We need to see Warman, Steacy etc under oath, asked if they ever used unsecured wireless networks in the area to post. On the other hand is there any chance they would ever admit it? Probably not.

I don't know anything about Ms. Hechme, and I'm sure she was just being honest about her understanding when she spoke to the reporters, but as a matter of evidence, her testimony as to whether or not her connection was secure is worthless unless there is other evidence on the table to the effect that she has a clue about what she is talking about.

Agreed. She thinks that she locked herself out of her own wireless network and didn't know how (or couldn't be bothered) to let herself back in? Not exactly the sign of someone who knows what they're talking about.

I agree, and rather doubt that Ms. Hechme had a secure wireless connection at the time her account was accessed.

A more likely scenario would be that she had set up an unsecured connection, which was then accessed by another
user. Perhaps she then changed her connection to include encription and forgot that she had previously used an unsecured connection.

BTW, 'hacking' a secure wifi connection is not easy. I'd venture to guess a mere handful of unsighted individuals are alive today
who might manage it, none of whom bear the initials D.S.

Folks, secure or not, WEP or not, yer missing the point.

A woman caught up in a mysterious Internet hijacking scandal that has sparked a federal privacy investigation into the Canadian Human Rights Commission says she was shocked, angry and confused at suddenly finding herself publicly associated with white supremacists.

So.Was she PO'd because she got outed publicly? Or PO'd that her hairy legs and birkenstocks didn't protect her?
And yes AJ....most are missing the point.
Socialists.
In Canada.
Doing every dirty trick in the book to turn us into Canuckistan.

Sue, sue, sue the CHRC.

Drive it out of existence. This kind of unconstitutional, illegal intrusion and abuse of innocent citizens cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

It's another sign that the "human rights" fascists genuinely believe that they can do anything they want, just like the Chinese Communist Party does...

This is very serious. Why aren't the leftwing political parties raising this in Question Period? Wither Stephane Dion? Whither Jack Layton? Gilles Duceppe? Where's the big leftwing stink? Does the left think this kind of state intrusion and abuse is acceptable and justifiable?

Is this part of what Stephane Dion calls "social justice"? Is this what Trudeau meant by a "just society"?

Why is the HR apparatus continuing without serious scrutiny?

If the CSIS had spied on Muslims, the outrage would be unmissable. The CSIS would be in big trouble for protecting national security.

But we have the HR apparatus doing this... to try to hunt imaginary white supremacists (what about hunting real Islamic supremacists, for example?)... breaking the law, the constitution, violating peoples' rights, and getting away with it because the left deems it all politically correct...

Why is it ok to do such terrible things in the name of stamping out alleged "hate" allegedly coming from (exclusively) white people who have yet to be detected allegedly spewing what leftwing nutcases illogically deem "hate", but not in the name of national security?! Why TF?

It appears that the CHRC is racist. Falsely accusing only members of one specific race of what is deemed "hate" speech? Why this particular race? This is racism. And they claim to be "anti-hate"? BS!

I'd say to be careful of this story. Pursue it of course, go for full revelation of who did what, when, and so on, but something about it isn't right. I don't think we're getting all the details just yet.

AtlanticJim: "Folks, secure or not, WEP or not, yer missing the point."

Exactly my thoughts as I read the first few comments.

Secure or not, jadwarr had no business accessing another person's internet account in order to post incendiary comments on a Blog site.

The truth of the matter is, most of us are not computer nerds--and as per another thread at SDA about men's and women's differing aptitudes, most of us have no idea how our computers and/or internet connections work or how to fix them. That's just the way things are.

I feel extremely sorry for Nelly Hechme, who is not in the position of having to defend herself when she did nothing wrong--except, perhaps, not be up to speed on secure vs insecure Internet access.

Whoops, correction to comment above: I feel extremely sorry for Nelly Hechme, who is NOW in the position of having to defend herself when she did nothing wrong--except, perhaps, not be up to speed on secure vs insecure Internet access.

YES ... you guys are missing the point !!!

In Canada the police are required to show cause and obtain a warrant from a judge before being allowed to wiretap someone's phone.

Essentially the CHRC used an illegal wiretap and someone at the CRHC needs to be prosecuted.

