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."

Comments

What is the point?

[hawguy]

Terabytes (Petabytes?) of encrypted data enters the country every day from across the world via the internet, yet Border Services thinks they need to inspect the data on everyone's phones?

I sincerely hope he wins the case.

Re:What is the point?

[Ami Ganguli]

The violation of privacy requires some reasonable counterbalancing objective. Inspecting physical goods has the reasonable objective of preventing smuggling. And it's reasonable that if you have something you really want to keep private (say you're a transvestite and don't want to come out), you'll leave the embarrassing material at home.

A phone or other electronic device, on the other hand, can contain all manner of private information. It's a much deeper invasion of privacy than just searching somebody's luggage. Deleting all that information just to be able to travel would constitute a considerable burden for most people.

The counterbalancing objective (I guess preventing the smuggling of child porn or something like that?) is much weaker. There are so many other ways of smuggling data that these inspections aren't likely to lead to any positive results.

So you have a much greater invasion of privacy vs. and a much weaker reasonable objective for needing to perform the search. I don't think the crown will win this, or at least I hope they won't.

Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens

[MatthewCCNA]

The person in question is a Canadian citizen and cannot be denied reentry into Canada or sent back.

Re:IANAL, but my answer would be no

[silas_moeckel]

They still should not be compelled to reveal the password. Even blanket immunity should not allow them to force you since it still might ruin your life or worse reasonably fear for your life and safety and ones close to you.

Re:Israel got a lot of heat for much lesser offens

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:IANAL, but my answer would be no

[Kjella]

IANAL, but my answer would be no

And probably just as important in this case is YJMV - Your Jurisdiction May Vary. The UK is fascist country where I know it's illegal, I wouldn't bring any device I wouldn't unlock - I'd just make sure it's clean and I can download what I want once inside the country. The US is a fairly safe country thanks to the fifth amendment. The rest of the world? Dunno. Don't really care to research it either. If I was doing anything naughty I'd send it online or even in the mail. At least then they can't refuse me entry or any of that shit.

Re: IANAL, but my answer would be no

[samkass]

New phone feature idea: a settable password which, when entered, instantly wipes the phone. (Throws away the encryption keys and shuts down.)