Do you know what your Canadian Human Rights Commission is doing?
“It’s horrible,” Hechme said. “You never want something like that attached to your name.”
Last month, an investigator with the Human Rights Commission told a hearing into a hate complaint that he made postings on websites under the password-protected pseudonym “Jadewarr.”
In response to a subpoena, Bell Canada linked “Jadewarr” to Hechme’s personal Internet account, and provided her address and telephone number at the public hearing.
The revelation quickly found its way into the media and became the Internet buzz among opponents of the rights commission.
Hechme, 26, who lives close to the commission’s offices in Ottawa, said she was “completely shocked” when a reporter contacted her about the disclosure.
“It was like the “Twilight Zone.” I didn’t know what the heck was going on,” said Hechme, an administrative assistant with Bell Canada.
[…]
Hechme disputed an initial media report that her wireless Internet access was unsecured and therefore easily hacked. In fact, she said, it required an encryption key that could not have been guessed or casually cracked.
When she forgot the key, even she couldn’t access the connection, she said.
“It was so secure to the point I couldn’t get into it (so) I’m not sure how they got into it. It’s very bizarre.”
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.