Ezra wrote about this yesterday and I found myself thinking that things just didn’t seem to add up. I wrote the following at his site:

“Juxtaposing an apparent fact—that Ms Hechme’s computer was secure—with two of your observations, Ezra—that Nelly [Hechme] seems pretty calm and that Ian Fine [CHRC senior general counsel] says ‘No problem’—it occurred to me that maybe there IS a connection between Ms Hechme and someone at the CHRC. Just a thought . . .

"E.g., Why didn’t she—long ago—hire a big time lawyer to sue the pants off the CHRC? As you say, Ezra, they’d probably settle a large amount to keep things under the radar. Frankly, I’m suspicious [or at least wondering] about Ms. Hechme’s apparent reticence here. How come?”

Then a christopher rivers castigated me and suggested I wasn’t a very concerned Canadian to say what I did. I then wrote, “I'm surprised at c. rivers ad hominem. I have nothing against Ms Hechme and, if she's been wronged by criminal activity on the part of the CHRC, I'd love to see her completely vindicated and them hung out to dry.

“All I did was speculate on some of the apparent anomalies in the information so far. E.g., I'm still puzzled by why she hasn't sued the bastards yet.”

This still seems to be a very strange story with parts of the puzzle missing.

This is like arguing whether someone did or did not leave her car unlocked before a third party hotwired it, took it for a joyride and ran over grandma.

If she lived near the Commission headquarters, then I would suspect she did leave it unsecured, they picked up on the nearest open signal they could find, and off it went. What's she guilty of...not being a very good geek?

Similar thing happened to me when I first set up our wireless router at home.

Someone used our Rogers account to access the Toronto Star's website and sign up for a home delivery subscription.

Now I have to go through life with that dark red stain on my record.

Humph.

She didn't know how to get onto her wifi after forgetting the WEP key ?

Ummm .... press the reset button on the router. Says so right in the manual.

Like a few others here this just doesn't quite pass the smell test with me yet.

She seems awfully adamant to establish on public record the fact her connection was secure...if this is a fact, it implicates her as a possible suspect not exonerates her....I smell something fishy.

Folks, secure or not, WEP or not, yer missing the point.

I agree with atlanticjim

If she had forgotten to lock the door after leaving her home, would it make it ok for some stranger to sleep in her home?

And would she have to be an expert locksmith for her testimony to be worth something?

Illegal use by a third party is illegal use by a third party no matter how negligent or ignorant the owner is.

I hope she sues. If nothing else, it could shake the tree enough to reform the HRC's at least slightly.

Interesting isn't it how the Canadian Press story is spun around Hechme, which is curious in its telling, yet the HRC's surreptitious involvement is virtualy ignored.

Particularly after former Toronto Mayor (communist) Barbara Hall and head of Ontario's Human Rights Commission scathing smear and attack on Mark Steyn and Macleans, even while declining to go forward with charges, points out the power these monstrosities wield and are more than willing to use it.

One would expect MSM to show some concern for a scourge within their own speech domain.

Maybe Hechme should be contacting the RCMP instead of Canadian Press for answers to the invasion of her computer.

I don't think that the fact that she didn't immediately launch a lawsuit is an indicator of being a 'co-conspiror' with the HRC. Many people don't go near lawyers. Or lawsuits. But they are still wronged people. It's one month since she became aware of this. Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone reasonable launching a lawsuit at the moment without knowing more details of what happened. Remember, it takes MONEY to get a lawyer.

As for her 'being calm', the fact that she's not hysterical might be her nature. Again, that's not a valid observation. Remember how they accused Stephen Truscott of murder, because, when questioned, he gripped his hands together so tightly that 'the whites of his knuckles showed'. To some people, heh, that was a 'sure sign of guilt'.

Equally, what she understands as 'secure' and what others in the know understand as 'secure' are two different things. Speaking only for myself, I haven't a clue what 'secure' means to you guys. I only know that I 'log in' to my internet each time I open it. I'd wonder if Ms Hechme thinks that's what's meant, i.e., the 'logging in'.

If she has been ripped off for her connection by a malicious 3rd party, I hope she sues the CHRC AND Bell for their sloppy security.

I don't think she has the technical authority to determine if the connection was totally secure or not, ( which makes me question why she was so adamant to state the wireless node was secure???) Anyway all that will be cleared up by the privacy commissioner extracting the facts from the owner/operator of the system (Bell).

