Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court of Canada Rules That Text Messages Are Private
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that text messages are private communication (Official Ruling) and therefore police are required to get a warrant to gain access to the text messages of private citizens. The CBC reports: '[Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman] Abella said the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process. "This distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled," she wrote.'"
Quite different from the attitude in the U.S.
The only question now is how long before we can get the same protection for ALL forms of communication, regardless of the technology used.
My understanding is that this particular telco was storing the texts. It wasn't that the police were interested in intercepting the messages live, but rather they wanted their general warrant to let them have access to the copies of the messages.
The Court ruled that a wiretap warrant is required for the police to have access to the copies of the messages.
As as I am aware, this telco is the only major player storing texts.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My understanding is that this particular telco was storing the texts.
According to the ruling, they stored the texts 'breifly'. It sounded like the police needed a daily capture of the data in order to get everything.
Its not like these were long term logs.
I would guess it was an implementation of the SMS queue where when you send a text that's undeliverable because the destination phone is unreachable it hold its it for a while to attempt to deliver it later. It probably just put all messages into the queue, marked delivered messages when they were delivered, and then purged them daily.
At least that's what it sounded like to me.
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have, and in such cases, I don't oppose implementing a wire tap or intercepting communications to get the information needed, on two very important conditions: there is disclosure after the fact, and a warrant is subsequently obtained. The first speaks for itself, and for the second: If the warrant is not obtained for any reason, then any information gathered by this means can't be used in criminal proceedings. Given how much information can be gotten through such a tap, you'd better be absolutely certain that there is an urgent and immediate need to implement a tap, and that your evidence to justify it is adequate, otherwise you can throw your own case out by doing it.
It is still possible to have that form of warrantless information gathering while still having an open and democratic government, but you need to be open about the information gathering too, when it happens. What passes for democracy in the states is a far cry from how I actually envision it.
uh, he only went through your phone after he asked and you let him. you didn't have to waive your rights.
That's as may be, but it seems to me that the border, on both sides, is a kind of "no man's land", where the usual civil liberties don't apply. When US border agents have the authority to arbitrarily deny you admission to the US for years, it seems to me that refusing a "request" can be a high-risk game for the uninformed.
Simply put: why should the police have access to anything without a reason? are they better than us? do they know better? are they magical?
Nope they're just people like you and me.
Short or long term neither they, or you and I should have access to anybody else's non-public information without a compelling reason.
The Supreme Court decision requires a wiretap authorization, which is harder to get than a warrant. A warrant was always required and no one was arguing that it wasn't. Telus, for whatever reason, stores its text messages for some time. In this case the cops wanted to access these stored text messages as they were coming in. To work around the more difficult requirements of a wiretap authorization, they used a general warrant on the grounds that this was saved correspondence, not live communication. The majority of the Court didn't buy that argument, saying that this went against the purpose of the wiretap provisions, which is to protect interactive communication. What's interesting is that the majority didn't get tied up in the specifics of how the messages were handled and went with this purposive analysis.
Canadian bacon isn't ham, it's the same pork belly and loin as American bacon. Ham is the leg, it's an entirely different part of the animal.
We have multiple kinds of bacon in Canada -- back bacon (which is the same as the British bacon you mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_bacon), Peameal bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peameal_Bacon which is brined and rolled in pea meal), and plain old bacon.
Well, I guess we also have that mysterious bacon which doesn't need to be refrigerated, which I assume is an invention of the US food industry.
We know bacon, we just know more kinds than you do.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
He wasn't talking about a sane government, but a more sane country. Sure, every country (and government) has its issues, but the USA is so far gone that it's its own kind of insanity. You'd be forgiven for occasionally mistaking it for a third world country.
Telus has admitted that it stores text messages for '30 days' for diagnostic purposes... That's not "briefly", in my opinion.
Illegally obtained evidence can be ruled still admissible in Canadian courts. It's not automatic, the trial judge would have to rule on the admissibility on a case by case basis, depending on
1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct of the State
2) Impact of the Charter-Protected Interests of the Accused
3) Society's Interest in an Adjudication on the Merits
Basically, if the charge is serious and the cop can come up with a good reason for the breach, the evidence will probably go in. If the officer in charge basically just didn't care about your rights and dumped all over them, well then the Crown would have some trouble.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years
I'd much prefer that a few lives be lost than allowing for random exceptions. As I keep saying, I'd be against the TSA even if it was actually effective.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!