Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Warrantless Cellphone Searches
An anonymous reader writes In a surprising decision, a split Supreme Court of Canada ruled
this morning that police can search cellphones without a warrant
incident to an arrest. The majority established some conditions, but
ultimately ruled that it could navigate the privacy balance by
establishing some safeguards with the practice. Michael Geist notes
that a strongly worded dissent disagreed, emphasizing the privacy
implications of access to cellphones and the need for judicial
pre-authorization as the best method of addressing the privacy
implications. The U.S.
Supreme Court's June 2014 decision in Riley addressed similar
issues and ruled that a warrant is needed to search a phone.
Fearon was convicted of armed robbery in a 2009 Toronto jewelry heist. Despite finding the search of his phone wasn't reasonable and breached his rights, the Supreme Court said the search was done in good faith.
The court kept the evidence found in the phone — a photo of a gun and a draft text message referring to jewelry that said "We did it."
Excluding the evidence, the court found, would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system. The minority disagreed and would have excluded the evidence because it was unconstitutionally obtained.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I love the source document, but how about a TFA that summarizes what this is all about?
yaay! you made it! first post! One day when I work hard I'll be as successful as you.
A partial quote that summarizes the point clearly:
"The intensely personal and uniquely pervasive sphere of privacy in our personal computers requires protection that is clear, practical and effective. An overly complicated template, such as the one proposed by the majority, does not ensure sufficient protection. Only judicial pre-authorization can provide the effective and impartial balancing of the state’s law enforcement objectives with the privacy interests in our personal computers. Thus, I conclude that the police must obtain a warrant before they can search an arrested person’s phone or other personal digital communications device. "
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Another reason that you need to encrypt your device with strong encryption. This would at least make the police have to get a warrant before they can search your shit. Not actually a warrant for searching the phone but a court order, for you to refuse, to barf up the password.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
"look, we have the might to do what we want, and we WANT to invade your privacy. for power-mongers like us, this is what we live for and thrive on. its why we, as bullies-with-badges, got into this field! don't take our fun away. plus, well, THINKOFTHECHILDREN and BEAFRAIDOFTERRORISTS."
that's it, in a nutshell. the elephant in the room that no one wants to bring up.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
... while we are out and about and leave our smart phones at home?
This is bat-shit crazy.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
the nature and the extent of the search must be tailored to its purpose. In practice, this will mean that only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log will, generally, be available, although other searches may, in some circumstances, be justified.
The last bit (other searches may be justified) leaves enough wiggle-room for malicious police officers to invade privacy, but at least the principle of keeping police eyes away from data that has no direct connection to the immediate incident has been established.
I guess we now know who really calls the shots in Canada :-(
The supreme court upheld the decision of the appeals court of ontario, and in citing the decision of the appeals court they suggest the court "considered it particularly significant that the cell phone was not password-protected or otherwise locked, and suggested that it would not have been appropriate to search a locked phone without a warrant." However, in the decision the ruling dsagrees with the reasoning, saying that "leaving a cell phone without password protection cannot be said to constitute a waiver of the privacy interest in the vast web of digital information accessible through the phone, nor does it demonstrate a subjectively diminished expectation of privacy."
This supreme court decision doesn't directly address the issue of the passwords, which seems to suggest they still fundamentally agree with the outcome of the appeals court decision that searching a locked or password protected phone without a warrant would be problematic.
So, might as well just let the police rifle through all your shit on a regular basis to see if they can come up with a reason to arrest you. Why require a warrant to search documents or other personal property, if digital files are fair game? Nostalgia?
You would likely be able to make the argument that they have searched your home without a warrant if you were to use an e-mail client that only stores the header information and does not cache the content on the phone and also use e-mail servers at your home.
The phone is essentially the key to your home and just because they have a key to your home doesn't mean they can search it.
The only way to catch evil is with blanket surveillance policies, I applaud Canada's efforts...the US and Europe should follow suit, in my humble opinion.
I have come to understand that when courts refer to the "balance" between privacy and law enforcement or security, your privacy is about to get fucked in the ass.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Glad to see our northern neighbors have joined us in our efforts to keep the ends justifying the means. /sarcasm
Just another day in Paradise
The decision, and most of the media coverage so far, have (strangely) failed to point out the obvious: enable your password. Absent a warrant/court order, you are under no obligation to provide your password.
Canada under Harper just keeps getting it wrong time and time again.
nothing new we just call it different stuff? the playjury is out
Michigan state police are still forcibly searching cell phones during traffic stops, contrary to the SCOTUS ruling that a warrant was required.
As a Canadian, it depresses me to see your contempt towards Canadians. However, I will not paint other Americans in the same dim-wit, half-wit way that you have painted yourself...You sir are a small-minded twit and USA should be embarrassed to call you one of their own.
Our economies are tied to each other, and they both rise and fall with the value of crude oil...Not much difference between our two economies except that the Canadian economy weathered the financial crisis of 2009 better than the US economy because of tighter lending policies...
[b] Encrypt the whole device. [/b]
Use an App Lock and set passwords for each and every app on the device.
Use different passwords depending on the type of app if not a unique password for every app.
Refuse to unlock your device if (when) asked.
they do whatever Queen 2.0 says
The US Department of Homeland Security only needs to look in a mirror to find real terrorist.This is also applicable to Canada.
If the phone is locked the cannot force you to reveal the passcode. They will try saying it's ( input Cop /police / Layer speak ect.. ) but you can refuse it's one of the safeguards. Im from Montreal Canada.
This is disappointing, as I've always seen Canada as much more "progressive" with these types of issues. It smells of pressure from the US government, though (hm, I wonder!).
This will simply lead to more clever, dynamic and uncrackable encryption tactics. Making it even more difficult. So be it, I can spare the CPU cycles, my phones are getting more and more powerful. :-)
Very convenient for extraordinary rendition.
The cop said "Sorry" so everything was cool.
Now if the thug in question said "Sorry", they wouldn't have had the problem to begin with.
Eh?
Password protect your phone, then don't give them the password until they obtain a warrant. Done.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
U.S. legally better than Canada
Who'da thought!!
And what have you gained? They'll have the data anyway and now you'll be marked as a "troublemaker". Instead of a brush with the law you will be under surveillance forever. You can't win. Ever. Give it up.
it's called the Blackphone. For anyone who wants to keep others out of their phone...
Since for many users their smartphones are the interface to the Cloud and in some cases services are provided only through the Cloud, when permission is granted by the Supreme court to police officiers to search a phone, provided they document what they are doing, it may include going much further than the smartphone itself and it includes searching the web if someone has enable automatic login to web services. This decision from the Supreme court is flawn and very imprecise.
Achille Talon
Hop!
The U.S. might be better than Canada in this example; however, in the U.S. the legal system, due process, and rule of law are mostly just buzzwords with little actual meaning. Snowden's leaks continue to prove it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Fruity, with notes of jackboot. Oaky finish. I'm giving it about a 4/10. Suitable for getting drunk off, but little else.