We already know that Canada's Human Rights Commissions have no respect for free speech; that they have no respect for property rights or privacy either should surprise no one. Pick any time of the
day; the Commissars are up to no good.

Can the HRCs charge you with actually causing contempt? Not the vacuous possibility of unprovable hatred in a unnamed mind in an undefined somewhere at some unspecified time in some potential future, but real loathing for a specific group? If continued actions taken by some make your first emotional response to them a desire to beat into them some sense if it takes all day, aren't they they as culpable as any brownshirt-wannabe drooling on at a three-reader website about Aryan Purity? By the standards that the HRCs live up to anyway?

Yes Joe,

Clearly the RCMP must be dragged by their tail/rear into investigating this mess. Their reluctance is suspicious and instead a few have been surfing the web looking for neo-nazi bloggers perhaps.

Today from Ontario and the National Post. More outrage directed at the OHRC and their poster woman Barbie Doll Hall.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=477543

"social justice" "human rights commission" "gun registry" "price control"

Are we talking about communist China?

This right here is the reason I spent time and money running CAT5 through my house. I highly recommend it. No wireless running at Chez Phantom, ain't no blind guy with a laptop getting in here, nuh uh.

Big Brother can still hack your computer, of course. But at least you make the SOBs work for it.

Please excuse this old man from wondering. The HRC's, all 14 are likly to argue they use entrapement in much the same way our Police Forces use undercover agents who can offer drugs (cocaine etc) to trafficers in order to trap them.
I'm not defending this tactic, I'm am saying that will be thier justification.
This world of the HRC's gets cloudy because they do not have expertise in investigation nor do they have the rule of Law in thier basket of weapons.
Not withstanding this huge shortcoming, they will convince a lot of people and in particular some Politicians, that the threat from holocaust deniers, free speach types and to some degree those who do not subscribe to supra-liberal points of view; are the real danger.
I have sat and listened to very influential individuals claim they have to do these things,( sick postings,etc ) in order to root out who is beind these web sights.
Because they have some very powerful Law and people on thier side, I suggest Canadians who value freedom need to focus on "how do we deal with this Power and how do we get our Politicians to understand how damaging the HRC's have become.

mel wilde - the difference between using undercover agents operating in criminal activities such as drug dealing and undercover agents operating in non-criminal activities is - 'criminality'.

Free speech is not criminal; it's a fundamental right. For an HRC commissar to try to incite hate speech is unethical.

curiouser and curiouser..... the point was made above and in the very least, the tree should be getting a very good shaking right now.

How much shaking is it going to take before the Feds get actively involved. What is needed is a mechanism for a number of those involved to appear before a pubic "whatever" (criminal court?) in which these people are subpoenaed, give evidence under oath, and be subject to perjury and/or treatment as a hostile witness if all they can do is say "I don't remember". The March 25th CHRT hearing was a total joke. It will take more than the CHRC/CHRT to get a proper public airing.

This young lady should not have to spend exorbitant amounts of her own money on a civil suit to do what is really the Fed's job - money that she probably does not have. The Feds are probably weighing the fact that she is unlikely/financially unable to sue and will likely continue sitting on the sidelines like the three monkeys.

If she has the money, then yes - it sounds like she should go for it, but what do we really know about the goings on leading up to the whole mess.

Surely there is enough information out there now for the Feds to take this seriously and get after what ails the CHRC. Intestinal fortitude at this point is going to gain votes - not lose them.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 a (3) Dec 1948

Article 12
'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or corrsepondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

But as we in Canada well know, signing official documents by Liberals are just for show.

The Liberals and their followers really don't believe in or follow what they sign.

It's just mindboggling that there are large numbers of city people that will still vote for this crooked bunch of liars and thieves.

Dear ET Thank you for your comments. While I do understand the differenc, This is the rational being used by important powerful individuals and they will continue using it.
If you will recall Chretian saying IF "laws were broken It was only to save Canada". worked for him and I worry it is working for the Zealots who are hunting free speach.

It's odd that right off the top of the thread the veracity of Ms. Hechme's statements (not testimony, BTW) are being questioned. A government agency used Hechme's account without her knowledge to post messages on racist blogs; that is the salient point, and for the time being, until all the facts come out, I'll take Ms. Hechme's word about her network being encrypted over that of anyone connected to the HRC hate investigators, whom testimony has shown to be less than veritable -- unless they're pressed, or caught up, or confronted with undeniable evidence -- on the issue of their investigative techniques.

