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

[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

[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: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.

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: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.

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