DND Investigating use of computers to change Wikipedia Entry of Rehtaeh Parsons

[SpaceInvader]

Perhaps it is.

I live in Asia, this is reality for me everyday. But you are correct, George, I have nothing further to add to this thread as I have no vested interest in this case and adding anything further would be hypocritical. I will respectfully depart and leave you to your discussion.

Have a good day.

 

[Lightguns]

I think the real issue here is using DND IT resources to edit a controversial and emotional Wikipedia entry.  I make no comment about what happened that night, as I am not familiar enough with the story to form an opinion.

If this had been done from a home computer, there would be no story.

Concur, that is the only issue here, DND has been made to look bad collectively by an individual inside the org.  That has to be corrected by DND publicly, that is the way orgs work.  Restaurants fire snotty counter people, trucking companies fire speeding truckers and we discipline members who publicly go off message or use DND equipment for personal gain (and get caught).  Just another day in the salt mines......

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps it is.

I live in Asia, this is reality for me everyday. But you are correct, George, I have nothing further to add to this thread as I have no vested interest in this case and adding anything further would be hypocritical. I will respectfully depart and leave you to your discussion.

Have a good day.

The discussion can now return to the topic at hand:  DND investigating use of DND computer to edit Wikipedia.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The moral of the story is do controversial stuff from your home computer. Yet another person that does not understand government IT polices or how I.P. addresses work. 

 

[cupper]

As to the individual making the changes, for political purposes, he/she will be hunted down, tried and convicted and it will be made public.  Just a stupid thing to do from a DND computer.  I got 5 bucks that says he/she works at CFB Halifax and lives in Eastern Passage and knows the parents of one of the boys.

I agree. The individual in question must have some connection to the guilty individuals. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome is.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Apparently DND isn't the only Federal department that has personnel using department computers to make unauthorized comments on Wikipedia articles:

Corrections department investigating unauthorized Wikipedia edits

 

[TCM621]

Just because nobody was charged, or nobody was convicted, does not/not mean a sexual assault did not occur (note that in Canada, that is the legal term, not "rape".  If you are going to pin your argument on legalities, at least get it right).  I know of several individuals who I had no doubt were guilty as alleged but they walked without even being charged simply because the likelihood of conviction was remote.

Further, in this day and age for anyone to conclude that someone drunk to the point of vomiting is capable of giving full and informed consent is mind boggling in the extreme.

I am very aware of the legal term. The facts of the case do not support a sexual assault charge (as I have seen them reported). As such they were not even charged let alone convicted. And we still believe in innocent until proven guilty in Canada, don't we?

As such, I don't think the person did anything criminal changing the Wikipedia page.

None of us knows the actual the facts of events we only have supposition. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't make it any easier for the father to deal with and I get that. I feel for him but it should be pointed out that legally speaking no rape or sexual assault took place.

 

[Lightguns]

I am very aware of the legal term. The facts of the case do not support a sexual assault charge (as I have seen them reported). As such they were not even charged let alone convicted. And we still believe in innocent until proven guilty in Canada, don't we?

As such, I don't think the person did anything criminal changing the Wikipedia page.

None of us knows the actual the facts of events we only have supposition. As I said in my previous post, it doesn't make it any easier for the father to deal with and I get that. I feel for him but it should be pointed out that legally speaking no rape or sexual assault took place.

While you are correct, it should not even be part of the discussion.  The question I am curious about is if you do personal internet stuff on a DND computer that has nothing to do with DND why should DND be embarassed.  Really, after confirming that act was done during a coffee break of lunch hour, DND should say it was the personal opinion of a employee, does not reflect DND policy and is not a criminal act.  Thank you very much, case closed.  If done during a period of work, then charge the bugger.

 

[OldSolduer]

Question: when they investigate this, do the investigators require a warrant to search that particular IP address?

 

[Tibbson]

It depends what they are searching.  If they are going through corporate server records that DND holds then DND has the right to supply those records and/or grant that access.  If they have tied the IP address to an actual computer they need a warrant to conduct a search of the physical computer.  The MPs, as representatives of DND, can at least seize the computer and hold it pending their getting a warrant to search.  If investigators get to the point where they have identified a specific computer they should have no problem getting a warrant provided they are able to state they have some grounds to believe an offence has been committed....in other words, that they have a charge they can lay.

The warrant is needed (under CC Sec 487.01 vice CC Sec 487) because there is an expectation of privacy with a DND computer.  Now before anyone states that we all sign agreements which acknowledge that the computer is to be used for official purposes only, there is case law that confirms the expectation of privacy for the individual using the corporate computer.

