Slashdot Mirror
Cellphone Privacy In Canada: Encryption Triggers Need For Warrant
codegen writes "The Ontario Court of Appeal has just ruled that the police can search your cellphone if you are arrested without a warrant if it is not password protected. But the ruling also stated that if it is password protected, then the police need a warrant. Previous to this case there was no decision on if the police could search your phone without a warrant in Canada."
I'm setting a password right now o__O
This seems directly equivalent to "If your front door is unlocked the police can come in and snoop around without a warrant"
You could say the same thing with several other things like...
"if your car is unlocked they can rummage through it legally without a warrant"
and
"If your fly is down, they can do a cavity search legally without a warrant"
So if you leave your garage door open, the police can also walk up your driveway and search your house because it's not locked...otherwise they need a warrant. That makes sense.
Refreshing to see the courts stand up for the citizenry, as opposed to the police. Makes me glad that whole "let's move to the states" plan my wife had fizzled....
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
Makes sense to me. If I were to be arrested without a warrant, the police can go through all the pockets of my wallet and look at every card and piece of paper I have in there, however if I were to have a lock on my wallet, they would need a warrant to open it. The modern cell phone is very much the same as the wallet and datebook of the past. If it's not locked, they can go through it.
My understanding based on a news story this morning was that if the device was in any way "locked" then they needed a warrant. Locking, even with a gesture unlock or face recognition unlock doesn't really say anything about encryption.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
A real world analogy: encryption is like a room within a room.
If you were to enter a residence, and find it divided into apartments, you'd probably have to get a warrant for each locked, separately numbered door.
The real question is whether one individual can have multiple rooms within a room. If your phone and computer are encrypted, do they need a warrant for each?
They've added one more trivial paperwork hurdle to the police violating your privacy to fish for reasons to arrest you. Yay. Does anyone really believe that a judge will carefully weigh a suspect's rights against "probable cause" before issuing such a warrant?
Please tell me where there is a better place to live than Canada.
From the title "Cellphone Privacy In Canada: Encryption Triggers Need For Warrant" it sounded like if the Police find out you're encrypting your phone that it will trigger a warrant... because "obviously" you're up to no good.
But from the summary, it just sounds like something that makes sense. That if they arrest you and want to access your encrypted phone, then they need a warrant.
I'm not a huge fan of them going through the phone in any case, but at least it's preventing them from coercing you to unlock the phone or face bigger fines "on a whim"
My phone is protected by an electronic protection device. You have to push the "ON" button to enable interaction.
Breaking that top-secret process violates the DMCA and means you are breaking the encryption and security apparatus on the phone.
Thanks DMCA for not definining minimum secutiry levels.
Is it really going to be that hard, or very long, before the warrant is issued anyway? You were arrested, for cripes sake. So, a full search is coming your way, phone lock or no. And, since you are in Canada, I sure hope you have receipts for all those mp3's on your phone.
"if your car is unlocked they can rummage through it legally without a warrant"
More like - if you are stopped for speeding, and you have a kilo on the back seat in plain view, they can seize it and arrest you. However, if you stashed the kilo in your trunk, they cannot open it to search without either your permission, or a warrant.
"Wait here in this cell with Bruno. He's been convicted five times for violent anal assault. Oh, and hold this bottle of EZ Glide. We'll be back in 72 hours with a decision. If you need us, don't do anything, because we're too far away to hear the screams."
Malaysia
Do they consider a finger-swipe pattern to be a "password"? Or is it something you have to input as text?
Assuming the fun data isn't on anything removable and unencrypted, what value does this ruling provide that enacting your charter right to remain silent doesn't? I suppose if you have a crap phone that doesn't self-terminate or can be cracked simply by looking at the grease marks on the screen you have a problem. Or worse, a crap phone that doesn't crypto everything...
