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.

Comments

But

[rossdee]

What if the company involved is in the USA

Re:But

[timrod]

Companies in the USA could use this as supplementary precedent if they ever get involved in a similar court case. International precedent gets used more often than you might think - for instance, I've heard they cited it in the case in Connecticut where they outlawed the death penalty. Part of the argument was that it had been outlawed at one point, but they cited European laws that outlaw the death penalty as well.

Re:But

[Desler]

They'll hand it over to the US government which will share it to its 5 Eyes buddy the Canadian government. No different than what the UK and the US governments due to get around domestic laws on surveillance.

Re:But

[Mashiki]

What if the company involved is in the USA

It means nothing. Because in Canada, you're still subject to the laws of Canada if you sell, offer, or deliver a product here. And in 99% of all cases, the company either operates here or operates through a subsidiary. If the ruling couldn't go against a company because they had no presence, it would go after those who are distributing the product.

Re:But

[Guspaz]

A US court can order a US company with a Canadian subsidiary to disclose information on a Canadian citizen, even if such disclosure would be a violation of Canadian law.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

A US court can order a US company with a Canadian subsidary to disclose information on a Canadian citizen but if the susidary was set up correctly there would be little to no information under the control of the American comapany and the Canadian subsidary would balk at handing it over in many circumstances because of privacy/etc/ laws here in Canada would trump a dumb desicion from an American judge.

If the companies are set up poorly ... the American parent company can be sued by Canadians and hit with large fines by provincial and/or federal laws and regulations. It makes little to no sense to hand over the information when proper seperation of companies make it easy enough to say "We don't have any information on Canadians in Canada"

Re:But

[rtb61]

A US court can order it but the Canadian subsidiary would be required under Canadian law to provide the parent company with that information to hand to the US court. All quite legal. Parent company sends the request with the court order to the subsidiary and the subsidiary refuses, citing the appropriate Canadian law. The US court then fruitlessly fumes because the US parent has obeyed the order and sought the information and can legally substantiate that, they were just unsuccessful in that endeavour, the government can in some circumstances force you to try but in reality regardless of anything claimed they can not force you to succeed, you just must just genuinely try to succeed.

What's lost in the rhetoric and internet rage

[stevez67]

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.

Re:What's lost in the rhetoric and internet rage

[sribe]

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.

Re:What's lost in the rhetoric and internet rage

[NatasRevol]

Don't forget hold you in jail indefinitely without a trial or even being able to examine the evidence against you.

Thank you Patriot Act. You're a real fucking patriot.

Re:What's lost in the rhetoric and internet rage

[sinij]

I understand and even agree with your point that data-mining by private companies is nearly as dangerous as when government is involved, but in this specific case what would the Big Data do with information that some dude uploaded bunch of pedobear content? Show him more targeted ads for hand lotion?

Rare privacy win, for Canadian citizen's

[m_number4]

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.

Re:Rare privacy win, for Canadian citizen's

[Mashiki]

What do you mean "rare?" The SCC regularly rules on the side of citizens. Note the striking down of a 30 year old section of the law regarding exigent circumstances. Also note the privacy commissioner regularly going after companies like Google and Facebook for violating the privacy rights of people here. Despite what people think, the courts have started fundamentally shifting back to the rights of the individual. This includes away from the government, business, and criminals. In the last 14 years especially away from the rights of criminals.

Great to see, eh?

[sasparillascott]

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.

Re:Maybe Not

[dskoll]

Does Canada have a real way to stop the government from breaking its own laws?

Well, yes. We have a constitution, so we can challenge laws that are passed by the government. And we have something called "democracy" and "the rule of law" which tend to curb the worst excesses.

Meaningless

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:Meaningless

[compro01]

Right, so law enforcement can twist that to any meaning they want.

At which point the judge crumples up their illegitimately obtained evidence and tosses it out, along with their case.

Privacy in Constitution and US Data Treaty

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Maybe Not

[Em Adespoton]

Actually, the biggest way Canada has to deal with lawbreakers is that we have more than two political parties, and they tend to break different laws, and the others gang up on the one who broke the laws (so you always have a majority punishing the lawbreaker).

Now for the bureaucratic level, not so much; but the privacy commissioner actually has a few teeth, and there's enough discord that if people are caught, they usually can't become repeat offenders.

Plus, the government is still accountable to the Governor General, who can suspend parliament if (s)he doesn't like how things are going. It's happened a few times, too.