BTW alienated, her network may not have been hacked; maybe someone helped her "set it up", or maybe someone sold her a particular piece of equipment, or...?

Well Calgary Clipper,

The silence from the Feds and the politicians is deafening. I now believe Injustice Minister Nicholson is but a figment of Stevie Dither's lack of imagination/vision.

I can only assume it is related to a paper trail to the failed Heritage Front Affair/SIRC Review/whitewash they simply don't want exposed.

Lemire's criminal complaint may be the door opener/"Meet and Greet" we need.

Where is Preston now that we need him the most?

Quibbling about whether or not she secured her network?
What a bunch of garbage! No one is obligated to secure their telecommunications.
Theft of those resources IS a CRIME.
Look up Theft of Telecommunications...

Here's ONE presentation used by the OPP...
Privacy Presentation

AND Canadian Criminal Code sec 326 and 327

service

326. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right,

(a) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or

(b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.

Definition of "telecommunication"

(2) In this section and section 327, "telecommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic system.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 287; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 23.

Possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service

327. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, manufactures, possesses, sells or offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for obtaining the use of any telecommunication facility or service, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the device has been used or is or was intended to be used to obtain the use of any telecommunication facility or service without payment of a lawful charge therefor, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Forfeiture

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) or paragraph 326(1)(b), any instrument or device in relation to which the offence was committed or the possession of which constituted the offence, on such conviction, in addition to any punishment that is imposed, may be ordered forfeited to Her Majesty, whereupon it may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.

Limitation

(3) No order for forfeiture shall be made under subsection (2) in respect of telephone, telegraph or other communication facilities or equipment owned by a person engaged in providing telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public or forming part of the telephone, telegraph or other communication service or system of such a person by means of which an offence under subsection (1) has been committed if such person was not a party to the offence.

1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 24.

Melwilde,

You hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.....how much do you believe in rule of law as an important process that yields a proper end, or is rule of law just a convenient tactic depending on your end goal.

Another Liberal comes to the defence of the Checkoslovakian 5......

Some observers might think Tims should consider litigation, though letter carriers and postal workers are likely well represented among its devotees.

But, though there is a light side to the libel threat, Liberal MP Mark Holland said Greene's reaction could spell double trouble instead of double double.

"Blogging has sort of become the Wild West of political commentary, and we're still feeling out how that is going to work going forward," he said. "At the end of the day, we want to make sure people have the ability to express an opinion and make a joke without being fearful of a lawsuit."

Tim Hortons, Postal Canada union story

We should wonder about the social network for Hechme, re any past or present association with Rizk, Lalonde, Kozak, and so forth (roommates? schoolmates? etc.), not to mention any of her associations with Dean, Dickie, Ian Fine, John Chamberlain, Terry Wilson, and so forth. Did she actually collude for use of her access, or informally (someone she invited to a party?)? What Ottawa Circles does she frequent that one of them might also be in?

If there is no connection, she MUST sue them, get them into a real court!

"Quibbling about whether or not she secured her network?"

No, not really ... but people that don't know anything about computers/networks have the cutest explanations about how they work.

Seeing as WEP crackers have been around (and downloadable) since WEP has been around - I would find it interesting to see if one was used. BTW: The boys can crack a WEP in about 2 minutes now ... about the same time it takes to boot a laptop.

My earlier comment was merely to state that anonymous users can freely access unsecured networks from,
say, a laptop merely by searching for unsecured entry points. Something done in towns and cities in the
western world every minute by Joe Salesman who has to check his orders from base, or Jane Buyer
who wishes to comparison shop a new pair of shoes.

Look, I set up households who wish internet access or who wish to add a wireless or wired network in their
homes or offices. When installing a wireless router in a residence, the choice between a secured & an
unsecured network is but a click in the setup program. You'd be amazed at how many people would actually
prefer to have an unsecured network, as they can't take the trouble to write down the encryption
code. I can explain the dangers of unsecured entry points until I'm blue in the face, but if a customer wants
an unsecured network set up, he will get what he asks for.

My points are that accessing an unsecured network is not 'hacking' into a network - just accessing it;
and doing so is an everyday occurrence just about everywhere.

