Having a background in computers helps someone understand the RoboCon details much faster. The calls were made in large part through computer technology. When the Elections Act was created, it wasn’t possible to do robocalling, and the potential for misuse of it wasn’t considered. Fortunately, other parts of the act still make it a crime to use robocalling in many unethical ways it was used last year in the general election.

Zorpheus explains why he’s come to the conclusion that someone is either framing Andrew Prescott, or he’s directly involved in the Guelph robocalls that caught the wave of news following Postmedia’s article in late February 2012. Keeping in mind that CIMS is password protected, someone would have had to have obtained Prescott’s password to download phone number lists under his identity. Since there are no charges known yet, it would appear that the Rogers campaign IP address in the production order was not used at a private residence (as that would keenly narrow down the potential identity of Poutine).

I was extremely disappointed to hear in early March 2012 that Elections Canada had not yet asked for the backup of CIMS from last year around election time. One media report states that the version of CIMS apparently used for the Guelph robocalls was from April 27, 2011. A backup from that time would be very useful to investigators. I can only guess that the reason there are no charges being laid to this point is because the Postmedia source that said logs had been removed, was accurate. The CPC deny there are missing logs, but if they are not missing, why haven’t investigators obtained the identity of Pierre Poutine that way, and pressed charges? As Zorph mentioned, the missing log files implicate at least one other person, with high level system permissions and computer knowledge, who will one day face an Obstruction of Justice charge for tampering with evidence.