Canadian Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Warrantless Cellphone Searches

Blame Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-11 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative

The ruling also said that, even if the evidence was obtained through an improper search of the phone, it's still admissible.

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.

Re:Blame Canada! by fustakrakich · 2014-12-11 05:55 · Score: 1

Just goes to show that having more than two political factions in the government doesn't really make a difference. Don't expect anything until it is purged, and done so on a regular basis.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

The ruling also said that, even if the evidence was obtained through an improper search of the phone, it's still admissible.

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.
This ruling is a cowardly conceit to the End justifying the Means. It does so by completely ignoring that those means will be used for all manner of ends and not just when clearly right. I can go wander into a crowd and shoot a machine gun. If I happen to kill all drug dealing murderers, does that make it right? Of course not. This is basically the same thing. Shoot someone, see if they were wanted and then justify the blind shot since he was wanted. If he wasn't wanted? Don't mention it, lather rinse and repeat.
Evidence should be excluded, even if a bad guy gets away, because the cops need to follow the f-ing rules.
Basically, a bad guy got caught red handed because the cops broke the rules. Shows like 24, much less the real cops and prosecutors will never bring to trial the obviously innocent guy they arrested for clearly false reasons and expose themselves under that circumstance. They'll drop charges, offer a plea to time served and all sorts of other cons to make themselves look good.
24 never had Keifer Sutherland beats a guy we, the audience, knew was innocent. Never showed an innocent man, at age 25 in 2014, being beaten until he confessed to killing JFKennedy, sinking the Titanic and whatever story of the week needed a confession. They don't show that shit. The closest I've ever seen was "The Shield" (great show btw) where they did torture an "innocent" guy, but the guy was only innocent of the specific crime he was being tortured for - he was a murderous drug kingpin thug and not sympathetic on any other level.
Re:Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:26 · Score: 1

The ruling also said that, even if the evidence was obtained through an improper search of the phone, it's still admissible.
That is consistent with Canadian law on searches.
Unlike the USA, if you are illegally searched in Canada, the results of the illegal search might be admissible in court, provided that the illegal search doesn't "bring the administration of justice into disrepute":
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Re:Blame Canada! by Ravaldy · 2014-12-11 06:27 · Score: 1

Evidence should be excluded, even if a bad guy gets away, because the cops need to follow the f-ing rules
This is the part that will always make the justice system make exceptions over and over again. Remember, the bad guy isn't supposed to win. At least, that's what I learned watching television.
Re:Blame Canada! by neiras · 2014-12-11 06:27 · Score: 1

As a Canadian, I *want* to blame the USA for blazing the trail to idiotic ant-citizen laws and showing the old men who run our country how much they can screw with a lazy population with no fear of reprisals.
But it's our own fault for allowing this to happen.
So angry. The battle is engineering in the public interest versus government. We will have no victories in the halls of power, that much is clear.
Re:Blame Canada! by Mashiki · 2014-12-11 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative

This really isn't news. In Canada evidence that was obtained through an improper search can be admissible anyway, so this is pretty much going along with rulings since the 1960's, reaffirmed post-1982 ratification. The law itself was updated when C-46 was passed to reorganize and fix the Criminal Code itself bringing it in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Just remember though, on appeal that same evidence that was allowed can be tossed out. Or in some cases even added in if it wasn't included in the original case. This of course is why S.7 of the charter is worded so strongly, and over the last 15 years the majority of cases have disallowed said evidence improperly obtained to be allowed.
And this is also why the court stated in their ruling that it allows obtaining of such only via cellphones also long as there are proper notes kept. This means, the chain of evidence must be maintained, and why it's one of the key reasons that evidence gained under a improper search is thrown out. For those that don't know, we already allow "improper search" under the law--this is done via the RIDE program.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Blame Canada! by TheGratefulNet · 2014-12-11 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

