularly of the self-appointed variety – to forget there are people behind these political edifices. Chris Flatt is a human being first, and Labour’s general secretary second.
I wouldn’t think Chris should fall on his sword merely because that’s what tradition demands. It’s his office that’s ultimately responsible, not the man himself.
Gross and unforgivable incompetence? An egregious breach of trust? Nah, you’re just playing with adjectives there. It was a stupid mistake that has embarrassed Labour. Someone’s almost certainly responsible, but precisely who is a matter for Labour to resolve itself.
If there’s any public accountability to be meted out, let it be through the tribunals and courts.
Well, forgive me for having a different view from yours. You and I disagree about the proper allocation of responsibility in the political sphere. If a department or government agency makes an error on this scale — and surely we can agree it is a massive cock-up — then the Minister, under our Westminster system, ought to resign. He or she can work his or her way back in time, but we expect resignations at such junctures as a way to draw a bright line under the matter in question and move forward. It is my opinion that this was sufficient to demand a similar response at the party organisational level. As for being “self-appointed”, was this an intended slur? My job in part is writing commentary for various media outlets. I did not appoint myself. That said, please feel free to disagree with me vehemently on this or any other matter.
It must have been an unintended slur because I never intended to level it at you. I was vicariously taking a swipe at WhaleOil and bludged off your blog to do it. Oh, word association….
I suppose I’m taken by the fact you hold Chris Flatt to the same standard you’d hold a minister. One has a warrant from the G-G to execute some fairly important executive functions. The other is Chris Flatt, the general secretary of the Labour Party.
Are we not mixing our fruit, here?
I think you’re right to point out how unacceptable this is. Any organisation charged with protecting the private information of other people better take that responsibility seriously, and woe betide those that fail. But demanding a person resign because of some traditional and accepted scalping practice and not on the back of clear evidence they’ve been negligent seems a bit wild.
Call me wild then I guess. The Party General Secretary is a political appointment and entitles no-one to the kind of job security you wish to grant him. It is staggering to have donor data sitting unsecured on a party website. Unbelievably so. A question for you: if this is not a resigning offense, what do you imagine would be?
There is a culture of impunity within Labour — lose a seat, get a high list spot! Publish donor data online, blame the tech guys! The party is riven with perverse incentives like this. Maybe ten years in the ALP made me too hard. But this seems to be a slam-dunk case for an honourable resignation. As for his being “perfectly good”, I frankly doubt it given this debacle, not to mention the dreadful fundraising numbers exposed by this. As far as feeling for his humanity, this never occurred to me since he is presumably aware that he does not have a lifetime appointment and he goes to work only at the discretion of the NZ Council on behalf of the members. More to the point, if Labour is appointing people to such a central role who are not able to quickly find more lucrative work elsewhere, then they should be appointing more qualified people.
“A question for you: if this is not a resigning offense, what do you imagine would be?”
Proof of negligence or a breach of his employment contract would suffice.
“More to the point, if Labour is appointing people to such a central role who are not able to quickly find more lucrative work elsewhere, then they should be appointing more qualified people.”
This is unfair. I don’t know how easy it is to find work in the polical machine (or any one of its sub-streams), but it seems disingenous to expect: (i) Chris to honourably fall on his sword; and, in the wake, (ii) find equal or greater employment in a related field elsewhere, lest he be accused of not being qualified in the first place, and all to prove he was really a worthy general secretary after all.
“Maybe ten years in the ALP made me too hard.”
Evidently.
What I am saying is that the role of general secretary ought to be (and used to be) regarded as a great political prize, not just another job. These appointments are the product of political and factional considerations and deal-making and are not simply the outcome of a typical recruitment process determined by comparing CVs and adjudging relative merit. To me, this is a critical distinction. If the party were healthy — which it is not, not by a long shot — then the role should be fought over by people who can make a tonne of dough, or otherwise reach grand heights, elsewhere. People should fight for it because it brings them great stature and kudos and offers a path to more senior political roles. In Australia, about five federal cabinet Ministers served in equivalent organizational roles. If GenSec was an apolitical, garden-variety “job” I would agree with you. It isn’t so I don ‘t.
And as for “proof of negligence”, I don’t believe Flatt is denying that negligence occurred, is he? There was no security. There was no hacking because hacking would have served no purpose whatsoever. The most sensitive party political data imaginable was left sitting in a web directory for any half-wit to scoop up willy-nilly. Are you saying this is not negligent? Or that Flatt is not accountable because he didn’t personally upload the data? Flatt himself says he is accountable, right?