Of course, since this is in Canada, I assume everyone is using a BlackBerry, so they're immune from this. :P
The issue of a warrant is irrelevant. If my cell phone is encrypted, they can search it all they want, warrant or no warrant, and they won't get anything because it's all encrypted.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And don't tell me that you have to. There is no case of someone being forced to do so in Canada (as it is basically the contents of your mind and you don't have to self incriminate). The police regularly have to cut open safes because the owner won't give them the combination.
Most smart phones are pretty secure right now so if the police go fishing you are probably safe. But in some big case the phone will probably sit in evidence for a long time resulting in a hack for that (now old) version of the OS becoming available. Then the police will be able to get in.
But for most of us it is just a good idea to password your phone because of thieves. I doubt that too many slashdotters are running a secret drug empire.
The court ruling said that it's like having a lock on your house to show that it's private property.
Which is nonsensical reasoning because it is private property regardless of whether a lock is engaged or not. My cell phone has the ability to be locked whether I choose to use it or not and it is my property whether I choose to secure it or not.
A lock or password shows that you don't want strangers to get in there without your permission.
It should be the default assumption that permission is not granted. I can always acknowledge after the fact that I'm fine with someone entering my house or snooping on my cell phone but just because I forget to lock my house one day doesn't mean I'm ok with the police coming in and having a look around. I freely acknowledge that not securing your property might be a bad idea for reasons that are obvious but lack of a lock or password is not an invitation or permission for anyone to go looking around just because they can.
Under English law, a police person commits no crime if they enter your home uninvited through an open window or unlocked door. People in Britain last Summer and the one before were outraged to read to hear new stories telling of police departments actually sending their officers out on missions to enter private homes and cars, and leave 'calling cards' that read "this could have been a burglary" . These action were actually part of police-state '1984' style psychological warfare against the populace, but their legal justification was as stated.
Canada, NZ, Australia (and many smaller English speaking regions previously EXPLICITLY controlled by the British) have exactly the same common law principles. Whereas the USA went a different way, and recognizes (to a very limited and rapidly diminishing degree) concepts of privacy on 'unlocked' private property, other British linked nations do not.
So, if your phone lacks a 'moat' or 'locked front door' it is 'inviting all-comers'. You are, of course, outraged at this idea. After all, the phone company itself is not supposed to 'sniff' the private contents of your phone just because it attaches to their service, so why should the government have this power.
It is interesting to note that due to similar common-law issues, the UK long refused to pass 'anti-voyeurism' laws, for fear they would also restrict the ability of government agents to use hidden cameras. The British 'tradition' is that uniformed police agents of the State largely employ the same 'rights' of ordinary citizens (the USA, on the other hand, legally recognises its police as a 'master race' tribe with vastly enhanced rights over ordinary citizens). In the UK, lying to the police or putting your hands on one non-violently is NOT an offense under most circumstances. In the USA, either will earn you a VERY long prison sentence.
So there you go. Outside the USA, most English-speaking nations allow agents of the state to freely enter 'unlocked' private property including your phone or computer. If the facility is 'locked' (including a password or encryption) the agents of the state must show 'good cause' to a legal agent as to why they should bypass the 'lock' and enter. Without a warrant, you may prevent entry.
For the same reason, 'trespass' was not a criminal offense in the UK, nor was squatting, until very recently. The government wanted the power to both 'trespass' and 'squat' when it suited their agents, and laws against 'civilians' would have also restricted the police. Today, the massive extension of the police-state in the UK means that the government knows only a very tiny minority knows their Rights, or will demand that police action respects these Rights. As a result, incredible numbers of repressive laws are passed each year- laws that like in the USA the police are effectively immune to.
We don't use 'warrants' in canada, in canada we have 'court orders'
I can see the police confusing the two, but slashdot?!
In other articles I've read, this says password, not encryption.
Encryption is good to have, but it seems the minimum requirement for a warrant is less than that.
Does the lock screen count?
I for one welcome our new warrent-enabled Mounties.
Too bad I'm using a 256 key and was trained by the Canadian Army in how to resist interrogation.
Mwah hah hah hah.
Have fun cracking it!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --