Principles discarded in fracas over breach
Two principles, one a foundation of justice, the other an oftenmisused imposter, were all but abandoned last week in the Nova Scotia legislature.
Any hint of the presumption of innocence exited the floor of the assembly the minute Halifax police had a suspect charged in what the government is calling a breach of its freedom of information, protection of privacy web portal.
And, an often- abused precept that politicians trot out to dodge questions about politically inconvenient matters that have conveniently entered the legal realm was nowhere in sight either, proving that its use is selectively based on the political expedient of the day.
Friday, Opposition House Leader Chris d’entremont charged that the government was making a 19-year-old kid, who has been charged with the unusual crime of unauthorized use of a computer, a scapegoat for its own failure to adequately protect personal information.
D’entremont said the site was so poorly secured that the event was a leak, not a breach.
The young man who has been charged, and allegedly gained access to personal information through the web portal can thank his lucky stars that the judiciary is separate from the executive branch — the provincial govern- ment – because there hasn’t been an inkling from Premier Stephen Mcneil or Patricia Arab, the minister responsible, that he might be innocent.
To the contrary, the government has been self- congratulatory that its handling of the matter was instrumental to the Halifax Police identifying a suspect and laying the rarely-used charge.
The premier said last week his government’s decision to withhold news of the information breach allowed the police not only to apprehend the individual, but “also know whether or not that individual sent that information to anyone, or to any group of people.”
From the moment the charge was laid, the government has behaved like it has certain knowledge that the police have a guilty man. Legal niceties like due process were forgotten and the qualifier “alleged” has been noticeably absent from the government’s vernacular.
The Liberals switched from a strategy of obfuscation about why the website was inoperative, to a full-throated celebration that the perpetrator had been apprehended the moment the charge was laid.
That same day, Jeff Conrad, the deputy minister of Internal Services held a tell-all news conference where he said, “There’s no question, this was not just someone playing around. It was someone who was intentionally after information that was housed on the site.”
Everyone who visits the site is presumably intentionally after information housed there, but the deputy’s statement marked a departure from the government’s often dubious practice of hiding behind legal proceedings to avoid straight answers. Not only did the deputy speak openly to a matter that may come before the courts, he inferred intent, one of the necessary elements the Crown would need to prove to gain a conviction in the case.
The controversy erupted when the government disclosed Wednesday that some 7,000 documents that were not intended for public view had been accessed through its freedom of information, protection of privacy portal. Some of the documents contain sensitive and identifying personal information.
The government maintains it has acted properly, while the opposition charges that the government has been trying to limit political damage from the moment it discovered, by accident, that the information had been accessed. Individuals whose information was revealed are now being informed. The breach occurred over a month ago but was only discovered last week.
D’entremont charged that the government delayed public notification until it could “point to a kid and say it’s his fault not ours.”
On Friday, the minister characterized the charge as “a successful outcome.”
A couple of things have become apparent during this fracas. The documents that were improperly disclosed were vulnerable. A typographical error has been credited with discovering the information disclosure.
And, as d’entremont noted Friday, the government is unfairly portraying the young man charged as a malicious actor, when he didn’t even pick a lock, because “there was no lock to pick.”
There is no doubt the matter has been mismanaged, politically or operationally and perhaps both, from the outset. The government is only compounding its errors by withholding any presumption of innocence.