Anonymous solves case in 2 hours police couldn't in a year

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Article

The story of Rehtaeh is sadly typical these days; she went to a party, drank, was gang- raped by four boys, and then bullied so cruelly that she hung herself. The full story can be read in that link. My focus is on what happened after: How after a year of investigation, the police deduced that there wasn't enough evidence to charge any of the four assailants, and how Anonymous proved them wrong in two hours.

No, you didn't read that wrong. It only took two hours for the vigilante hacker group to show the world just how useless the RCMP (Who led the investigation) are. Rehtaeh's story stirred the so-called "Internet Hate Machine" into action, but it didn't take any kind of hacking to get down to the bones of the case and build the prosecution that the RCMP bungled in a show of failure and incompetence that would make the Three Stooges shake their heads in embarrassment. Once Anonymous made their rage and intent clear, they were flooded with witness testimony, and from there built the case of the RCMP’s incompetence on three points: that dozens of teens and adults had heard the rapists brag about taking part in the gang rape, that the photo taken of the rape was reportedly so widely circulated it's unlikely the authorities ever bothered to try and find it so they might look at the EXIF data, and that Parsons's school did nothing, despite the fact that child pornography was going viral in their hallways.

Look at those time frames. LOOK AT THEM. One year of resources poured into a case that shouldn't have taken a day to solve had the RCMP given a enough of a damn to ask the right questions and let people know they were looking to bring some serious wrath down on the four swineheads who perpetrated this crime. Anonymous sums it up best when they say that "Every officer that signed off on this 'no evidence' conclusion should be guarding the entrance to a petting zoo for the remainder of their careers." Anonymous received dozens of emails by both adults and children who knew the rapists, and the biggest and most offensive thread that stood out from those emails was the lack of fear these scum showed about admitting to their crime or spreading the evidence of it. They were stupid enough to believe no one was ever going to do anything about it, and before Anonymous caught wind of the story, they were right.

The Nova Scotia Government did nothing through this entire situation, and now they're catching hell for it. The province is currently controlled by the NDP (New Democratic Party), and despite the fact that Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter now believes that Ottawa needs to make changes to the criminal code, he and the NDP thought differently just last year before Rehtaeh Parsons hung herself. That situation, as well as this press release, shows just how badly the NDP government is scrambling to carry out damage control. It also demonstrates how they waited until Rehtaeh killed herself to revisit the issue.

**Seaward**

I feel this is misleading.

**azazel the cat**

This story is tragic on several levels (and far, far more black & white than the Amanda Todd case), but that article is pure demagoguery.

Many of the methods that Anonymous used to allegedy identify and build a case against the rapists are not available to the police, nor admissible in a court of law.

**Ma55ter_fett**

I detect a hint of animosity in that article.

There is a story in there somewhere, one that I would like to hear from a slightly less bias source.

**LordofHats**

azazel the cat wrote:This story is tragic on several levels (and far, far more black & white than the Amanda Todd case), but that article is pure demagoguery.

Many of the methods that Anonymous used to allegedy identify and build a case against the rapists are not available to the police, nor admissible in a court of law.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I detect a hint of animosity in that article.

There is a story in there somewhere, one that I would like to hear from a slightly less bias source.

Why say what others have said so well? This is one of those cases where Anonymous might think its doing good when it just might not be (they might be doing good idk that much about the case beyond this article). I'm no expert in Canadian law, but now what we have is evidence gathered by a third party that may not be admissible in courts, and that is now being spammed across the internet contaminating the jury pool. Now a fair trial might well be impossible depending on the specifics of the case.

**azazel the cat**

Here's some proper coverage from a real news source:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/12/ns-rehtaeh-reopened.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/12/ns-rehtaeh-parsons-anonymous-hackers-names.html

**purplefood**

I truly wish I had never heard of this case...

**azazel the cat**

LordofHats wrote:Why say what others have said so well? This is one of those cases where Anonymous might think its doing good when it just might not be (they might be doing good idk that much about the case beyond this article). I'm no expert in Canadian law, but now what we have is evidence gathered by a third party that may not be admissible in courts, and that is now being spammed across the internet contaminating the jury pool. Now a fair trial might well be impossible depending on the specifics of the case.

Believe it or not, in Canada, 3rd party evidence is not immediately considered inadmissible; it's evaluated on its own merits. (In fact, it's even possible for a private citizen to prosecute an offender, if the stars align just right!) However, hearsay is not admissible, nor can the RCMP conduct searches based upon it. Further, social media campaigns really aren't within the scope of the police, as people of often reluctant to speak to them.

**Ma55ter_fett**

If by there actions (Anonymous) is able to goad police into action and assist them in prosicuteing those responsible for rapeing this girl then good for them.

If they just post the names of four random boys online whom they (Anonymous) claim are guilty then that is far less good.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Good on Anon, the original out come of this case was just sickening.

