The RCMP is not going to pursue charges against CHRC investigators that hacked an Ottawa woman's wireless internet connection to post anonymously on websites that were under investigation for "hate speech". There's still a parallel investigation of the same incident by the Privacy Commissioner. But the RCMP is giving up - the evidence is too far.
In a phone interview on Thursday, the woman said the RCMP told her they do not have proof her account was hacked, nor proof that it was not, and to investigate further would involve going after technical data from a website based in the United States, stormfront.org, which they said is not possible.
But wait! Hasn't Marc Lemire already provided all that technical data at the hearing which took place a few months ago? Sure, the server itself may still be located in the US. But Mr. Lemire is here in Canada. Just ask him and he'll provide all the information that's missing. It seems like the RCMP just doesn't want to make the extra effort to prosecute the CHRC agent provocateurs.
Even WITHOUT such evidence, we would have to believe that Stormfront “made up” an IP address which just so happened to belong to an innocent woman who
1) disavows any connection or knowledge to Stormfront before this fiasco engulfed her;
2) and who just happened to live within a couple of blocks of the CHRC offices (and within their hacking abilities);
3) and who just so happened to log in at the same time that CHRC employees admitted, under oath in two separate CHRT hearings, to also being logged into the jadewarr account on the Stormfront board (and yet no other IP fingerprint exists on those logs for their implied “separate connection”)
What reasonable person would believe this? Only someone who is so drunk on Koolaid that their coherency levels are shot, I should think.
Hopefully, we can still count on the Privacy Commissioner to show some more persistence.
7 comments:
Funny how Leftists are always up in arms about claims of potential jeopardizing the privacy of perverts and terrorists, but somehow don't care when perv and terrorist sympathizers (like the CHRC, I presume) actually violate privacy...
Oh for crying out loud! Connecting to an unsecured wireless router is not hacking! If that's hacking, then I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
Pull your head out people! Just because you don't like the CHRC, (neither do I), doesn't mean they're a bunch of malicious hackers, and it doesn't make connecting to an open router illegal.
And since when is there anything illegal about posting anonymously on a blog? Sure the CHRC runs a kangaroo court, but that's because of what the CHRC mandate is, not because they've discovered the l33t hax0r ski11z of connecting to an open router.
Even if hacking is not the right word to use - what difference does it make to the actual story?
Sure, there's nothing illegal about posting anonymously on a blog. But when an investigator for a law enforcement body posts a provocative message on a website which his own organization is investigating for hate speech - that's nothing but planting the evidence.
To make things worse, that ill-famous investigator did his evidence planting using someone else's open wireless network. Even if that's not illegal - that's dishonest and cowardly at the very least.
If he just didn't want the admins to see a CHRC IP in their logs - he could have posted from home. But he chose to steal (to hijack, to use without owner's permission) someone else's connection so his postings couldn't be traced back to him. That his actions could actually get an innocent person into trouble (the opportunities were plenty) - apparently didn't bother him.
Finally - there is such thing as a right to privacy. If someone leaves the door wide open - it doesn't make it ok for a stranger to get in. Especially if that stranger is actually an employee of what is supposedly a human rights watchdog.
Actually it makes a gigantic difference the actual story. If it was "hacking", that might have been illegal. Since there's no hacking, you can't charge anyone with it, because there was no crime.
Then there's posting provocative messages anonymously. Not illegal. It's also not planting evidence. Planting evidence would have been if the "investigator" posted comments and then brought the site owner in front of the kangaroo court for those comments. That's not what happened. They posted provocative comments. Baiting people is rude, but it's NOT illegal, so there's nothing to charge anyone with. Planting evidence is a very specific thing, and this isn't it.
The HRC guy isn't getting charged with anything because there's nothing to charge him with. Deal with it.
And your characterization of "stealing" or "hijacking" someone's internet connection is completely wrong. That's not how the technology works. Your analogy about open doors is completely and utterly false. I'm sorry, but you clearly do not know what you're talking about.
An unsecured wireless router actively broadcasts it's identification to invite connections. A computer then sends a connection request and the router then grants that request. That's your permission right there. Anyone who thinks that this is use without permission simply doesn't understand the basic technology involved.
This is the difference between a secured wifi point and an unsecured one. A secured access point responds to a connection request by asking for a "password".
If you want to use the door analogy, the router is the bouncer at the door, not the door itself or the house. A secured wifi point waits for people to ask to enter then only lets in people who have the right password. An unsecured wifi point waits for people to ask to enter and then says "sure, come on in" to everyone who asks, thus they give permission to enter.
No breaking and entering, no privacy violations.
Many people run unsecured wifi points on purpose, (I do), so the idea that open wifi points aren't for public use is completely without basis.
I can understand why you don't like the HRC's. That's fine. But there simply IS NOT anything illegal, wrong or even terribly unexpected about using an open wifi point.
"Your analogy about open doors is completely and utterly false."
Why is it false? An unsecured wireless connection is no more "inviting" than a door which is wide open. In both cases the person is aware that he enters a place (or a wireless network) he's not supposed to enter.
If you forget to lock your door, thus allowing someone else to come in and make a prank call from your phone without you even knowing - even if it's not break and enter - that's trespassing at the very least.
Not sure if there's an equivalent charge for someone who steals someone else's internet connection, but that's not the legal way for a "human rights" watchdog investigator to operate.
Let alone that his actions endangered the other person who could have been held responsible for that same message - either by the CHRC or by the ISP or by the website owners or even by some "anti-racist" extremists that would consider him to be the actual author of the post.
And another thing. I could understand if the response from the RCMP was "what he did was bad, but there's nothing in the criminal code he could actually be charged with". But they chose not to proceed with the case because they saw no sufficient proof to support the allegations and they refused to consider the evidence submitted by the website owner.
In both cases the person is aware that he enters a place (or a wireless network) he's not supposed to enter.
Leonard, I'm sorry that there isn't another way to say this, because there are good reasons not to like the HRC's or what they do.
But... You. Are. Wrong.
Connecting to an unsecured wireless connection is NOT entering where you're not supposed to. MANY people, (myself included), run open wireless connections specifically so that people can connect. That's what an unsecured wifi router is FOR. That is WHY they are not encrypted.
They actively broadcast invitations to connect. They receive requests and then THEY GRANT THEM PERMISSION TO CONNECT. That is how the technology works. Someone's failure to understand a technology that they are deploying does not change the nature of that technology or what it does.
I'm sorry, but it simply isn't entering without permission. Permission is asked for and granted.
I can understand why you might want it to be, but no matter how bad the HRC's are, that doesn't change how routers work.
Post a Comment