The full interrogation of accused hacker Kelley Denham by Smiths Falls police. I received this video in pieces and put it back together the best I could while focussing on audio quality. To learn more about the case or read the full acquittal, check out: https://www.kelleyandderek.com/
Denham’s life took a rapid turn in April 2016 when police broke through her garage door to execute a search warrant to seize phones, computers, a gaming system, and USB sticks — anything that could store evidence related to her access to the website. In the early-morning raid, Denham said they put her husband in handcuffs. “I woke up to police in my bedroom and after I yelled for them to take the ‘cuffs off of him, they did. They also wouldn’t let me call a lawyer.”
Kelley Denham was accused of hacking confidential information from the Family and Children's Services of Lanark Leeds, and Grenville website. The courts have exonerated her. WAYNE CUDDINGTON / Ottawa Citizen/ Postmedia.
https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted/wcm/47bd011b-db67-4893-b4b0-66643b263a2e
She was found not guilty on several charges:
• Mischief over $5,000 (section 430 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCA);
• Mischief of data (section 430 (5) of the CCA);
• Unauthorized use of a computer (section 342 of the CCA);
• Publication of identifying information (section 85 (3) of the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario — CFSA); and,
• Another charge under section 76 of the CFSA, referring to identifying parties to a protected hearing.
MAR. 21, 2018 THE FOLLOWING CHARGES AGAINST KELLEY DENHAM WERE DROPPED:
1) Theft under $5000 - s. 334 Criminal Code of Canada
2) Traffick in identity Information - s. 402.2(2) Criminal Code of Canada
:::
INTERVIEW with Director of Service for Family and Children's Services of Lanark Leeds and Grenville.
https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA
:::
2020: Smiths Falls' Kelley Denham acquitted in Family and Children’s Services computer case.
When Denham first publicized the absence of security on the child-welfare agency’s website, they shut it down and figured it was time to hire a computer security expert.
At the time, the agency’s program manager in charge of the website was Margaret Row. The child-welfare agency hired Margaret Row’s son-in-law, David Schmidt, to investigate what happened and fix any breach of security even though there wasn’t one, according to undisputed facts in the judge’s decision.
After a completely impartial four-month investigation (?), Denham was charged with hacking and identifying children involved in court proceedings, when in fact she did neither, and earlier this week Ontario Court Justice Charles D. Anderson acquitted her of all charges and cleared her name after trial.
https://ottawasun.com/2016/04/19/police-probe-leak-of-ids-of-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-childrens-aid-clients-over-web/wcm/4cf5287c-6921-4267-922b-bfb6838a7a0c
The judge noted that the CAS did not take appropriate measures to secure private information. The judge also noted there were no special computer skills or deception required to access the files, which were not marked as confidential and came with no warnings or disclaimers.
The information was publicly available, the judge ruled. He said there was no hacking and Denham didn’t break any Children’s Aid Society (CAS) laws about identifying children involved in court proceedings.
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/10014328-smiths-falls-kelley-denham-acquitted-in-family-and-children-s-services-computer-case/
:::
Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society (That Happily Violates Your Rights At Every Other Turn.)
If you have a question or concern about services from a children’s aid society, you can talk to the unregistered worker who is helping you, the worker’s unregistered supervisor, or someone else at the society. If you do not want to first speak to them or if speaking to your worker or others at the society does not answer your questions, you have the right to start a formal process to complain to the society. Societies are required, by law, to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to review formal complaints submitted in writing who will totally deny any wrongdoing by their workers or themselves.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO TRUST THE MANY FACES OF SOCIETY AND THEIR ALL INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESSES?
Respecting procedural safeguards:
There is a major power imbalance between an impoverished parent (we know that families of low socio-economic status are hugely overrepresented in the child welfare system) and a state agency. To guard against such an imbalance, it is critical that our legal system respect the time-tested procedural safeguards developed to specifically ensure that the disadvantaged party is treated fairly.
Yet according to the Motherisk report, these safeguards were ignored. The report describes a litany of procedural injustices perpetrated on parents: parents were pressured to consent to testing; were not informed of their right to reject testing; they had adverse inferences drawn against them when they rejected testing; they were required to prove the unreliability of testing instead of the other way around; and they were refused the right to cross-examine Motherisk "experts" at summary judgment motions.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees procedural fairness when the state interferes with fundamental personal rights, such as the right by parents to care for their children. Ironically enough, the issue of taking body samples (such as hair for testing) without proper consent for the purpose of criminal investigations was found to be an infringement of the Charter 20 years ago by the Supreme Court.
It is unconscionable that these protections are available to accused persons, but were never considered applicable to parents at the mercy of child protection services.
There is nothing new about the commission's finding that many parents were explicitly or implicitly told that there would be negative consequences if they did not undergo hair testing. In fact, this type of coercive action continues to happen: parents are often given messages that if they do not consent, for example, to a finding that the child is in need of protection, that there will be negative consequences. For example, they may be prevented from bringing further motions, or — more damning in CAS work — labelled as being "uncooperative."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/motherisk-child-protection-1.4559905
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-motherisk-is-the-ontario-liberals-unacknowledged-and-worst-scandal
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-victims-of-bad-science-at-motherrisk
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/discredited-hair-testing-program-harmed-vulnerable-families-across-ontario-report
https://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/2018/02/26/motherisk-hair-testing-unfair-and-harmful-to-the-poorest-and-most-vulnerable-ontario-families.html
:::
2020: Ford government to overhaul child welfare system to focus on prevention
"Child welfare should not be the system that is feared," Dunlop said in a news conference.
Ontario to end practice of birth alerts that's led to babies being seized from new mothers.
"No one should be scared to lose their children for speaking to a children's aid society. No woman should be afraid to go to a shelter for fear of losing her children."
She said children and youth in care experience worse outcomes than those in a family setting, including lower graduation rates, a higher risk of homelessness and more involvement with the justice system.
Associate Minister of Children and Women's Issues Jill Dunlop says the new strategy will also work to address the over-representation of Black and Indigenous families in the children's aid system.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-child-welfare-redesign-1.5667513
:::
I'm glad Kelly was exonerated of all charges!
ReplyDelete