Last time I visited relatives in Toronto the Good, I checked from mom's condo after 6 on my laptop and found
42 networks in range, roughly a third unsecured. Getting online there would have been easy for anyone.
Illegal? Yes. Hacking the network? No. Commonly done? You betcha.

"Bureaucrats' wireless costs out of control"

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/419048

Perhaps this is why they had to hack Hechme, maybe they're pirating access all over?

Someone who can't figure out how to press the reset button on their router might have little idea of what it means to "secure" a wireless network. Having a PalmTX on me wherever I go I tend to do a lot of warwalking and have been finding even now a large number of networks where people haven't even bothered to change the default password which is "admin" for most routers. A larger number of people have changed the default password but the network is still unsecured (which is what I suspect may have happened in Ottawa). Even now a minority of people have WEP enabled or some other means of encryption. This is nice for me as I can read SDA in a large number of locations where people have unsecured networks.

To really secure a network, one shouldn't broadcast SSID and use encryption. As ural pointed out, WEP is easily crackable and hence one should also encrypt all data before it goes onto the internet using PGP or some similar encryption program.

The difference between Canada and the United States.In the United States a president was impeached because of an illegal wire tap.In Canada its used,not by the police,but by a govt.agency immune to critisism.Then defended as a RESONABLE PRACTICE.

Don't we read and vent about this on a weekly basis, I feel like a dog chasing its tail. I need to win a lottery because I'm scared sh*tless that I may say something wrong and get charged. I can not afford lawyers and things, it would ruin my family. Can I be charged for listening to Rap in earshot of others?(seriously)

Racist comments on a blog are not immune from the law. Blogs are (theoretically) electronic newspaper columns. Some of the crap that people write on this column, (Ex; Obama) is definite hate material. And please don't misread me, I'm a card bearing RW Conservative, have been since 1980.
If you were to write garbage in a newspaper column, are you expecting that no one will grab a copy and use it to their advantage in nailing you? The internet is a public domain. I live in a small town, my nephew picks up wireless internet form a business across the srteet from his house. He can check up on their daily orders at the click of a button. He's 12 years old!! What do think the Mounties could tap into!!

The fact that the lady's name was published, along with personal information, is enough to take this thing seriously. It's another disturbing behaviour of HRC and its agents. When they cannot go forward with a "prosecution" they pass public judgement, and when one of their operatives is accused of violating the privacy of a private citizen, their spokesperson declines comment because of ongoing investigation, then pauses only briefly to opine the complete innocence of the alleged perpetrator.

These organizations seem to be running amuck, not only unaccountable, but hostile and secretive to any inquiry. That's what must stop. As ET said, the peasants need to "revolt" on this one, as revolting as Hall et al think they are (sorry, Mel Brooks).

Re Ms Hechme: until we get more information about this whole fiasco, one HYPOTHESIS—which is in no way disrespectful towards her, as some seem to think—is that she may have known, quite innocently, or even be related to, one of the CHRC types, who asked her a favour re her computer.

Or, not so innocently, MAYBE the CHRC has been in contact with her since March 25th —would this breach of protocol bother them?—to strike some kind of deal.

Re hiring a lawyer—perhaps this is naïve of me—but I’d imagine, under the circumstances, and considering the very large settlement she’d be likely to get, and the enhanced reputation her lawyer would earn, that there would be lawyers willing to take on her case.

As I said, and others seem to feel the same way, because there seem to be so many loose ends here—and, taking Ezra’s word that Ms Hechme seems somewhat “calm”—I’m just positing some scenarios that MIGHT explain some of the anomalies.

Of course, I give her the benefit of the doubt re being an altogether innocent party. And, if this is the case, she should go for the CHRC’s jugular.

Seen where Ezra has been threatened with yet another lawsuit?

http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/good-grief-now-giacomo-vigna-i.html
"Good grief. Now Giacomo Vigna is threatening to sue me!"

Lots of talk about that there loyern stuff but the young women was probably just thankful she was not going to be charged herself!
She did not ask to be in the limelight and probably just wants to get back to normal.
It would seem that her human rights have been impacted and the only fair thing would be for HRC to investigate themselves.

I'm a little stumped as to why this is being treated as a privacy commission issue. I would think using someones internet connection without authorization would be considered theft of communication wouldn't it? After all, I believe that's what the authorities have charged hackers with in the past.