 

[Tibbson]

While you are correct, it should not even be part of the discussion.  The question I am curious about is if you do personal internet stuff on a DND computer that has nothing to do with DND why should DND be embarassed.  Really, after confirming that act was done during a coffee break of lunch hour, DND should say it was the personal opinion of a employee, does not reflect DND policy and is not a criminal act.  Thank you very much, case closed.  If done during a period of work, then charge the bugger.

DND is embarrassed primarily owing to the fact that they are the holders of these computers which are a public asset supplied and paid for by the public who expect that they are being used for duty purposes.  Yes, we are allow a reasonable amount of personal use of the computers but there is an expectation they will be used for the purposes for which they were supplied and not for someone to offend public sensitivities by taking the actions that were alleged to have been taken. 

Whether or not that rises to the level of a charge (NDA or CC) is to be determined but obviously if "Pte Jimmy Bloggins" is caught and identified as having done something like this you can bet the press/public will not care that it was "Jimmy Bloggins" who took the action and will only remember that a service member did it.  We all get tared by the same brush.

 

[Robert0288]

Right after reading this thread this came along on.

Canadian Forces member arrested over edits to Rehtaeh Parsons Wiki page: Report
February 25, 2015 7:36:24 EST PM
http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/2015/02/25/canadian-forces-member-arrested-over-edits-to-rehtaeh-parsons-wiki-page-report

A Canadian Forces member has been arrested in connection with edits made to the Rehtaeh Parsons Wikipedia page from a government computer, according to a report.

Earlier this month officials said they were investigating after a computer with an IP address from National Defence in Ottawa was used to make the changes on the web page, including altering a direct quote from Parsons' father, Glenn Canning.

According to Wikipedia's revision history, on Jan. 29 someone changed a quote from Canning that initially read: "The two boys involved in taking and posing for the photograph stated Rehtaeh was throwing up when they had sex with her. That is not called consensual sex. That is called rape." The revision changed the quote to "That is called consensual sex."

The user with that same IP address commented on the page, "Why not put some facts in your web page? Seems rather one-sided."

Other alterations included saying Parsons' death was to blame on "everyone except her parents."

Parsons, 17, was taken off life support in April 2013 after she hung herself. Her parents allege she was raped by four boys and bullied after a photo of the attack was circulated among her classmates.

The case caused international outcry and sparked the creation of anti-cyberbullying laws in Nova Scotia and prompted police to reopen Parsons' case, resulting in the convictions of two men for child pornography offences.

On Wednesday evening, CTV reported, military police arrested a suspect, who the station said is the father of one of the men involved in the case.

 

[Lightguns]

Moot argument.  I got 5 bucks that says he/she works at CFB Halifax and lives in Eastern Passage and knows the parents of one of the boys.

Called it!

 

[cupper]

Called it!

I'll give you $4. You didn't call that it was a parent. ;D

 

[cupper]

Here is the problem I have with the various comments regarding the decision not to pursue sexual assault charges.

The full investigation behind the handling of the initial investigation has not been completed by the independent investigator appointed by the Justice Department. He intends to have the final report ready by this Fall.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rehtaeh-parsons-case-review-expected-this-fall-1.2973062

However some feel that all of the facts are in and that there was no sexual assault because no charges were laid. Others have pointed out that the Prosecution Service and the RCMP concluded that there was insufficient or contradictory evidence that made proceeding with charges difficult or impossible. It does not warrant any conclusion as to whether a sexual assault took place. It's simply inconclusive.

Consent does enter into the situation, and I believe that one of the conclusions the final report will address whether the conditions for the victim's consent were present at the time of the incident.

Here is what the Federal Dept. of Justice says about consent with respect to sexual activity:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/def.html

For now, I'd suggest we all hold off on drawing conclusions as to whether a sexual assault occurred and wait for the final report on the initial investigation and decision not to proceed is in.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I can understand the parent involved in the Wiki postings being emotional about what happened and the family involvement in the case.  I don't condone what he did, but can understand the temptation to alter Wiki.  What I don't understand is why he or she would be so bloody stupid to do it from work.  That is asking for nothing but trouble.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest ....

Military police are done investigating a Canadian Forces member for online comments made about Rehtaeh Parsons and have sent their findings to his unit.

“The Canadian Forces Military Police have concluded their investigation and a report has been distributed to the member’s unit for possible administrative or disciplinary action,” Capt. Cameron Hillier wrote in an email.

Hillier, a spokesman for the Department of National Defence in Halifax, said specific details of the investigation won’t be released because they are protected by the Privacy Act.

Police closed the investigation and sent the results to the member’s unit on March 31, a departmental spokeswoman in Ottawa said ....