Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page

[OldSolduer]

I just can't see this guy being in the actual military, especially not the combat arms.  The type of guy that hides behind an anonymous FB page just wouldn't have the cojones to make it in the CF.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Lightguns]

I know personally of a case of an Infantry Corporal who was harassing the wives of officers on base using facebook, stolen cell phones and DWAN Gag list access.  Some of of it was pretty gross.  Yup, he can definitely be military

 

[MAJONES]

Are you sure about that?

Nope, sadly, not sure at all.  I made my comment mostly in the hopes that the Cpl in question would see them and come to realize just how little the rest of us think of him 

 

[Loachman]

It's more likely that he'd just mock you on his site.

You'de better delete all of the compromising photos that you have on your Facebook site before it's too late. You know which ones I mean.

 

[Good2Golf]

These types of people are (hopefully) in the minority in the CAF; believing that such behaviour is consistent with their ability to practice their profession and that it is also consistent with the military's ethos.  They are wrong on both counts.  True marks of professionalism start with one's character and conduct within one's own society, which has a direct bearing on how one will conduct themselves around the world while deployed.  If one can't behave professionally at home, why would people be surprised if such an individual faile to conduct themselves professionally, upholding international rule of law.  That some believe such behaviour is acceptable and condone it, is just as disappointing.  Whether other service personnel like it or not, in the public's eyes, due to association, it reflects poorly on all members of the CAF.  Not warranted, but such as to give cause to the public's concern for the overall basis of conduct of its military forces.  Sad indeed.

 

[MAJONES]

It's more likely that he'd just mock you on his site.

You'de better delete all of the compromising photos that you have on your Facebook site before it's too late. You know which ones I mean.

  ...but those photos are some of my best work!  ;D

 

[Bzzliteyr]

In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.

It's fine everyone.....clearly you all have watched more law and order than I...I'll bow out of this one as we are going in circles.

What they have to prove depends on how they word the charge.

Example: I was charged for a 129 for "In that, in front of the troops, stated Capt X was an idiot , against section blah blah blah"

This caused quite the headache when it came to my summary trial and subsequent conviction.  I asked for a review and with the help of a lawyer, showed that in order to find me guilty of the charge, they had to prove that I knew what section blah blah was. The review found in my favour and the charge was dropped.

Had they simply charged me with "...stated that Capt X was an idiot" then it would have been simple. In trying to make the charges against me look sexier, they farked up and lost.

Oh, also pertinent to what we were discussing: I was also given a C&P for EXACTLY the same reasons as the charges I had received.  No need to prove ANYTHING!

 

[Journeyman]

Had they simply charged me with "...stated that Capt X was an idiot" then it would have been simple.

I would have insisted they prove that Capt X wasn't an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.  ;D

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I would have insisted they prove that Capt X wasn't an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.  ;D

Funny thing, when I had originally opted a court martial, I discussed that route with my lawyer, even going so far as to pull up the Oxford definition of "incompetent" (the term I had actually used) and showed him that in teh case I was being charged for, it was the truth.  He didn't think it would be the best defence.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I would have insisted they prove that Capt X wasn't an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.  ;D

I'd want you as an AO anytime!

 

[Shamrock]

Oh, also pertinent to what we were discussing: I was also given a C&P for EXACTLY the same reasons as the charges I had received.  No need to prove ANYTHING!

Both disciplinary actions under the Code of Service Discipline and administrative actions are meant to address a CF member’s conduct or performance deficiency. They may operate independently or one may complement the other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

All useful soldiers are warriors.  Not all warriors are useful soldiers.

 

[upandatom]

I'm assuming this but to get away from the argument of proving he was at his computer I would also assume he has accessed FB from his phone as most people do these days. Would it then be easier to prove providing the authority's had access or a warrant to his phone?

Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search.

So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case.

Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in shit for what other people post?

Yes it became worse and worse with what was being posted.

Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.

 

[MedCorps]

Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search.

