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



## cupper (9 Feb 2015)

*Father of Rehtaeh Parsons says he knows who is behind changes to his late daughter's Wikipedia page*

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2015/02/09/father-of-rehteah-parsons-thinks-he-knows-who-used-a-dnd-computer-to-change-his-daughters-wikipedia/



> Rehtaeh Parsons' father, Glen Canning, says he has a pretty good idea who has been using computers at the Department of National Defence to make changes to his late daughter's Wikipedia entry, altering references that indicate she was allegedly sexually assaulted and that she committed suicide.
> 
> "I believe it's a relative of one of the boys charged in her case," Canning tells As it Happens host Carol Off in an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2015)

Oh.  Interesting.


----------



## DAA (9 Feb 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Oh.  Interesting.



Come on now!  I am sick of reading this statement every morning when I log-on!


----------



## cupper (9 Feb 2015)

Glen Canning seems to have an axe to grind from what I've read following this case. Not that I would blame him considering what happened to his daughter.

But some of his more recent actions have a taint of hypocrisy about them.

But reviewing what EITS's link to DND Internet use policies, you would be hard pressed to find an applicable violation. The only one that comes close falls under prohibited use



> Prohibited Use
> 4.8 Prohibited use is any use of a DND and CAF information system that:
> 
> is contrary to the Criminal Code, any other federal statute or regulation, or a provincial statute or regulation, including any non-criminal statute or regulation;
> ...



or possibly



> 4.9 An unlawful activity includes any use of a DND and CAF information system that could result in court proceedings or expose an authorized user or the federal Crown to civil liability.



But one would be hard pressed to prove harm. A case could be made, but …. :dunno:


----------



## Tibbson (9 Feb 2015)

Criminal Code of Canada Sec 430 1.1 perhaps?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Criminal Code of Canada Sec 430 1.1 perhaps?



The nature of Wikipedia likely would defeat a charge under 430 (1.1), as the data continues to exist and continues to be accessible.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-430.html


----------



## Tibbson (9 Feb 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The nature of Wikipedia likely would defeat a charge under 430 (1.1), as the data continues to exist and continues to be accessible.
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-430.html



I'm not convinced it would.  Not that I have to be convinced, it's up to a court.  I'd point towards words in the charge such as "altered", "obstructs" and/or "interferes".  Just my  :2c:


----------



## Occam (9 Feb 2015)

I think you'd have far better success under the Unauthorized Use section of the DAOD, which includes "any use that would reflect discredit upon the DND and the CAF".


----------



## Tibbson (10 Feb 2015)

Perhaps but I'd venture that the civilian nexus would indicate the charge would be better served downtown.  A charge under DAODs would be minor enough that it may not satisfy the interests of justice.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Feb 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Perhaps but I'd venture that the civilian nexus would indicate the charge would be better served downtown.  A charge under DAODs would be minor enough that it may not satisfy the interests of justice.



Not only that, but as the old saying goes "justice does not only need to be done, it needs to appear to be done".  If it was handled outside you would also have the impression that the military is not trying to sweep things under a mat.  That would also have the benefit of closing down any objections from the usual sources that love raise them at the drop of a hat.


----------



## my72jeep (10 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not only that, but as the old saying goes "justice does not only need to be done, it needs to appear to be done".  If it was handled outside you would also have the impression that the military is not trying to sweep things under a mat.  *That would also have the benefit of closing down any objections from the usual sources that love raise them at the drop of a hat.
> *


Do you meen the NDP,Liberals,or the CBC?


----------



## captloadie (10 Feb 2015)

Regardless of whether the member breached the DOAD, would you want to have an individual in our organization that has the mindset required to _continually_ make adjustments to this Wikipedia entry in the manner he/she has? This is about a teenage girl who took her own life due to being bullied. Bullied due to naked pictures of her that were taken of her and then passed around. The individual has been attempting to lay the blame on this poor girl for what happened to her.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Feb 2015)

We're presuming a uniform member is the culprit?


----------



## TCM621 (10 Feb 2015)

Also editing the entry to say "consensual sex" rather than rape is backed up by the trial. Note none of the boy's were charged or convicted of rape. As a father, I get it. He is angry and wants vengeance but based on that article a crime has not been committed.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We're presuming a uniform member is the culprit?



