The most scandalous disclosure to emerge on Tuesday involved the manner by which investigators logged on to Lemire's Web site. In what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt to avoid revealing the commission's IP address, they tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter of a 26-year-old Ottawa woman who lived near the commission's 344 Slater St. headquarters. At Tuesday's hearing, a Bell Canada employee read out the woman's name, address and phone number to shocked audience members. A National Post reporter contacted the woman and found that she'd never heard of Lemire, Steacy, or his investigations. Unless she is secretly working undercover for Steacy, it appears that the commission cynically invaded the privacy of an innocent citizen in order to pursue an obscure Web-trawling vendetta; and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as an unwitting conduit to neo-Nazi Web sites. One likes to imagine that the privacy commissioner will be having a chat with Dean et al. in coming days.
This claim has come up in two versions. One, which I wrote about yesterday, has CHRC employees accomplishing the impossible task of tapping into the wifi network at 750 Laurier Ave. from about 1,200 feet away, through several concrete office towers. The other has a legally blind CHRC investigator doing a little wardriving, and camping out in the lobby of the condo building in question in order to access the said network.
Crazy ideas, but the most important point is that both theories are the brainchild of Canadian Nazi Mark Lemire, whose previous display of technical sleuthing ability got Kay and the National Post into so much legal trouble just one month ago.
But still, Kay and co. are back to sip from the trough of Nazi wisdom. I guess any fool can write for the Post.
25 comments:
I'm waiting for the day when Jonathan Kay is a guest moderator at Small Dead Animals. He's earned it.
I've lost the train of this again. What pseudonym or commentary was associated with the IP address that Bell provided a record for?
In the previous discussion it was 90sareover (or whatever) that was associated with an IP that I thought Rogers had assigned?
Are we still talking about the same thing, or something else?
In any case, it's just another example of Jonathan Kay's journalistic malpractice. This assertion "they [the Commission] tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter" has not been proved.
In fact, I think it borders on criminal libel (different from civil libel) and I think Kay should arrested and charged.
...and caned. Apparently, the GG can still order that punishment at her discretion. Have his bilious harridan of a mother caned, for good measure, as well.
Ti-guy,
This was a different IP, from Bell. Lemire's gang thought it linked up to some kind of CHRC operative, probably this Steacy fellow. Turned out it linked up with a woman living about a quarter of a mile away, who had nothing to do with the case. At this point, Lemire et al might have said. Whoops! That didn't work out! We fucked up. Instead, they have concocted a paranoid tale of CHRC operatives hacking the wifi of private citizens in order to carry out their nefarious schemes.
This was a different IP, from Bell. Lemire's gang thought it linked up to some kind of CHRC operative,
An IP that Lemire associates with what? Just a random IP "documented" (when it comes to Lemire, I use that term loosely) somewhere within the systems on his side or tied to a user and/or commentary?
Maybe Kay just got really confused and thinks it's associated with commentary that is alleged to be baiting/entrapping?
Fuck...why am I even asking? Isn't this supposed to be the work "journalists" like Kay are paid (by me, since I buy the crap that pays for the advertising that pays Kay's salary) to do?
Oh, well too late. Cane him!
This is all based on a visit agent code-name "Jadewarr" (a name usually associatd with Steacy) apparently made to, I think, Freedomsite in December. The user name on that occasion was associated with that IP. Apparently, Bell also assigns IPs dynamically, so who knows what might really have happened? ANyway, Lemire's gang pulled the number out of their ass on Tuesday
hoping to cause a controversy...and nothing happened. ANd so here we are.
All quite confusing, but I guess easier for a journalist like Kay who doesn't have to do research.
You're quite a 'progressive', aren't you, using kangaroo courts to selectively kill free speech of those you don't agree with. Who's next on your list? Christians? "Deniers"? Your hypocrisy and fascim seem to be unbounded.
And you pale in comparison to tard-guy.
BCL: I agree with you that there are problems with Lemire's version of events. However, the hearing established that someone posted under the name Jadewarr at Freedomsite using the IP of that Ottawa women, who is apparently lebanese - this is coming from evidence giving by a Bell employee and I have not heard of any reasons to doubt it.
I think we can all agree that it is highly unlikely that this women posted on a white supremacist site using a pseudonym created by Stacey.
In fact, it is much more likely that someone hacked in to this women's wireless connection, someone who, obviously had knowledge of the jadewarr username and password. According to Steacy's testimony this tuesday, there were a couple of people at the commission who did know the jadewarr password.
Im just wondering if you have a competing theory to Lemire's version of events? I mean ti-guy would have Kay receive medieval punishments for putting 2 and 2 together, but although there are some issues with this theory which you have rightly pointed out, what else could it be, in your opinion?
Maybe its got something to do with the fact Bell uses a dynamic IP assignment, and this has changed since December.
Or Lemire and co. read their logs wrong or misunderstood the significance of them. Not really worth my while to do the same song and dance as with the alleged Warman IP. But that case certainly shows that Nazi techies have a very limited understanding of what they're doing.
Remember, these guys are clowns with shit for brains.
And either of these explanations are more likely than a CHRC employee hacked their system.