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Why say what others have said so well? This is one of those cases where Anonymous might think its doing good when it just might not be (they might be doing good idk that much about the case beyond this article). I'm no expert in Canadian law, but now what we have is evidence gathered by a third party that may not be admissible in courts, and that is now being spammed across the internet contaminating the jury pool. Now a fair trial might well be impossible depending on the specifics of the case.

Believe it or not, in Canada, 3rd party evidence is not immediately considered inadmissible; it's evaluated on its own merits. (In fact, it's even possible for a private citizen to prosecute an offender, if the stars align just right!) However, hearsay is not admissible, nor can the RCMP conduct searches based upon it. Further, social media campaigns really aren't within the scope of the police, as people of often reluctant to speak to them.

Evidence on social media should be viewed more seriously by the court system. Everyone else does.

About the only people that don't take it seriously are the courts and the people actually on them.

You can get fired from your job because of something stupid you posted on your facebook, why should it not have similar weight in the court room.

Especially when its so redicliously easy to pull stuff up, once somethings on the internet its not going away. Its the perfect evidence, it doesn't deteriorate or ever completely get destroyed.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

You can get fired from your job because of something stupid you posted on your facebook, why should it not have similar weight in the court room.

As far as I know information collected from social media sources is legally admissible.

What Azazel was saying is that the police can't really mount a social media campaign because their authority tends to dissuade people from engaging with them. Its variation of the concept that people will speak more freely when not in the presence of authority figures.

Grey Templar wrote:

Especially when its so redicliously easy to pull stuff up, once somethings on the internet its not going away. Its the perfect evidence, it doesn't deteriorate or ever completely get destroyed.

The longer something is on the internet the harder it gets to determine the original source, so there most assuredly is deterioration.

**LordofHats**

Especially when its so redicliously easy to pull stuff up, once somethings on the internet its not going away. Its the perfect evidence, it doesn't deteriorate or ever completely get destroyed.

You know. Until accounts get hacked, or virus' and spam bots, run rampant, etc.

Don't get me wrong. The internet probably should be taken more seriously than it is, but a message board isn't ironclad evidence and should never be treated as such.

Mostly though I question the usefulness of a hacktivist taking matters into their own hands as the right way to go. That's vigilante justice and that opens dangerous doors as the general public shouldn't generally be allowed to take the law into its own hands.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and from what I've seen it does get dismissed way too often.

**dæl**

LordofHats wrote:

Mostly though I question the usefulness of a hacktivist taking matters into their own hands as the right way to go. That's vigilante justice and that opens dangerous doors as the general public shouldn't generally be allowed to take the law into its own hands.

I feel more ok with the public doing the role of the police and obtaining evidence to assist in prosecution, than if they were acting instead of the courts and dishing out punishment.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:
Evidence on social media should be viewed more seriously by the court system. Everyone else does.

I can't prove who posted that; I can only prove whose account it was posted under.

In addition to the clarification Dogma made on my behalf in reference to the public's unwillingness to speak to the police at times.

**Ratbarf**

LordofHats wrote:
Especially when its so redicliously easy to pull stuff up, once somethings on the internet its not going away. Its the perfect evidence, it doesn't deteriorate or ever completely get destroyed.

You know. Until accounts get hacked, or virus' and spam bots, run rampant, etc.

Don't get me wrong. The internet probably should be taken more seriously than it is, but a message board isn't ironclad evidence and should never be treated as such.

Mostly though I question the usefulness of a hacktivist taking matters into their own hands as the right way to go. That's vigilante justice and that opens dangerous doors as the general public shouldn't generally be allowed to take the law into its own hands.

As far as I'm aware EXIF data is only changed if the image itself is put through an image editor like paint or photoshop. Which means that it's likely the original data is still on a plethora of the pictures.

Also, the group hasn't really done anything vigilanti-ish yet. All they did was commit an investigation, they haven't attempted to punish them yet, though I can't recall if they have released the accused's names yet. That might be seen as a vigilante act. As for the contaminating of the jury pool, in Canada you can also ask for a trial by judge instead of jury, in addition there are so many people who don't follow the news/live under social rocks that it probably wouldn't take much longer than normal to find a jury with little foreknowledge of the case.

**Steve steveson**

You have to ask, why did these witnesses not come forward before? Most likely because people don't like to talk to the police and go though all of the hassel that causes or the risk of having to go to court. However they will be more than happy to post it on the internet.

We all know people who will go on and on about a crime they have seen or heard about and when told they should go to the police will give some reason not to...

I'm not saying the police were right, but again people are being far too much in Anons favour. Its like the times they take down illigal sites and ask why the police can't. They are happy to brake the law or ignore people rights if they feel someone is in the wrong. They are like Law and Order.