I think the Conservative Goberment will sweep the entire issue under the carpet, they'll issue a simpering mewling tripe filled press release stating the blind guy couldn't see who accessed the Jadewarr account blah blah blah. They'll wipe their hands on the arse of their pants and business as usual will commence at the Inhumane You have no Rights Commission (if you are white and a christians). Some employees have acted with inpunity, and apparently that's okay with our Justice Minister.

WEP hacking is pretty easy and only takes about 10 minutes using readily available tools.

All the hacker has to do is grab two packets and they can decode your password easily and then spoof your IP address and are able to then access your network at will.

All that WEP and passwords do is keep your honest neighbours out of your network.

I agree that the larger issue is being forgotten about here.....

So I read the article referenced, and having followed this case quite closely, I noted nothing new (to me) except Hechme's claim as to the security of her access point. Thereto, I simply pointed out at 2:57 that I have reason to doubt the veracity of her claims.

To my surprise, I then find out that I am missing the point and, fascinatingly, odd. My apologies. Perhaps, in the future, it would be better if I routed my comments to the likes of those who know everything about everything, for editorial review, before expressing my opinion here.

It has not been proved, legally, that any particular person made the particular alleged access that is claimed by some. It is a reasonable line of investigation to pursue, sure, but it is a mistake to jump to conclusions and rush to judgment if that then prevents one from investigating further and finding out what might subtly be actually going on, should the initial conjecture be found wanting upon further investigation.

Simply put, if it was secure, then it is much less likely (though still not impossible) that a casual illegal access occurred. If it was secure, then those who want to prove someone guiltily of an alleged illegal access have a harder case to make. Don't blame me, that's just the way it is and should be.

I do not like what the HRCs are doing. I would like to see them shut down or at least severly restricted. I would not like to see them strengthened by the actions of those who would jump to conclusions about allegations in such a fashion so as to later be found to be strengthening the HRCs' claims.

Oh, but I forgot. In the common world, apparently, the presumption of innocence is only afforded to those who people agree with. No wonder some people keep getting in legal trouble for shooting off their mouths about legal allegations they cannot legally substantiate. Once again, my apologies for trying to use reason in a case which is apparently, at least for some, a limbic matter.

"(if you are white and a christians)."

What is worse, a white guy or a Christian? I'm not sure how guilty I should feel, I'm thinking I might not be that bad. I'm not a Christian so that should move me up a rung on the ladder shouldn't it?

Still the quibbling continues..... What part of It's Illegal to use other people's access needs clarification?

What part of prove it needs clarification?

Spike 1 ...thanks for that reminder.
It was called 'Watergate'...in reference to the hotel where the break-ins took place. The wiretaps were found afterwards, and then Nixon and all the kings men came tumbling down...(correct me if I'm wrong here SDA history buffs.)

That followed with EVERY 'scandal' in politics having -gate attached to it.Very tiresome IMHO...
That brings us to this breach of privacy , but none other than employees of a government office, HRC.
We are, in fact, less reactive,perhaps tired, of it all.I recall the horror of the American public,actually following American politics more closely those days(Yankee parents)
Hechme is amazingly calm thru this which is feeding the several possible scenarios.
I keep waiting for our the Minister of Justice to step up to the plate on this.

Is Nellie Hechme a government employee? Does she belong to the gov't union? These are important questions IMP, because it is pretty scary to rock the boat if you are dependant on the gov't for your bill payments.

I know this because I once worked for Dept of Hywys in B.C. during a provincial election. The staff room had NDP posters everywhere saying that there would be a strike if the Social Credit got elected and there would be a raise if the Dippers were elected. I put up a 'Vote Social Credit' sign and took credit for it. One week later I was laid off!! I did not even THINK to protest to any gov;t agency - I am a country kid and I thought that the boss didn't like me so I was out on my ear (I did know the reason for the dislike). I just got another (better) job.

When the Social Credit won the election, my Dad phoned the Min. of Hwys. and told him that his daughter (me) had been fired because I voted for Him (the SC). My old boss phoned me a week later and offered me, not my old flagirl job but a choice of many jobs with better pay!!

My question is an important question because of how the gov' t operates.

I did not quit my better job to go work with people who did not like me...but I got the last laugh by letting that old boss hang out on a limb for 10 days before telling him that I would rather not work with the likes of him and his fellow Dipper cheerleaders.