The whole process of using IP's to track and hold people responsible for their actions will not work if you agree to invite anonymous/pseudonymous interaction in the first place. This is the problem Lemire is faced with now, and if he doesn't like that, well too fucking bad.
It's going to be almost impossible to prove on a balance of probabilities, what he's claiming; there are just too many other more reasonable, plausible and unfortunately undocumented explanations that can be advanced to suggest something else.
Maybe these nazis and other haters and fascists should think about that before they develop their business models for online hate.
I mean ti-guy would have Kay receive medieval punishments for putting 2 and 2 together,
Putting 2 and 2 together is appropriate for online crap-fests, but not appropriate for "journalists" working for large media corporations with lots of money and influence.
I would think Kay would be thankful to receive only a caning (I don't think that would be as bad as Conrad Black suggesting Linda McQuaig be horse-whipped). Personally, I believe his career should be over and that he should be reduced to standing on the street, selling pencils from a cup.
there are just too many other more reasonable, plausible and unfortunately undocumented explanations that can be advanced to suggest something else.
im trying to find out what those are.
BCL's suggestion that Lemire got his logs wrong doesnt fit because its the Bell guy which identified that women.
I wholeheartedly agree that nazis are the scum of the earth and should not be taken seriously - its the Bell guy's evidence though that has some weight.
The Bell guy was acting on information supplied by Lemire. What the Bell guy said revealed is not in question; what Lemire gave him may be. Garbage in, garbage out.
im trying to find out what those are.
If you really are that interested, then you should pay more attention to the evidence at a hand, as the basic fact of who supplied the IP in the first place seems to have been unknown to you.
I still haven't seen any convincing evidence the eliminates the possibility that Lemire fabricated the information in the first place.
One thing these psychopaths do is lie...all the time.
BCL: I totally understand your apprehension of taking anything Lemire says seriously. But, correct me if Im wrong but Lemire would have supplied the Bell guy with an IP address and a time period, both of which are associated with a post by Jadewarr.
Are you suggesting Lemire made up the IP out of thin air? If so, he got incredibly lucky that it just happened to be the IP of a woman living blocks away from the CHRC building.
Furthermore, in order to even get the Bell guy to testify, Lemire would have had to establish that the IP in question was the one used to post under Jadewarr, something which would certainly have been contested by HRC lawyers. That he succeeded shows that he probably got the IP right.
Besides, we know Steacy and co. post on Freedomsite and Stromfront - they have admitted as much. It's not a huge moral leap to go from there to hiding your IP by piggybacking your connection from some poor sap who doesnt know how to secure its wireless network.
Fool Me Once, Shame On You; Fool Me Twice . . . call me ti-guy.
I still haven't seen any convincing evidence the eliminates the possibility that Lemire fabricated the information in the first place.
as per my post above, there is no way the tribunal member would have allowed the Bell guy to even testify, let alone reveal the identify of the IP's owner, had Freedomsite's logs not been made of record and verified by the HRC's lawyers.
This is not about Lemire being a stupid racist creep. That is well established and beyond discussion.
Furthermore, the tactics used by HRC investigators are just tactics. They are not relevant to the wider issue of freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, yours and BCL's insistence that there is no way that Steacy had piggybacked his connection to this woman's implies that you strongly disapprove of such tactics - on that we agree.
Whitey:
"Are you suggesting Lemire made up the IP out of thin air? If so, he got incredibly lucky that it just happened to be the IP of a woman living blocks away from the CHRC building."
Dunno what happened. Not going to bother looking either. The fact is, in the earlier case re the Lucy posts, Clatt (Lemire's computer expert) didn't even consider the difference between a static and dynamic IP, and couldn't even explain why the IP he attributed to Warman kept changing during the course of a single online session. Clutch at straws if you like, but the most logical explanation is that Lemire and his Nazis bunged up SOMEHOW.
Whitey continued:
"Besides, we know Steacy and co. post on Freedomsite and Stromfront - they have admitted as much. It's not a huge moral leap to go from there to hiding your IP by piggybacking your connection from some poor sap who doesnt know how to secure its wireless network."
Look at the map of the area around the CHRC building. If I wanted to try something like what they are alleged to have done, I could take my laptop and I could probably find a dozen places where I could get free wifi within walking distance. Starbucks, bars, restaurants, etc. Much better than, presumably, hanging out in the lobby of an apartment building and hoping nobody notices you. Or setting up some military style point to point antenna and trying to hook up to a system a quarter mile away through a bunch of buildings.
Remember that none of Steacey et al's techniques were REVEALED in Tuesday's questioning. I had certainly heard about them before. The idea that they felt the need to "cover their tracks" is in itself ridiculous.
I am pretty sure that if stormfront's logs and Ip addresses had been verified by HRC lawyers, there wouldn't be need for the hearings.
Look at the map of the area around the CHRC building. If I wanted to try something like what they are alleged to have done, I could take my laptop and I could probably find a dozen places where I could get free wifi within walking distance. Starbucks, bars, restaurants, etc. Much better than, presumably, hanging out in the lobby of an apartment building and hoping nobody notices you. Or setting up some military style point to point antenna and trying to hook up to a system a quarter mile away through a bunch of buildings.
agreed - i live and work in that area and know it quite well. it is full of tall buildings and there is no way the connection was piggybacked from the HRC building to that address.