I wouldn't....  

Googling the IP address in question brings up locations in Ottawa (guess it depends on how accurate their geolocation is) and one site says it's in Victoria, BC.   :dunno:


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Feb 2015)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I wouldn't....
> 
> Googling the IP address in question brings up locations in Ottawa (guess it depends on how accurate their geolocation is) and one site says it's in Victoria, BC.   :dunno:



Yeap really all we know is a DND network, maybe the location of the server, we don't know if it was a uniformed member, or a civilian member of DND. Either way if said person was found im sure they have a few power points on proper use of work computers coming their way.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yeap really all we know is a DND network, maybe the location of the server, we don't know if it was a uniformed member, or a civilian member of DND. Either way if said person was found im sure they have a few power points on proper use of work computers coming their way.



Don't worry.  There are ways to track the person(s) down.  It has been done in the past.  It is likely even easier today.


----------



## Occam (10 Feb 2015)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I wouldn't....
> 
> Googling the IP address in question brings up locations in Ottawa (guess it depends on how accurate their geolocation is) and one site says it's in Victoria, BC.   :dunno:



The two IP addresses in question (on 26 and 29 January) are among the addresses of the DND proxy servers in Ottawa.  Internet traffic for most (all?) of the DWAN goes through these proxy servers.  Media sites are assuming that every DWAN computer gets its own external IP address, which is false - they go through a proxy server.  Finding out which internal IP address accessed the external site via the proxy servers is very easy, as those requests would be logged (or at least they should be...).


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2015)

Question: If the computer is tracked down, can the user be indentified?


I would assume the answer is yes....


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Question: If the computer is tracked down, can the user be indentified?
> 
> 
> I would assume the answer is yes....



Yes.  Indeedie.  Everyone has to logon using their name and Password, etc. for a reason.

The DWAN administrators are fairly good at what they do.  I had a colleague mistakenly put a memory stick, not authorized on the network, into her computer and there was an Administrator in the office within five minutes.  I am sure that there will be a forensic investigation and the culprit(s) will be found.  It may take some time, but I am confident that it will happen.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2015)

My first thought was why post something like that on such an easily manipulated website?  Why not a blog or FB page?


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't worry.  There are ways to track the person(s) down.  It has been done in the past.  It is likely even easier today.



Except they never caught the infamous Cpl Bloggins.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Except they never caught the infamous Cpl Bloggins.



Was he posting from work??


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Feb 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Except they never caught the infamous Cpl Bloggins.



They'd need warrants to get private internet communications, unless he was stupid enough to get on Facebook through DWAN/GPNET at work. Far easier to pull server logs for DWAN and track down who it was.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2015)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Was he posting from work??



How would *I* know?  


But no, he or she was apparently spoofing his or her IP.


----------



## Tibbson (10 Feb 2015)

A warrant is still required for server logs if it's going to be used in a criminal prosecution.  An argument could be made for a production order at least but if the investigator is going to take the time they may as well go for the warrant.


----------



## garb811 (10 Feb 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Also editing the entry to say "consensual sex" rather than rape is backed up by the trial. Note none of the boy's were charged or convicted of rape. As a father, I get it. He is angry and wants vengeance but based on that article a crime has not been committed.


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.


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

> _ Regardless of whether the member breached the DOAD, would you want to have an individual in our organization that has the mindset required to continually make adjustments to this Wikipedia entry in the manner he/she has? This is about a teenage girl who took her own life due to being bullied. Bullied due to naked pictures of her that were taken of her and then passed around. The individual has been attempting to lay the blame on this poor girl for what happened to her.
> _
> 
> _
> ...



