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.”
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