Slashdot Mirror
Quebecker Faces Jail For Not Giving Up Phone Password To Canadian Officials
wired_parrot writes Canadian customs officials have charged a 38-year old man with obstruction of justice after he refused to give up his Blackberry phone password [on arrival in Canada by plane from the Dominican Republic]. As this is a question that has not yet been litigated in Canadian courts, it may establish a legal precedent for future cases. From the article: [Law professor Rob] Currie says the issue of whether a traveller must reveal a password to an electronic device at the border hasn't been tested by a court.
"This is a question that has not been litigated in Canada, whether they can actually demand you to hand over your password to allow them to unlock the device," he said. "One thing for them to inspect it, another thing for them to compel you to help them."
The person in question is a Canadian citizen and cannot be denied reentry into Canada or sent back. I think it's the term 'Quebecker' (someone from Quebec) that is confusing people.
"He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
You're assuming that he's alluding to the fifth amendment, the Miranda warning is just a notification of it, but according to the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you have the right to remain silent in Canada as well. You also have the right to an attorney (counsel).
Not that it matters when you're in Customs. Your constitutional rights (mostly) don't apply in customs, in the US or Canada.
Two publications from the BCCLA (BC Civil Liberties Association) you may be interested in:
https://bccla.org/wp-content/u...
https://bccla.org/wp-content/u...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Obstruction of justice is typically things like bribing witnesses, which is specifically mentioned in the law. Not refusing to unlock oa locked cell-phone, which the courts have held requires a warrant in other circumstances.
From the information in the article, this sounds like an attempt to scare a citizen into doing something.
Attempts to widen this particular law to cover less serious crimes get rejected by the courts: the very first case on the subject inCanII says (emphasis added)
[19] Moreover, an assertion that the mere attempt by an accused to identify an informant is a crime, fails to take into account that the types of conduct which constitute obstruction of justice, even though not fully articulated in the Criminal Code, are relatively well and narrowly defined in the law, and must remain so narrowly defined in order to have certainty in the law. Offences against the administration of justice have always included such conduct as attempting to influence a jury or to threaten a witness, or publishing sensitive information when a matter is working its way through the justice system, a general category of conduct which lawyers sometimes call an infraction of the sub judice rule. I have been unable to find a single suggestion anywhere in the law that an accused cannot take steps to identify a police informant; the court should act with restraint in opening new classes of obstruction of justice. Although obstruction of justice is an evolving concept, its main tendency is to narrow the categories of conduct which may constitute a crime rather than to enlarge them: Sunday Times. Recent examples of the narrowing of the categories include the removal of scandalizing the court as a matter of contempt, Kopyto, and the striking down of the publication ban on bail hearings, White.
davecb@spamcop.net
yet Border Services thinks they need to inspect the data on everyone's phones?
No, not everyone's phones, just phones of people they suspect of something.
It's the same deal with inspecting the contents of suitcases. They don't inspect everyone's suitcases, just some of them.
"I don't know how it works in the US, but the Canadian government cannot refuse a Canadian citizen entry into the country. That's a very good thing."
The right to return is part of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
You should check with those organization's policies on the location/protection of information. You may find that you are not authorized by them to take that information out of the country, encrypted or not.
If you work for a company in the United States that does any kind of technical work, that company may have policies against your taking any of their IT equipment (and information) outside of the United States. Yes, even a cell phone, even to Canada. You might open them up to a violation of export control laws at a minimum.
Off the main topic but still of interest - even talking inside the borders of the US to a non-US person (a specific designation referring to a combination of non-citizenship, non-green card holder) about a technical subject can be a violation of export controls on technical information.
Wait until they pass bill C-51 behind our backs... It gets much worse.