except: in modern times, the bad and good guys have sort of switched roles!
I consider most authority figures to be bad-guys or soon-to-be bad guys. power corrupts. period! so much power today for authoritarians, its guaranteed they will turn bad. no doubt at all in my mind. and look what we have, today, in our 'law enforcement' word! just read the news for a few weeks and you'll get a sample of the topsy-turvey world we now live in.
"dont talk to cops" is a modern thing. it never used to be that way when I was growing up, but it sure as hell is a 'thing' now!
that's just one example of the 'new normal' we find ourselves in.
I really don't worry about terrorists or other boogeymen. but I do worry about thugs with deadly force and some random thing that would cause them to put MY LIFE at risk for some utter bullshit reason or power-trip.
I don't need protection from the so-called bad guys. I would, however, like protection against the so-called good guys. and that's what our body of laws USED TO BE ABOUT.
checks and balances are non-existant, now-adays.
(unless you're rich and powerful, of course).

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Blame Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-11 06:53 · Score: 2

Actually, there have been previous judgments that have also allowed evidence improperly obtained to be admitted, based on the court's interpretation of the Canadian Constitution provision of "bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is section 24:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
You can see a list of admitted and excluded evidence cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 24(2) on pages 25-26 of this pdf. In some cases, NOT admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Like most things Canadian, it's a compromise.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Blame Canada! by stephanruby · 2014-12-11 07:05 · Score: 2

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."
The guy should have just used SnapChat.
That's what robbers, who seek external validation from their friends, do nowadays after they rob jewelry stores or liquor stores.
I just can't believe SnapChat wasn't around in 2009.
Re:Blame Canada! by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-11 09:30 · Score: 1

And when you throw them in jail they post about their "living the good life" smoking pot and drinking $250 bottles of cognacon facebook. Of course, they haven't met up with this Canadian street gang yet.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Blame Canada! by Ravaldy · 2014-12-11 09:44 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm naïve because I live in Canada but I don't see it being as bad as you make it to be. I'll never be naïve enough to think authorities are only working for our best interest but I'm also not willing to believe in conspiracy theories built on propaganda.
The fact that Edward Snowden was allowed to reveal so many secrets tells me there is a lack of control on the authorities otherwise he would have been locked up and forgotten long time ago.
Re:Blame Canada! by dryeo · 2014-12-11 10:25 · Score: 1

The Conservatives have been appointing Supreme Court Justices long enough that now their appointees are the majority.
Originally voted in on a "change and transparency" platform, they've since showed the change is worse for the average Canadians civil rights and the transparency is for anyone not in the government.
Take appointing Supreme Court Justices, started out by at least getting Parliament somewhat involved in the act, the last appointee was done so quietly that I didn't even hear about the appointment until well after it happened and the governments attitude is that is none of the peoples business.
But hey, after inheriting a surplus and blowing it, running a deficit for 8 years and finally balancing the budget based on continuing high oil prices (they've put all our eggs in the oil basket, we don't need any manufacturing or to add value to our resources), instead of paying down the deficit, they'll do some tax breaks and go on about how being Conservative they're fiscally responsible, much like the guy who finally makes all he's payments so takes an expensive vacation on his credit card including extra unpaid time off of work

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Blame Canada! by dryeo · 2014-12-11 10:37 · Score: 1

How old are you? I was taught to not talk to cops somewhere around '67 or '68 when graduating kindergarten. This was a time when the counter-culture was starting to roll and the establishment was willing to do anything to break it and the cops as well as city hall declared full out war on "those weirdos" who wanted fundamental rights.
Things like the drug wars were really ramped up in that time, we were getting lots of political refugees from America with their ideology that forced them to leave the "land of the free" and the war on the (certain class of) people was again ramped up.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Blame Canada! by Maow · 2014-12-11 13:08 · Score: 2

This ruling is a cowardly conceit to the End justifying the Means.
Not really. Canada is not as absolutist as the USA.
For example, from Wikipedia on The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

At common law, all evidence, regardless of how it was obtained, can be submitted in a trial.[9] The US exclusionary rule excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the Bill of Rights. Canada has taken a middle ground, sometimes allowing for the exclusion of evidence, whenever its use threatens to bring the "administration of justice" into "disrepute."[1]
Re:Blame Canada! by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-12-12 18:12 · Score: 1

