Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Last Piece To The CHRC Puzzle

...can be found at the website of the Office of the Privacy Commisioner of Canada:

In this case, personal information was introduced, as a result of a subpoena issued to an Internet Service Provider, during the course of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal public hearing. The subject of the subpoena was an IP address allegedly accessed by the CHRC during the course of its investigations. In response to the subpoena, the Internet Service Provider disclosed the name, address and telephone number of the Internet subscriber it associated with that IP address, namely the complainant. It is the view of this Office that the IP address, in this instance, does constitute personal information as defined in section 3 of the Act.

The second issue to consider is whether the CHRC collected the complainant’s personal information and then subsequently used it during the course of its investigations.

The investigation found no evidence that the CHRC ever collected any personal information about the complainant or in fact that the CHRC had any knowledge about the complainant prior to the allegations made in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal public hearing.

There is no evidence that the CHRC ever collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained the complainant’s personal information.

Technological experts have indicated that, most likely, but without certainty, the association of the complainant’s IP address to the CHRC was simply a mismatch on the part of a third party, which could have occurred in a variety of ways not involving the CHRC.

What is certain is that there is no evidence of the CHRC having ever collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained any personal information about the complainant.

Now, what does this bit mean?

Technological experts have indicated that, most likely, but without certainty, the association of the complainant’s IP address to the CHRC was simply a mismatch on the part of a third party, which could have occurred in a variety of ways not involving the CHRC.

It means that, as per usual, Buckets was right. The For Dummies version of his research is here.

It also means that you can't trust them Nazi Computer Experts.

PS. As Dawg helpfully points out, Mark Steyn of MaCleans basically accused CHRC investigator Dean Steacy of committing a criminal act, and his charge has now been shown to be baseless before the whole world. Mark seems big on apologies when others make mistakes in regards to his work. I have emailed him and suggested that he apologize to Mr. Steacy. Lets see what he does when the shoe is on the other foot. Lets see how much class our boy has.

4 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

If I remember correctly, Lemire supplied an IP and a date and Bell disclosed an identity.

Do you know who violated the privacy laws? Bell.

Anne Hecht, or whatever her name was, should sue them. And they've got deeeeeep pockets.

Reality Bites said...

What's this world coming to, I ask you, when you can't trust Nazis, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn to tell the truth?

Oh yeah. Normal. That's what it's coming to. Only difference between the Lemires and the Levants and the Steyns is that Steyn's figured out a way to make a living out of being no better than Lemire.

Paul S said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ti-Guy said...

Gee, I wonder what Paulie wrote? I'm sure it was brilliant.