That false e-mail, of course, wasn’t sent by the US Navy, it was sent by someone who had attempted to embarrass a principal.
This was the report from a forensic computer analyst:
– – –
OrgName: Navy Network Information Center (NNIC)
Address: 2465 GUADALCANAL ROAD
Address: BLDG 1265
City: VIRGINIA BEACH
– – –
A false e-mail was sent to try to compromise the principal and me. The false e-mail had her correct address but not the correct IP address, and when worked back by the analyst, the trail came to an end at the navy spy centre in Virginia.
None of this will surprise anyone in education (leaving aside the reference to the navy spy centre) who speaks out against government education policies. All sorts of dirty tricks have been played and bureaucratic cruelties inflicted on certain principals to engender a climate of fear. These dirty tricks have ranged from setting news media onto principals; to using the statutory manager process to punish; to the education review office picking up messages from superiors to harass. I have suspected from time-to-time that my computer has been hacked, but evidence was only circumstantial. Given the circumstances of the e-mail in question – that it was sent to my website and definite proof of cyber-subterfuge being established – I am having my computer checked by a forensic computer analyst as well.
I want to say here, though, while dirty tricks have been played in the past by the present government, there is no evidence that this is the case here.
And while I am going to refer briefly to the principal’s recent education activities, and to mine, as a background to possible reasons for the cyber-subterfuge, there is no proof of cyber-subterfuge coming from any particular direction. So I am not accusing any organisation or person of being involved in this devious behaviour. However, the principal and I are involved in education at a controversial level, and the attempt at compromising us was on an education website. As well, the nature of the trap does not communicate a sense of someone with a personal grievance against the principal – and then there is the high degree of computer competence required.
The principal is waiting for a decision from the Employment Relations Authority in a hugely controversial long-running struggle against having a statutory manager in her school. The false e-mail may well have been an attempt to rain on her parade, to divide her from the NZPF, and to build an aura of trouble around her. If she wins her case, it will certainly be a bitter experience for the ministry.
As for me, I have played a leading role in opposing the IES and in keeping the leadership of NZPF in line in opposition to the IES. I have a number of sources of information (obviously the anonymous cybersneak considered the principal as one) including one in the ministry.
The false e-mail was sent to the Comments section of a posting on my website. www.networkonnet.wordpress.com It is my belief that they (I am assuming that this individual was working at the request of someone) were trying to get two troublesome birds with one stone.
1. Marlene Campbell says:
But remember who was on the 2 year NOVOPAIN task force…..
PHIL HARDING and he never in 24 months gave a report back to the NZPF executive that it was a no brainer… not ever and I know because I was on the exec….
The process with website comments is that all go through to the editor Allan Alach who checks them for reasonableness before putting them on site.
Marlene’s website address is correct, so nothing untoward was picked up by Allan or me. But the reference to Marlene being on the executive was a false note – everyone knows she was on the executive. It is just not something she would feel the need to add. (But this was only noted after my attention was drawn to the comment.)
You might wonder at the style of the comment. Was this how Marlene made her comments? the answer is yes, but he (I’m assuming it was a ‘he’) got it pretty much right, but went too far.
The guide for the cybersneak would have been a comment like the following:
Marlene Campbell says:
Oh… Lorraine… However did you retain this position given your betrayal of schools, parents, children over your pitiful NS support and lack of position!
Great post kelvin
This comment was sent two days after the June 15 false comment but is typical of how Marlene communicated with me and, I know, other friends.
The cybersneak would have picked up the style from reading her e-mail correspondence. However, the cybersneak, in trying to compromise Marlene and me, went too far with the ‘love’ and especially with the ‘love you’ – that is two steps too far.
But what the cybersneak, as a priority, was clearly trying to do was to set Phil Harding on to her, and to divide her from the NZPF. And from there, the hope would have been that the fuss broke through to the media.
Oddly, the comment sat there for over a week, unknown to Marlene of course, and of no particular significance to me. It was only when Marlene received a complaint from someone that I took it down, Marlene set out to find its source, and I wrote this posting.
This is just a posting to convey the fact that a principal’s computer has been compromised; information on the computer very likely read; and a false e-mail sent with the correct address but an IP address that leads to the USA. And the false e-mail reads as if intended to discredit a controversial principal on a controversial site run by a long-time education controversialist.
This is not a fancy posting, just a simple one to convey the situation in a reasonably straightforward way.