There is a big difference between a system of law and a system of justice in criminal matters. The former concentrates on precisely following codified rules and precedent; the latter seeks to convict the guilty, free the innocent, and be extremely reasonable with the accused who are not clearly guilty or not guilty (but who are apparently not innocent). Canadian criminal courts are not where you want to rely upon a technicality if you have committed a crime; this is one of many appeals cases where someone convicted on the totality of evidence failed to get the conviction quashed on a technicality. Very few people in Canada would consider what is known of the case would do anything other than convict and let the conviction stand, and most would be shocked if Fearon were set free because the police were not precisely perfect during a search incident to arrest.
The reason behind American evidence rules are not to "precisely follow the codified rules" for the rules' sake. It has a purely utilitarian purpose - it is supposed to be a powerful deterrent law enforcement from conducting illegal searches in hope that they will produce evidence that can be used to convict, by rendering such evidence useless.
Re:Blame Canada! by Agripa · 2014-12-18 13:18 · Score: 1

I can go wander into a crowd and shoot a machine gun. If I happen to kill all drug dealing murderers, does that make it right? Of course not.
Law enforcement shootouts often end up with the police shooting bystanders and they are covered by qualified immunity.

Eh? by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-12-11 05:48 · Score: 1

I love the source document, but how about a TFA that summarizes what this is all about?

Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:04 · Score: 1

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/supreme-courts-privacy-streak-comes-end-split-court-affirms-legality-warrantless-phone-searches-incident-arrest/

The dissent by schneidafunk · 2014-12-11 05:50 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:The dissent by Kkloe · 2014-12-11 06:11 · Score: 1

do they need a warrant to open your bag you are carrying or wallet?, or anything that can hold other things?, why should cellphones be different?
Re:The dissent by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:41 · Score: 1

Why do they need a warrant to search your car if you're driving around in it? Why do they need a warrant to search your house if you are there?
Re:The dissent by Obfuscant · 2014-12-11 08:46 · Score: 1

Why do they need a warrant to search your car if you're driving around in it?
Because it would be hard to argue that the area under your spare tire in the trunk is in your "immediate control" and thus subject to search based on your arrest. And even for areas that might be argued are under your immediate control, waiting to search until they have a warrant means there would be no "but you didn't have a warrant" defense at trial.
You might as well face it, if they arrest you in your car and impound it, they'll get the warrants they ask for.

Why do they need a warrant to search your house if you are there?
Fourth Amendment? Other than 1) what is in plain sight, or 2) within reach and might hide a weapon.
Re:The dissent by BitterOak · 2014-12-11 10:28 · Score: 1

do they need a warrant to open your bag you are carrying or wallet?, or anything that can hold other things?, why should cellphones be different?
Because you could have a weapon stored in the bag or even a large wallet that could be a danger to the arresting officer. If cellphones were larger and had the potential for secret compartments in which weapons or other dangerous materials could be stored, then I'd agree with your analogy and suggest that the physical devices could be searched as well. But there's no reason an officer should be able to search data stored on the device absent a warrant.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?

Re:Buggers by jwhyche · 2014-12-11 05:52 · Score: 2

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.

the tl;dr version by TheGratefulNet · 2014-12-11 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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."

So let's carry burner phones ... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-11 05:54 · Score: 1

... 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.

Re:So let's carry burner phones ... by geekmux · 2014-12-11 06:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

... while we are out and about and leave our smart phones at home?
This is bat-shit crazy.
30 years ago if you told someone that companies would work to place a GPS tracking unit on every single member of society, tracking every movement they make, along with every click, every URL, every music play, every phone call, every contact, in order to be sold over and over again...
...and that same society would welcome it with open arms...
...I'd probably be using the words "bat-shit crazy" too.
And yet, here we are, hundreds of millions of bat-shit crazy people walking around with these "smart" phones..
Re:So let's carry burner phones ... by TheGratefulNet · 2014-12-11 06:27 · Score: 1