The other bit is that because Canada has a significantly smaller population than the US, people still have some degree of a voice. Oh, and the provinces are answerable to the Federal government; Canada doesn't have independent states (this is both a blessing and a curse).

So in summary, people in Canada might be polite in general, but they turn into a lynch mob when their politicians step too far out of line. Voter turnout is significantly higher than in the USA.

Re:Maybe Not

[Em Adespoton]

If you committed a murder 3 months ago or 30 years ago, it won't matter. There's always someone dedicated to it. That's not even counting cold cases.

In Canada, ALL cases are cold cases...

Re:This ruling ....

[Mashiki]

There's no liberalism in the liberal party. And living in Ontario, it's a case of the big cities deciding "what big city projects they want us rural folks to pay for." Never mind that ontario has a per person debt higher than california.

In order to help you see what 10 years of liberal policies have brought us I give you this list:

- The EHealth scandal
- The slush fund scandal
- The lottery corp scandals
- The CancerCare scandal
- The MPAC scandal
- The Children's Aid scandal
- The hospital consultants scandal
- The Niagara Parks Commission scandal
- The tire tax
- The electronics tax
- The cheap beer surtax
- The hidden hydro tax
- The hidden gas tax
- The 'smart meter' tax
- The 'Eco' tax
- No reduction in HST despite $4.3 Billion from the feds
- The forcing of WSIB on all construction owners
- The staggering increase in the Sunshine List
- The failure at Caledonia
- Selling out to the teachers & civic unions
- The blatant Nanticoke lie
- The squandering of record revenues
- The nanny-state banning of nearly everything
- The public funding of sex-changes while de-listing eye exams phsyio & chiro
- The billion-dollar-per-year burden of Family Day
- The billion-dollar flip-flop on The Oakville gas plant
- Saddling rate-payers with billions in subsidies to Samsung & Ikea
- The Ombudsman/Auditor-General condemnations
- Turning Hydro into a luxury for the rich
- The by-election briberies
- The refusal to correct foreign ownership of our beer market
- The outrageous property assessments
- The stifling of private health services
- The illegal and unconstitutional secret G20 law
- The acceptance of garbage-striker extortion
- The harassing labour inspectors
- The idiotic preoccupation with homosexuality lessons for third-graders
- Dumping the blue box program onto small businesses
- Imposing blood alcohol rules that punish the innocent
- The $58 Million 'severance' to tax-collectors who didn't miss a single day's work
- Socialized daycare
- Canceling the 'mandatory' LHIN review & giving their CEO's$15000 raises
- The failure at Caledonia
- Sneaking tax-dollars into Liberals campaign team coffers
- Raising tuition & auto insurance to highest in Canada
- Sinking Ontario into Have-Not status.
- ORNGE
- Gas Plants
- Pan Am Games budget overruns
- Ontario Northland Railway
- OPG pension scandal and deficit

Re:Maybe Not

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to 1982... the BNA acts (only really named as such in 1867, later renamed the constitution act) were repatriated along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to produce the Canadian Constitution in 1982, (Constitution act 1982(Canada) / Canada Act 1982(UK)). If you're referring to the fact that Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada... note that is an entirely separate title for the same individual, than Queen of England...

The fact that they're not succeeding is what differentiates us from those south of the border. the fact that Harper has a very slim chance of re-election also makes him a bit scared to do anything too drastic at this point. Justin Trudeau is looking to be the front runner in the future. Being in Conservative Central (Alberta) I have no doubt that my next MP will be Conservative, but I hope for change in government we desperately need it.

Re:Think of the poor bureaucrats

[dryeo]

Already heard a cop bitching how much harder it'll make investigating child porn. As if he couldn't go to a judge and get a warrant when he has clear evidence, especially as this ruling also lowers the bar for getting a warrant.

Re:Maybe Not

[dryeo]

While Canada was set up to have a more powerful federal government then America due to us watching the American civil war, the Provinces do have some sovereignty, there are things the feds can't interfere with such as property rights and the Provinces each have their own representative of the Crown in the persons of the Lieutenant Governors who have to give royal assent to bills passed by the Provincial Legislatures before they actually become law.

Re:Maybe Not

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional appointment of Marc Nadon after his appointment was challenged by an Ontario lawyer.

The government has lost 5 opinions/or cases in front of the Supreme Court in the last few years.

Any more proof needed?

Re:This ruling ....

[Guspaz]

Looks like that's only allowed in a handful of provinces (including Ontario), not in the majority of the provinces or federal elections. It also seems a pretty useless option.