Remember that none of Steacey et al's techniques were REVEALED in Tuesday's questioning.
well the techniques were certainly discussed - they were not revealed in that they were known before. I also agree with you they shouldnt feel the need to cover their tracks, but then again the HRC felt the "need" to invoke s. 37 of the Evidence Act, basically invoking national security to prevent disclosure of the evidence that was presented on tuesday, and then tried to have the hearing behind closed doors. So, while you and I agree that they dont need to cover their tracks, the HRC definitely does believe they do.
In any event, while I dont believe that Steacy or some other HRC investigator piggybacked that woman's connection from the HRC building, I find it even more unlikely that Lemire fudged the IP numbers, fooled the Tribunal member and HRC lawyers in having a Bell guy testify to the identity of that IP's owner at the relevant time, and that by chance the IP's owner lives blocks away from the HRC building.
This is not about Lemire being a stupid racist creep.
Could it be about Lemire being a liar and a psychopath? Could it be about that for a while, rather than it be an endless, fact-less, evidence-less speculation-fest?
I find it even more unlikely that Lemire fudged the IP numbers, fooled the Tribunal member and HRC lawyers in having a Bell guy testify to the identity of that IP's owner at the relevant time, and that by chance the IP's owner lives blocks away from the HRC building.
Round and round. Read up neo-nazis, why don't you? There's very little they won't do.
Round and round. Read up neo-nazis, why don't you? There's very little they won't do.
My point was not at all based on what neo-nazis are willing to do or not, or whether they lie or what. I hate these guys as much as you do and I wouldnt put anything past them either.
But let's assume Lemire was dumb enough to pull an IP out of his arse and say that this IP was used to post on freedomsite under jadewarr, and wants to subpeona a Bell guy to come to testify to the identity of the IP's owner, which, correct me if Im wrong, is yours and BCL's working hypothesis - well if the HRC lawyers are worth anything, they will want to make sure that the IP in question was in fact used to post on freedomsite before allowing the testimony of the Bell guy - otherwise the IP's owner's identity is completely irrelevant and should not be admissible evidence. To that end, Lemire would have to provide the relevant logs for freedomsite, as well as evidence that these logs are reliable sources of information.
So to rephrase my previous post, its not that I find it unlikely that Lemire would fudge the IP, but that he would fudge the IP AND fool the tribunal into revealing some random IP owner's identity.
But let's assume...
Let's not. That's why these discussions are endless. Everyone thinks they can divine the truth by speculating. I think that's the most troubling aspect of this issue...that so many people believe that simply imagining something makes it real, somehow.
Reality (and most definitely the legal system) just doesn't work that way. You can assert things based on the evidence at hand.
I know a lot of the speechies want everyone to agree that the HRC's are fascist star chambers made up of state-sponsored character assassins, but frankly, all that tells me is that some people just don't have enough real drama in their lives.
http://jenab6.livejournal.com/
Why Liberals Fear To Debate Racists
Debate Restrictions.
For as long as there have been public debates about race, liberals have tried to restrict the spectrum of allowed speech by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. They corrupt the governing rules of forums with administrative policies that establish their own views on the subject of race as the only permissible views and define dissent as "hate speech." Then if anyone disagrees with the liberal thinking, he will be found guilty of "violating the rules" and banned.
In other words, the liberals gain the power to write the rules, and then they cheat while writing them. Their justification is preventing offense to racial minorities. Although there's nothing wrong with choosing to remain silent in order to avoid giving offense, the freedom of speech has a higher value than politeness does. When one value must be sacrificed to preserve another, then the lesser should be let go and the greater kept.
What the liberals are doing, of course, is leveling heresy charges against racism, and then acting as both prosecutor and judge of the matter. Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals, who don't consider truth to be a defense. The better a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the errors of liberalism, and therefore liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than for the censorship of poor ones.
These are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies, such as Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," and in art, such as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" crucifix in a jar of urine, ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to many Christians. What blasphemous themes are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. Liberals always seek censorship of racist arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of presenting.
It isn't necessarily wrong to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a forum is to glorify a particular god, race, political philosophy, or brand of consumer goods, then it's perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent with the forum's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.
But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, or at a better understanding of the reasons for disagreement, then a priori restrictions on unpopular views are hypocritical attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win. The advocates of the unpopular viewpoint (racists in this case) will be allowed only to score small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will be censored.
To give the liberals ground for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate are written to exclude racist opinions and, even more especially, the reasoning behind those opinions. "Racist remarks" and "hate speech" are ruled illegal, and then the rule is used not only to prevent racial insults, but also to censor arguments that the liberals find to threatening too their belief system to deal with forthrightly.
That's how things are in most race-related debates. They are not so much "debates" as controlled pretenses thereof. It's surprising to find a media venue that will host ideas that fall outside the spectrum of opinion that liberals are comfortable with, e.g., by letting racists present the case for racism, in their own write, unedited and without preconditions.
Post a Comment