for a long time, this IS what I did. I left mine at home and chose not to risk having my privacy invaded by thugs-with-badges.
any commercial phone that you buy, the thugs can connect a 'magic usb cable' to and get into your phone. the carriers and vendors all succumbed to the LEOs and allow this.
but - I've seen some diy arduino (very minimalist) phones using some off the shelf gsm modules. you could, very likely, be able to create one and make it so that if there is a 'tamper' trigger, it would delete all local data (or simply just not KEEP any local data, ever).
how much do you want to bet that if you did such a thing, they'd be so pissed off, they'd synthesize a fake reason to arrest you over it? maybe 'interfering with an investigation' or 'destruction of evidence' or some other bullshit. it would really piss them off and they would want to throw as much book at you as they could. but at least, they would not get the keys to your kingdom, so to speak.
way too much info is stored on phones, these days. I wonder if we should really reconsider this idea. the bad guys (with badges) are the enemy in the war on privacy and they have all the power they need to fuck you over, if they so choose. I'm really not sure I want to hand over all my personal data for, essentially, no reason at all.
maybe its time to get rid of the smart phone and go back to bone-stupid dumb phones.
the very idea of some low-IQ thug going thru my personal info on a fishing expo - such a thing could not be more against the very concept of a free society!
I know this is about canada, but we have seen countless examples of LEOs going thru your property without any valid legal reason other than 'they can get away with it'. this is NOT what the creators of our free society (and theirs) had in mind!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:So let's carry burner phones ... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-11 09:30 · Score: 1

I may have a partial answer:
I have a passcode on my phone. How about if when asked for the passcode, I tell them, "1111," and when they enter that code, it instantly bricks the phone?
THEN I can have a backup on the cloud and they can get a warrant for that because it's not on my person.
Whattya think?

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Re:So let's carry burner phones ... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-11 09:46 · Score: 1

I'm with you on this.
The part about, "destroying evidence," is dicey. Evidence only exists when probable cause exists.
For smart phones, recall the story about cops sharing nude photos?
While people may have been detained for some probable cause like theft, speeding, busted tail light, etc., nude selfies are not exhibits that could be submitted as evidence to support that kind of probable cause.
Appreciate that in America, if the police get a warrant to search your house for a stolen television set, they are not allowed to look in desk drawers or other places where a TV could not, reasonably, be stashed.
For me, these kinds of things apply to a smart phone. Unlike a wallet that could contain dope or a used condom (or whatever would be in support of the probable cause), smart phones contain very personal property.
It makes sense that no phone should be inspected without warrant and no parts of the phone should be viewed or duplicated that are not reasonably within the scope of the probable cause.
In any case, this is a huge problem for Canada and the opposition to the decision is going to have to step up and say, "There's an app for that," that wipes the phone instantly.
My first idea is to supply a passcode that initiates an instant brick.
Part of that app would be to maintain a back up of the phone to a secure, anonymous, cloud.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Some restrictions on powers by passwd · 2014-12-11 05:55 · Score: 1

There's one important restriction on this new police power: they're generally only allowed to look at recently-sent / received / drafted communications. FTFA:

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.

Re:Some restrictions on powers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:07 · Score: 1

How recent is recent?

Store on Home Servers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:04 · Score: 1

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.

"Balance" by flacco · 2014-12-11 06:12 · Score: 2

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.

Re:"Balance" by Maow · 2014-12-11 13:11 · Score: 1

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.
In a report on a previous ruling,

The Supreme Court of Canada says police need a search warrant to get information from Internet service providers about their subscribers’ identities when they are under investigation.

We Are Not Alone by dcw3 · 2014-12-11 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Condirmed by HannethCom · 2014-12-11 06:15 · Score: 1

HEIR HARPER!!!

Sorry, sorry, sorry. The supreme court appointed by Herr Fuhrer Harper calls the shots.

--
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.

Re:Simple: enable your password by ihtoit · 2014-12-11 06:20 · Score: 1

"Due to the stress I'm being put under, I HAVE FORGOTTEN THE PASSPHRASE."

Good luck with bruteforcing it.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel

Encryption NOW by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:30 · Score: 1

[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.