This is not fact but speculation based on popular opinion. Aren't you an MPO? The initial RCMP investigation concluded that no sexual assaults or rape occurred and was only changed when the prime minister stepped in due to pressure from certain political groups. From the articles I read, we don't know what happened, Rateh did not kill herself until a year later over an un-related issue in an entirely different city. Most of the bullying that occurred was not from young men but teenage girls who were classmates of hers. Those are facts stated in various articles in newspapers and on yahoo. In the end she may have killed herself over a completely unrelated issue. We will never know the exact cause because nothing was left behind. You should not suggest that others are bad people or don't love their country simply for stating facts against popular opinion.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader said:
			
		

> This is not fact but speculation based on popular opinion. Aren't you an MPO? The initial RCMP investigation concluded that no sexual assaults or rape occurred and was only changed when the prime minister stepped in due to pressure from certain political groups. From the articles I read  We don't know what happened, Rateh did not kill herself until a year later over an un-related issue in an entirely different city. Most of the bullying that occurred was not from young men but teenage girls who were classmates of hers. Those are facts stated in various articles in newspapers and on yahoo. In the end she may have killed herself over a completely unrelated issue. We will never know the exact cause because nothing was left behind. You can't suggest that other posters on this forum are bad people or don't love their country simply for stating facts against popular opinion.



Not sure where your facts came from, but they don't square with what was published in various news sources.

The RCMP in consultation with the Crown initially concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on a sexual assault charge. After her suicide they reopened the case based on new evidence which lead to the charges of making and distribution of child pornography.

Oh, and if you consider Eastern Passage, NS to be an entirely different city than Halifax, NS, get a map and explain to me how they are entirely different cities?


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

> Rehtaeh killed herself earlier this month, two years after she was allegedly gang raped and then harassed by classmates when a photo of the attack was shared on social media.
> 
> RCMP investigated the case and did not lay charges, but have said they’ll re-open the investigation, based on new information.
> 
> ...



http://www.cumberlandnewsnow.com/News/Local/2013-04-15/article-3219935/Halifax-protest-for-Rehtaeh-Parsons-demands-justice%2C-change/1

So in fact I'm wrong, she did not kill herself until 2 YEARS later. 




> The RCMP in consultation with the Crown initially concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on a sexual assault charge. After her suicide they reopened the case based on new evidence which lead to the charges of making and distribution of child pornography.



Well I stand corrected then. They did get them for something quite deserving there is no excuse for child pornography.  I wonder though why they waited until after a suicide, to reopen a case?  By then the case was already 2 years old.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2015)

:facepalm:

Got something that is a little more first hand reporting of the case, rather than interviews of people who attended a protest rally?

Do a search on the Chronicle Herald Website perhaps. Hell, go look at the Wikipedia entry it has all of the salient points.

And no need to respond further to my post. Don't need to derail this any further.


----------



## garb811 (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader said:
			
		

> This is not fact but speculation based on popular opinion. Aren't you an MPO? The initial RCMP investigation concluded that no sexual assaults or rape occurred and was only changed when the prime minister stepped in due to pressure from certain political groups. From the articles I read, we don't know what happened, Rateh did not kill herself until a year later over an un-related issue in an entirely different city. Most of the bullying that occurred was not from young men but teenage girls who were classmates of hers. Those are facts stated in various articles in newspapers and on yahoo. In the end she may have killed herself over a completely unrelated issue. We will never know the exact cause because nothing was left behind. You should not suggest that others are bad people or don't love their country simply for stating facts against popular opinion.


 :facepalm:


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

I can see social justice warriors clearly run this forum.


----------



## garb811 (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader said:
			
		

> I can see social justice warriors clearly run this forum.


Nope, just people who appreciate that when people post something saying it is factual, that it actually is.  Since you couldn't even get my trade right, even though it is right in my profile for the world to see, that pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

http://www.canada.com/Blatchford+Rehtaeh+Parsons+casual+teenage+cruelty+tragic+consequences/10733112/story.html




> On April 4, 2013, after a quarrel with her boyfriend, an upset Rehtaeh returned home and attempted to hang herself in the bathroom. She suffered brain damage and was removed from life support three days later.
> 
> Her mother took to Facebook, telling the world, “Rehtaeh is gone today because of the four boys that thought raping a 15-year-old girl was OK and to distribute a photo to ruin her spirit and reputation would be fun.”
> 
> There were never four boys involved, and as a friend of Rehtaeh’s who was at the house that night told police and as Rehtaeh’s own messages suggested, there may never have been a sexual assault. There certainly wasn’t a reasonable prospect of conviction.