[quote]It has not been proved, legally, that any particular person made the particular alleged access that is claimed by some.[/quote]

Vitruvius,
That is a very dangerous defense IMO because it suggests a “conspiracy” to avoid responsibility. (We all knew the password etc)The one's that did "not" make the post/access know that fact.

One results in a mere slap to the poster, the other(conspiracy) may result in a criminal prosecution of ALL.

Ms Hechme should file a criminal complaint, she can still go the Civil route

Just for beeps and giggles, I just had my system go look for wireless networks within range.

There are four other wireless connections I could ride off of right now. Not a one of them secured, in fact, everyone of them has the out of the box default DLink and Linksys network names. What do you want to bet that they all have the default passwords as well?

The facts are that the vast majority of people who use wireless networks know only enough to get it to work. Anyone the least conversant with computers and networks knows this. Even as a quasi-geek it took me a few minutes to figure out how to encrypt my router. For the average "I turn it on and there is the interweb" user? It may seem pretty simple to some, but that user is terrified they are going to lock out their system forever.

And yes, the networks around me are untouched. At least by me.......

To be clear, Phillip, I'm not trying to defend anyone. I am simply curious as to what actually happened. We have a number of pieces of data. Some of them can be considered to rise to the standard of evidence. The open question, it seems to me, is what exactly is the case you wish to prosecute? And remember, this is a legal case I'm talking about, not a moral one.

Based on the strengths and limitations of my knowledge, from my perspective this remains a matter of investigation, because there are gaps in the argument that would not fare well under proper cross-examination in a duly constituted court of law that observes due process (which is not the case in kangaroo courts like the HRC Tribunals, but is the case in the Ontario Libel & Slander Act statutory proceeding at hand).

Others think they are ready to proceed with a trial strategy, and still others think they are ready to pass sentence. I'm just cautioning prudence, both abstractly and individually.

"Reached by phone last night, Ms. Hechme, 26, told the National Post she has no connection to the tribunal, has never known any of the investigators, and has never accessed a Web site as Jadewarr. She said that in the relevant period in 2006 she did have a Bell Sympatico account with a wireless connection that was not password controlled, meaning anyone within range of her apartment could have accessed the Internet with it. She does, however, have a link to Bell Canada. She has been employed there, though not in the Internet division, since before 2006. She had never heard of this Jadewarr issue before, and was disturbed that her name had been publicly disclosed, by her employer no less, without so much as a heads-up."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=399100

Jim

I agree with Friend of USA others. Wait & see before coming to conclusions.
If she stated categorically it was secured, maybe she does have a lawyer already advising her. That she takes it serious is fairly obvious. No doubt the lass is getting advice from everyone.

Anyway for a young Lady this must be terrifying, falling into a bear trap like this monster of political magnitude. She probably figures she’s doomed any way she turns.
Stress by the way kills. I ought to know being on the bad end of a heart attack.

One thing is for sure, many will try to use her for a political pawn.

Nota bene. On March 25, per Jim's reference, she said in effect her wireless access was not secured. As above referenced, on April 27, she said it was secured. It is indeed quite possible she has, with advice or otherwise, come to understand that her initial claim was incorrect, an honest misunderstanding, and there would be nothing wrong with that (she wasn't even under oath). But we don't even have any claims as to whether or not that is the case; so far all we have are two blatantly conflicting statements. And some people are making plans based on what she has said so far? Well, they're braver than me.

Does Ms Hechme smoke tobacco? Could this be the reason for her being targeted by Bolshevik fanatics; as was the case with the Polish man targeted at Vancouver airport? 'Smokers are vermin and therefore expendable' is the story line. Could change the whole story, IMO.

Not sure if anyone else pointed this out - I didn't take the time to read all the comments, sorry - but WEP has been broken for years and these days you can download a WEP cracker without much trouble.

Many of the comments about this issue are exactly what the Orwellian types at the HRC want to see. Focus on the minutia of WEP , etc and ignore the fundamental legal and ethical issues.

In the words of the HRC ... "Move along ... nothing to see here"

Brian,

A lot of folks don't understand the technology. It's a way of explaining the chain of: HRC allegedly has a password protected Jadewarr account -> a miracle happens -> Jadewarr logs in at Hechme's IP address.

Just saying that it ain't no miracle.

Another sign that HRC's only protect small minority groups at the expense of the mainstream.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/04/29/qc-lestudsettlement0429.html#storycomments