Re:Simple: enable your password by TheGratefulNet · 2014-12-11 06:40 · Score: 2

there's no brute-force needed.

the carriers and phone makers are all REQUIRED by calea (in the US) to have backdoors on anything that has a 'network' aspect to it.

plain and simple. they have magic usb cables that get into your phone. if you bought your phone (and not built it) then they have backdoors into it. this is pretty well known by geeks, is it not?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Cellphone search by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:42 · Score: 1

The US Department of Homeland Security only needs to look in a mirror to find real terrorist.This is also applicable to Canada.

Scramble it up by forrie · 2014-12-11 06:45 · Score: 1

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. :-)

Re:Scramble it up by dryeo · 2014-12-11 11:39 · Score: 1

We've had a right wing government that is really good friends with the American Republican Party for long enough that they've appointed the majority of the Supreme Court.
They believe that we should only have enough government to repress us and no more much like small government Americans.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re:Condirmed by grub · 2014-12-11 06:49 · Score: 1

Harper is the finest PM this country has had in years.
I hope he gets another majority next election, too. Trudeau Jr. would bankrupt the country,

--
Trolling is a art,

Password protect your phone by Macdude · 2014-12-11 06:55 · Score: 1

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

Re:Password protect your phone by vux984 · 2014-12-11 07:10 · Score: 1

Password protect your phone, then don't give them the password until they obtain a warrant. Done.
And there lies the rub. A 4 digit code is all but worthless to secure my private data. And a proper password makes the phone to inconvenient to actually use.
For the moment, I've got my phone protected by a passphrase and fingerprint (Samsung Galaxy S5) but I don't really like Androids implementation:
a) It won't fail over to passphrase only after x failed fingerprints. It should.
b) And after x (5?) failed fingerprints there is a 30 second lockout, and I can't even enter the passphrase without waiting, which is also extremely annoying.
c) I'd like finer control over where a passphrase is needed ...I'd like to be able to look at what movies are playing, make a local phone call, use google maps, take a picture, let the kids play games, etc without needing a passphrase,
And only need an unlock to get into pictures, emails, documents, and other things which I deem private.
And a fingerprint.. there's conflicting evidence whether I could be forced to provide it to unlock the phone.
In my case I'm mostly just worried about theives and lowlifes rather than law enforcement and the fingerprint is a good balance between convenience and security for that. But I'd like to have my legal privacy protected too... but a long passphrase is just too cumbersome to have to enter into a device repeatedly all day.
Re:Password protect your phone by LessThanObvious · 2014-12-11 07:42 · Score: 1

They have gadgets that just suck the data off your phone. My friend here in the US had one used on his during a traffic stop because the police know his history. They just plug it in suck down the data and don't say a word (before Riley). Encryption should work, but I don't think a screen lock is going to help much, though it doesn't hurt. The reality is the only %100 effective method is to never have anything incriminating on your phone EVER. GPS is a sticky wicket because your whereabouts could be recorded at a time when you couldn't know ahead of time that you were going to be involved in a criminal incident, a bar fight for example.
Re:Password protect your phone by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-12-11 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative

For rooted phones, the Cryptfs Password app (Or any terminal emulator app) can be used to change the device encryption password without changing the unlock password. The encryption password is only needed on bootup, so be sure you have a way to quickly shut the phone down (lockscreen widget, customized power button long-press, etc).

--
Not a sentence!
Re:Password protect your phone by TheGratefulNet · 2014-12-11 08:52 · Score: 1

you can't be serious, can you?
don't you realize that cops have magic usb cables to unlock data on any commercial phone sold in the world in the last 5+ yrs?
your little 'lock screen' gets laughed at. calea also laughs at your 'concept of privacy' that you THINK you have, but really don't.
one poster did have a semi-good idea: keep your phone turned off and locked in the trunk inside another item that is locked. if its on on you, its under a different catagory (if I understand correctly) and so the threshold of them just barging in is higher, for such things.
"no, I do not give consent to a search of my locked trunk."
that's all you say. of course, they will do what they want, but if there is a dash cam watching them and it happens to NOT go 'missing' later on, this will help you once you get to court.
remember: 'you may be able to beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride'. you cant fight with the guy there, but hopefully, you may have evidence that will help you later, once you are in public, inside the 'safety' of a courtroom.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Password protect your phone by xtal · 2014-12-11 09:33 · Score: 1