So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case.

Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important. 

Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.  No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation. 

MC

 

[VIChris]

Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in crap for what other people post?

The option to delete either just the comments, or the complete content is entirely under the control of the person who started the page. Doing nothing about it is a willful act.

 

[Transporter]

Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.

I don't think you necessarily need to hang the guy to achieve what ought to be the main aim at this point, which is dissuading others from doing the same or similar. Making his life hell for awhile and a good public shaming would go a long way to achieving that. And demonstrating, as the NIS has, that this kind of stuff will be follow-up on and charges laid if appropriate also helps. The guy may indeed walk away from this with little, or perhaps nothing, on his charge sheet but the whole process should (emphasis on should) be a big enough wake-up call to reform his, and others', online habits. 

Of course there will still always be the idiots out there who just don't get it...

 

[upandatom]

I don't think you necessarily need to hang the guy to achieve what ought to be the main aim at this point, which is dissuading others from doing the same or similar. Making his life hell for awhile and a good public shaming would go a long way to achieving that. And demonstrating, as the NIS has, that this kind of stuff will be follow-up on and charges laid if appropriate also helps. The guy may indeed walk away from this with little, or perhaps nothing, on his charge sheet but the whole process should (emphasis on should) be a big enough wake-up call to reform his, and others', online habits. 

Of course there will still always be the idiots out there who just don't get it...

As bad as it sounds, When the names are made public. I can see a lot more public shaming for this person, and even some vigilante justice.

Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important. 

Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.  No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation. 

MC

Several pictures that were on it were actually from an O group, on base, at the unit, About the Cpl Bloggins page and the orders to disassociate themselves from it, or administrative repercussions would occur. Kinda funny how that happened. That could be justification right there.

I have had some experience with personal comp/laptops/phones being searched and or seized wrt to NDA contradictions, and there has to be a very strong reasoning for it, and permission from the JAG. If not, if say a CO or an MP orders handing over of said item for search, it can throw off the whole case and just have it disappear(almost happened in this case).

If the cell phone does not appear on base, or in a PMQ, can't be touched unless it violates ITAR (and that has to have very strong proof that it does or has) It was just passed not too long in Supreme Court that if a cellphone has a passcode on it, that it can not be searched by police. They have to ask permission, if the person in question says no, then they are out to lunch and have to wait for a warrant and even then a WO to search a phone is difficult (i read that the only case that has allowed it thus far has to do with child porn or the Teen from Nova Scotia).

 

[Tibbson]

Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search.

So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case.

Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in crap for what other people post?

Yes it became worse and worse with what was being posted.

Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.

There are more then enough software applications available to the police (both off the shelf and from the phone manufacturers themselves) that they can get around the password without much issue.  Based on the evidence collected and the investigative steps carried out thus far, getting a warrant for the phone would not be much of an issue if the police felt they had cause to need one

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If the NIS and JAG were involved, I'm sure the T's were crossed and the i's dotted.

Speculating here, armchair quarter backing as it were, doesn't accomplish much of anything except to muddy the waters.

The thread went quiet because most people realized this and have decided to just wait and see what the official word is, what is going to happen and why.

In other words, they are waiting for the explanation of the experts.

 

[Tibbson]

Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important. 

Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.  No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation. 

MC

Actually, EVERY JAG officer will tell you that a COs search warrant should not be used in Canada.  The courts have long held that a CO does not have the required legal knowledge to issue a warrant and the only place they will be used successfully is overseas.  There are also two court cases right now working their way through the system to overturn any form of CO search warrant and make it so that MPs must go to a Military Judge to get a warrant under the NDA the same way they now need to go to a Military Judge to get a DNA warrant under the NDA. 

Of course, nothing at all stops the MPs from going to a civilian judge to get a search warrant for an NDA charge.  The NDA is a federal act the same way the Criminal Code is and any Judge can issue a civilian Search Warrant.  (Civilian DNA warrants for an NDA charge are a separate issue.)