> Nope, just people who appreciate that when people post something saying it is factual, that it actually is.  Since you couldn't even get my trade right, even though it is right in my profile for the world to see, that pretty much sums it up for me.



Well no doubt you'll appreciate this then. You are correct, we should always get our facts straight and post our sources. 

http://o.canada.com/news/national/blatchford-even-the-rehtaeh-parsons-case-has-more-than-one-side





> It was a dog’s breakfast of a file — with the singular feature, almost unheard of in a sexual assault complaint, of an independent witness — that led police and prosecutors to conclude they couldn’t charge anyone in the Rehtaeh Parsons case.
> 
> With information from sources close to the investigation, Postmedia has learned that much of the accepted gospel about the case — teenager is gang-raped, humiliated by the circulation of a cruel picture of the assault, then abandoned by the justice system and driven to suicide — is incomplete.
> 
> ...





> The girlfriend of Rehtaeh’s who was at the party told police Rehtaeh was being flirtatious, even egging the boys on.
> 
> The friend said she was in and out of the bedroom where Rehtaeh had disappeared, and that at one point saw Rehtaeh on the bed with the two boys, naked and laughing.
> 
> ...





> JOINT POLICE TEAM
> 
> The case was handled by a joint Halifax Regional Police/RCMP sex assault team, the lead investigator a woman.
> 
> ...



http://www.theprovince.com/technology/There+sides+Rehtaeh+Parsons+case/8296726/story.html


 garb811
MP/MPO question answerer
Sr. Member
*****

Is MP not your trade? I guess I'm confused since I'm not, nor have I ever been military but I guess that also makes me stupid? I wrongly assumed that an MP question answerer would probably be a Military Police NCM or Military Police Officer. I apologize if this insulted you or caused confusion. I respect the RCMP's judgment as they are, in my opinion, competent and skilled police officers, in the end, they followed the law. That being said, I think the story should be posted so most people are aware of what exactly transpired and to form their own opinions independent of the mob mentality.. I'm certain the intelligence branch would agree that it is always best to take all evidence and resources into account before making a final judgment.


----------



## Lightguns (11 Feb 2015)

Moot argument.  There is over 200 minutes of video from before during and after at that house that night.  I am reasonably assured the police did a good job, both times.  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.


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

This is the portion of the story I'm not familiar with. The person who posted is from the DND, now thats fine, using company property to edit wikipedia is improper use of time and not professional but I don't see how its illegal to do so. Wikipedia is not completely factual and it can be edited by virtually anyone. If someone posts something on it, contradictory to what you believe or wrong information, is that now a crime? Why not just change and lock the entry. Seems like a waste of tax payer money to pursue political pandering unless there is something going on behind the scenes.  I was only aware of communist countries having \thought police\ units, I hope Canada hasn't started down that slippery slope.   


> 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.



This happens here all the time, but the locals have a more fitting term:  'The Human flesh search'. Next you can expect them to block out the half of the net they disagree with and any websites containing contradictory information.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Feb 2015)

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.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader said:
			
		

> I can see social justice warriors clearly run this forum.



It sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Now Canada is on the slippery slope to communism with thought police units?  You're putting that police foundations diploma to good use I see.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader

You are wandering into areas that you obviously have no knowledge of.  Perhaps it is time to step back.

I find it interesting that you tell others not to speculate; and then you, yourself, begin to speculate on the case.  I also get the impression that you have a vested interest in this case.  As for your conspiracy comments about "only communist countries having \thought police\ units"; you leave me questioning your real motives in continuing in this dialogue.


----------



## SpaceInvader (11 Feb 2015)

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 (11 Feb 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Feb 2015)

SpaceInvader said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Feb 2015)

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 (11 Feb 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Feb 2015)

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 (25 Feb 2015)

garb811 said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Feb 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Feb 2015)

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


----------



## Tibbson (25 Feb 2015)

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 (25 Feb 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Feb 2015)

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
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (26 Feb 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 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 (26 Feb 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Called it!



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


----------



## cupper (26 Feb 2015)

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 (26 Feb 2015)

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 (23 Apr 2015)

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.
> 
> ...


----------