Actually, no.
If you have a proper password, the magic cables will not work on iOS. It doesn't take long to brute force a numeric 4 digit. It takes a lot longer if that gets complicated; of course, that's harder to use, too.
"I do not consent to any search of my vehicle or my person"
"Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
"I want to speak with an attorney"
Magic words. If police have probable cause they don't need to ask; use the magic words and it'll stay that way.

--
..don't panic
Re:Password protect your phone by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 11:28 · Score: 1

And there lies the rub. A 4 digit code is all but worthless to secure my private data. And a proper password makes the phone to inconvenient to actually use.
You're confusing the sort of password needed to resist offline cracking, versus the sort needed to protect a hardware device. A four digit code is slightly over 13 bits and so would be almost instantly cracked if used as an encryption key or otherwise subject to offline cracking. A four digit code used for security on a device with physical access is much stronger. If the device allows you to try 4 codes then times out for 30 seconds, it will take 1,250 minutes to access the device if someone keeps trying. Most likely there will be an even longer timeout before they've then and it becomes infeasible to break the security code. This requires the attacker not to have access to even a hashed version of the code (which should bit the case for a phone).
Re:Password protect your phone by Kernel+Kurtz · 2014-12-11 15:21 · Score: 1

It is unfortunate the ruling did not really address the concept of password protection whatsoever (ostensibly since it was not part of the facts in this case), though given that I'm assuming that part of the jurisprudence under appeal still holds.
That would be the same case, when it was in Ontario court;
[75] If the cellphone had been password protected or otherwise "locked" to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cellphone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/on...
The SCC in this ruling has now said you have no less right to privacy just because you don't password protect your phone, but totally sidestepped dealing with the real world implications of that. I expect this will be back before the court sooner rather than later.
Re:Password protect your phone by vux984 · 2014-12-12 08:17 · Score: 1

You're confusing the sort of password needed to resist offline cracking, versus the sort needed to protect a hardware device.
No. I am not.
A four digit code used for security on a device with physical access is much stronger. If the device allows you to try 4 codes then times out for 30 seconds, it will take 1,250 minutes to access the device if someone keeps trying.
Sure.
That assumes the attacker has no knowledge. Simple inspection of the screen is is often enough to guess which 4 digits are being used; due to dirt and fingerprints.
4 digits is also worthless to secure the device from onlookers. The guy behind me at the store. Or the table behind me at the bar. People at work, school, roomates, family members, any where that has video surveillance and catches me unlocking it. 4 digits ... even if they can't see clearly, its only 4 digits. Just getting one or 2 or an idea of the relative position drops the attack time dramatically into very feasible territory.

Re:Condirmed by x0ra · 2014-12-11 07:40 · Score: 1

Not really. The CCoRaF is not an overly exciting document, no unalienable rights, no guarantee to private property...

Where does searching the phone ends? by AchilleTalon · 2014-12-11 07:44 · Score: 1

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!

Re:Where does searching the phone ends? by Striek · 2014-12-11 09:05 · Score: 1

This was actually discussed in the dissenting opinion:

[132]
In short, the cell phone acts like a key or portal which can allow the user to access the full treasure trove of records and files that the owner has generated or used on any number of devices. It is not just the device itself and the information it has generated, but the gamut of (often intensely) personal data accessible via the device that gives rise to the significant and unique privacy interests in digital devices. The fact that a suspect may be carrying their house key at the time they are arrested does not justify the police using that key to enter the suspect’s home. In the same way, seizing the key to the user’s digital life should not justify a wholesale intrusion into that realm. Indeed, personal digital devices are becoming as ubiquitous as the house key. Increasingly large numbers of people carry such devices with them everywhere they go (be they cell phones, mobile computers, smart watches, smart glasses, or tablets).
Which then went on to mention that cellphones differ from most forms of evidence in that the may continue to generate evidence after initial siezure, can continue to generate data and/or evidence unknown to the owner, and may impact the privacy of third parties as well, unbeknownst to them.
Also - this is not a blanket inclusion of all cellphone searches incident to arrest. The majority opinion emphatically states that:

[79]
The law enforcement objectives served by searches incident to arrest will generally be most compelling in the course of the investigation of crimes that involve, for example, violence or threats of violence, or that in some other way put public safety at risk, such as the robbery in this case, or serious property offences that involve readily disposable property, or drug trafficking. Generally speaking, these types of crimes are most likely to justify some limited search of a cell phone incident to arrest, given the law enforcement objectives. Conversely, a search of a cell phone incident to arrest will generally not be justified in relation to minor offences (emphasis mine).

[83]
To summarize, police officers will not be justified in searching a cell phone or similar device incidental to every arrest. Rather, such a search will comply with s. 8 where:
(1) The arrest was lawful;
(2) The search is truly incidental to the arrest in that the police have a reason based on a valid law enforcement purpose to conduct the search, and that reason is objectively reasonable. The valid law enforcement purposes in this context are:
(a) Protecting the police, the accused, or the public;
(b) Preserving evidence; or
(c) Discovering evidence, including locating additional suspects, in situations in which the investigation will be stymied or significantly hampered absent the ability to promptly search the cell phone incident to arrest;
(3) The nature and the extent of the search are tailored to the purpose of the search; and
(4)The police take detailed notes of what they have examined on the device and how it was searched.
And places the onus on the Crown to prove it.
I actually find myself agreeing with this judgement - it seems to me, IMHO, to strike a reasonable balance between the right to privacy and common law principles of warrantless search incidental to arrest. What suspects used to carry on paper is now carried in cellphones, and the law allowing police powers to search papers for a specific purpose should apply also to cellphones, but only for the same purposes. I think this ruling accomplishes that goal.

--
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington

Re:Simple: enable your password by hankwang · 2014-12-11 07:53 · Score: 1

"the carriers and phone makers are all REQUIRED by calea (in the US) to have backdoors on anything that has a 'network' aspect to it."

Citation needed.

"they have magic usb cables that get into your phone"

I think I saw a website of a company that claims to have such a device, but I had the distinct impression that it mostly helps with booting into recovery mode (android phones); it will tell you which combo of power/volume up/down to press during boot. Some phones don't have a locked bootloader or have a bootloader that allows installing software to the "ROM" from the bootloader. (I've seen this on low-end Samsungs and the popular Clockworkmod bootloader for Cyanogenmod allows this).

For phones that are switched on, it will.check for usb debugging and mass storage access.

Essentially, it has collected the known procedures for rooting for a lot of phones. Guess what, a lot of phones cannot be rooted without either having unlocked the screen or wiping all user data.

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.

Canada might be officially worse...but by bussdriver · 2014-12-11 07:58 · Score: 1

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

Re:Canada is Monarchy by Punko · 2014-12-11 08:17 · Score: 1

According to our constitution Her Majesty is Queen of Canada in addition to Queen of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. So OUR queen is on OUR currency, thank you very much.

You don't need a rebellion to become independent.

--
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands

Re:Condirmed by compro01 · 2014-12-11 10:48 · Score: 1

As opposed to Harper who's been running up the debt (and was doing so before the economy fucked up) and is now taking an axe to everything useful in government and selling off crown assets to "balance" the budget.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

Re:Condirmed by dryeo · 2014-12-11 11:28 · Score: 1

Perhaps you will be preventatively arrested and thrown in jail as a potential terrorist.
And Harper is bankrupting the country. Inherited a surplus, complained loudly that the Liberals were paying the bills, proceeded to run a deficit for 8 years, finally balanced the budget based on high oil prices, declared that rather then actually paying off the bills, lets work less, perhaps take a vacation as those oil royalties will keep rolling in.
Do you really consider it to be fiscally responsible to see work getting rolled back to not pay your bills but to not save?

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Slashdot Mirror

Canadian Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Warrantless Cellphone Searches

62 of 105 comments (clear)