**Ouze**

Why does the quoted phrase "no evidence" appear in the article 3 times without ever being attributed to anyone? Who is being quoted that their investigation turned up no evidence? There is a pretty wide gulf between "no evidence" and insufficient evidence to make a case.

Why is this considered "solved"? It doesn't look like any arrests have been made. The case "may be re-opened"? Splendid! That means.... nothing.

A lot of sizzle and not much steak in this story, IMO.

Steve steveson wrote:
They are like Law and Order.

Sure, if the cops on Law & Order sometimes harassed pre-pubescent girls into providing them with some child pornography.

**Seaward**

Steve steveson wrote:
You have to ask, why did these witnesses not come forward before? Most likely because people don't like to talk to the police and go though all of the hassel that causes or the risk of having to go to court. However they will be more than happy to post it on the internet.

We all know people who will go on and on about a crime they have seen or heard about and when told they should go to the police will give some reason not to...

I'm not saying the police were right, but again people are being far too much in Anons favour. Its like the times they take down illigal sites and ask why the police can't. They are happy to brake the law or ignore people rights if they feel someone is in the wrong. They are like Law and Order.

Possibly because they could run afoul of charges relating to transmitting the images themselves, if that's how they knew about it.

I said this seemed misleading earlier because nothing was "solved." I don't think there's any question the police knew who the perpetrators were, it was simply a matter of not being able to legally obtain enough evidence or witness testimony to proceed to trial.

**Ouze**

Seaward wrote:
I said this seemed misleading earlier because nothing was "solved." I don't think there's any question the police knew who the perpetrators were, it was simply a matter of not being able to legally obtain enough evidence or witness testimony to proceed to trial.

Anyone see a black cat? Is it... the same black cat?

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I said this seemed misleading earlier because nothing was "solved." I don't think there's any question the police knew who the perpetrators were, it was simply a matter of not being able to legally obtain enough evidence or witness testimony to proceed to trial.

Anyone see a black cat? Is it... the same black cat?

I don't get the reference. If it's a reference.

**Ouze**

Oh, it was a reference to the Matrix film. In the film, the main character, Neo sees a black cat, then again. He remarks "deja vu", and another character, Trinity, asks if it was the same black cat. It turns out that in the computer world they live in, deja vu actually means that something was changed in the program - something humans can just barely perceive.

So, in a roundabout way, just saying "deja vu".

**Breotan**

Has it been so long ago that The Matrix needs to be explained? :/

**SagesStone**

LordofHats wrote:
Especially when its so redicliously easy to pull stuff up, once somethings on the internet its not going away. Its the perfect evidence, it doesn't deteriorate or ever completely get destroyed.

You know. Until accounts get hacked, or virus' and spam bots, run rampant, etc.

So these spam bots and such, they're going to go around bragging about recent crimes now? These viruses, hacks and such aren't quite so common and when they do strike they will usually be hidden and take information rather than be dumb and spam all over the place like a bot, which is a pretty inefficient method to try and spread something.

I highly doubt most of the people that would brag about crimes would have the skills to write a script to make one specific account suddenly start boasting about it. It'd be many and even then it's fairly likely they could barely write a legible post yet alone code such a thing.

**Dreadclaw69**

I agree that the RCMP could have handled this better. That being said the article seems to shed more heat than light on what happened and reads more like an angry polemic against the RCMP, and also help legitimise hacktivism.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm no expert in Canadian law, but now what we have is evidence gathered by a third party that may not be admissible in courts, and that is now being spammed across the internet contaminating the jury pool. Now a fair trial might well be impossible depending on the specifics of the case.

That's my biggest concern too, any defense lawyer with a brain between his ears will argue that. And most judiciaries aren't known for their internet savvy attitudes.

Breotan wrote:
Has it been so long ago that The Matrix needs to be explained? :/

I hope not or I'm going to feel really old

**Monster Rain**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
If by there actions (Anonymous) is able to goad police into action and assist them in prosicuteing those responsible for rapeing this girl then good for them.

If they just post the names of four random boys online whom they (Anonymous) claim are guilty then that is far less good.

While I agree in principle, I should think that naming the people in what is apparently a photograph of them committing the crime in question isn't a big problem for me, as long as it is done accurately.

**Rented Tritium**

Even if third party evidence wasn't admissible, the prosecution can just retrace Anon's steps and talk to the same people and collect it themselves.

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Evidence on social media should be viewed more seriously by the court system. Everyone else does.

I can't prove who posted that; I can only prove whose account it was posted under.

In addition to the clarification Dogma made on my behalf in reference to the public's unwillingness to speak to the police at times.

Right, but you can also prove what computer/smart phone/tablet it was posted on. Then you can find who owns that computer/smart phone/tablet.

Its not concrete evidence, but then its rare to have one piece of evidence that is completely solid. Its usually all the little things together.

**Easy E**

The original story about the girl is really, really messed up.

I honestly don't understand how things could spiral out of control so far that she chose to commit suicide.