Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Supreme Court Delivers Huge Win For Internet Privacy
An anonymous reader writes For the past several months, many Canadians have been debating
privacy reform, with the government moving forward on two bills
involving Internet surveillance and expanded voluntary, warrantless
disclosure of personal information. Today, the Supreme Court of
Canada entered the debate and completely changed the discussion,
issuing its long-awaited R.
v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary
warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law
enforcement. Michael Geist summarizes
the findings, noting that the unanimous decision included a
strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy
importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and
the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information
except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law.
What if the company involved is in the USA
barely means shit in Canada ... to foreign governments it means less than spit on a windy day.
Think of the poor bureaucrats and how they will now actually have to prove that they have a reason for these invasive abuses. They blah blah about abducted children and whatnot but I am fairly sure that if they go into a judge and say "abducted child" that the judge will be pretty free with the information and might not even mind being woken up in the middle of the night. But if they say, "Hunting a journalist investigating the RCMP" that the judge will tell them to go to hell.
when the US demands Canada comply with 'international norms'.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
People that believe such a thing exists are plain old simple morons. You can get a warrant in a box of Cracker Jacks. Heh, is if you really need one.
This whole situation assumes a government having access to and data-mining your online activities is inherently more dangerous than the same behavior by large, multinational, profit driven corporations.
If nothing else it will make weed out the strong cases from the fishing expeditions. All citizens deserve privacy in the absence of any evidence of wrong doing. To know that we now have that gives one hope that the system is working to a degree.
Does Canada have a real way to stop the government from breaking its own laws? The US does not. And how will this effect information that flows internationally? Does a Canadian on vacation in Miami Beach who wants to connect to a Canadian ISP have any real hope of protection? Will criminals who live near the Canadian border cross the border to communicate?
Just awesome to see the Canadian legal system still has its eyes open. Now the political/intelligence system has been in lockstep with the U.S. on the surveillance of everything/everyone program - but maybe there's hope up in the great north. I wish our (U.S.) legal system was so clear sighted on these issues.
So, no change then...
This is meaningless.
...except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law.
Exigent : pressing; demanding.
Right, so law enforcement can twist that to any meaning they want.
It should be noted that not only do Canadian citizens have a Right of Privacy in the Canadian Constitution, but this overrides all agreements and treaties like the US-Canada Data Treaty so that US firms must ensure Canadians in their data have privacy as well.
Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sudden outbreak of common sense...
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
This whole situation assumes a government having access to and data-mining your online activities is inherently more dangerous than the same behavior by large, multinational, profit driven corporations.
Large multinational corporations do not (yet, at least) have the ability to storm your house with heavily armed troops, kick in your door, throw you face down on the floor, tear apart your house, and shoot you dead if you so much as give any hint of resistance. So yes, government is more dangerous.
I'm sure Kim Dotcom will sleep better at night knowing the government, which is completely independent of corporate interests, will now be restricted in what it can do when it comes to online laws (at least in Canada).
This is an important decision for both Canada and the US. The current government has two bills (proposed laws) in front of Parliamentary committees this week where, over the consistent objections of the Canadian privacy community, they planned to _expand_ warrantless searches. And then this decision comes along - thank heavens - and our Supreme Court says that there has to be a subpoena, or a reasonable law, before the right to anonymity - get that, the right to anonymity!- can be overridden. The 'reasonable' law bit is a shot directed right at the current government. The Senate committee dealing with one of these bills has already said it will have to review their approval of the bill. No one thinks that the police won't have some kind of lawful access - but reasonable for us has always meant with judicial oversight, and transparency - and that there is accountability for making these requests for personal information. This decision is important for Canadians, because it pulls us back from the surveillance state our current government has been building.
At the minimum, it is going to make the True North a great place for Americans to host their data - we have the competitive advantage when it comes to privacy. If we are really lucky, it may remind the US about this fantastic document, something inspiring to the whole world, called the Bill of Rights, and which recent US governments have been happy to ignore. Perhaps your neighbour to the north can remind you of what you were always supposed to be about...
The idea of "deregulation" in terms of
established protocol is just as insane as seeking new interpretations.
For extreme circumstance such as child predators, dedicated warrant issuers or something of the like to expedite the process should be looked at (I'm sure a lot of retired judges would appreciate the potential opportunities).
I have a feeling a lot of this front story is a smoke screen to invoke emotion and deter from a bigger consideration.
Does this impact the future liasons within CSEC and the $2 billion dollar data structure being built?
So this helps out like, 15 people?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
More transparency into government and business would, I think, have a lot more benefits than incrementally regaining a little privacy.
This is a ruling I think we all wanted, that the release of traceable information related to a known customer IP is a breach of reasonable privacy. Reading further though in the above case, is to note that the ruling does not preclude evidence gathered in this way from being later used in court.
You see in Canada there is a prosecution plea of "In good faith" that can often allow bad evidence to be used in court under a judges discretion, or in the case where it is an appeal used in a later retrial.
The track record of political and religious systems has been a 99% extinction rate. The godless communist religion of political correctness is betting our species on its religious/political experiment. By supporting the experiment you are supporting the outcome. Sounds like a suicide cult to me. Do you hope to be reborn? That's what they're selling you. But you have to die first.