The Privacy Commission released their report yesterday, clearing the CHRC of breaching Nelly Hechme’s privacy rights.  You can read it here.   Here is their conclusion:

Technological experts have indicated that, most likely, but without certainty, the association of the complainant’s IP address to the CHRC was simply a mismatch on the part of a third party, which could have occurred in a variety of ways not involving the CHRC. 

What is certain is that there is no evidence of the CHRC having ever collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained any personal information about the complainant.

The technological experts are not the ones who determine whether the CHRC was guilty of hacking into a private citizen’s account.  They only tell you what is possible and what is not. Notice the report’s caveat identified above in red.

There is, in fact, PLENTY of evidence that SOMEONE at the CHRC – even if it was not the investigators or third parties associated with this case – knew very well that the connection used was going to breach someone’s privacy.

Did the Privacy Commission even ask what method the CHRC used to login to the Stormfront account?  The CHRC has admitted using other ISPs and cloaking software in the past to avoid the CHRC’s IP address showing up on the log files of the discussion boards they spy on. What did the CHRC use when they logged into Stormfront on December 8, 2006?  Why doesn’t the CHRC produced this evidence?

For the Privacy Commission to conclude that there is “no evidence” of using Mr. Hechme’s connection is absurd IF one is interested in the testimony given at the CHRT last year.  During the March 25, 2008 hearing,  Dean Steacy admitted to being logged on to the “Jadewarr” account at the same time that Hechme’s IP address showed up on Stormfront’s logs. And not only that, but he indirectly refers to the Bell representative’s testimony about Hechme’s account to help him place the date and time when he logged in to Stormfront discussion board! (And we even have hard evidence from another case that indeed Steacy had logged in on December 8, 2006.  See also Part A, Section 3C-5B of The Blogosphere Cross Examination ).   

The testimony is saying December 8. That sounds right (1:40-1:53).  (The Blogosphere Cross Examination – Part A, Section 3C

Why would Steacy use the Bell representative’s testimony concerning Hechme’s internet account if it was totally unrelated and coincidental to the CHRC’s access of the Stormfront board?  This is the question I want answered.  The Privacy Commission would have us believe that it was one big coincidence — that the CHRC and Hechme’s IP address were both accessing the Jadewarr account at the same time. How absurd is that? If that were the case, then Steacy’s testimony above makes NO sense.

“No evidence?”  Not quite.

Gentle reader, does this sound to you that the CHRC never “collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained any personal information about the complainant“?  If you think so, I seriously doubt that all the Kool Aid in Lake Ontario would change your mind.

The Privacy Commission simply didn’t do its job or review the case properly. Nor has it addressed what the Blogosphere has discovered. It even refused to accept over 200 pages of evidence from Marc Lemire, a person who is at the center of the whole controversy with the CHRC’s rogue tactics.

According to the summary provided by the Privacy Commissioner, they conducted “numerous on-site interviews with CHRC officials.”  While the Privacy Commissioner did interview the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they refused to accept close to 200 pages of documents filed by Marc Lemire which documented the allegations. (Source)

Of course, when you’re interested in the truth, you stop drinking the government Kool Aid and you open the investigation to receiving evidence from EVERYONE, especially those connected to the case — not just accepting testimony from the agency under investigation.  Where did the Privacy Commission learn this kind of Kangaroo Kourt tactics? Let me guess, the CHRT perhaps? 

I don’t know what is more pathetic – the fact that this is happening or the fact that I’m not surprised anymore at the law enforcement and their pseudo-satellites in this country. 

According to Joseph Brean’s column in the National Post, “Ian Fine, senior general counsel to the CHRC, said he is pleased his investigators have been exonerated, and said he has no explanation for how the apparent mix-up occurred. “We remain in the dark,” he said.”

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Where Canadians are asking for some light, all the investigators give us is darkness.

I think that about sums it all up.

 

3 Responses to “Privacy Commission Whitewashes Case Against CHRC”
  1. Jack says:

    They are only doing the works of their father.

    John 8:44
    You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

  2. Leonard says:

    The link in the first paragraph is broken.

  3.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>