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."
None of this can be true, I was told no one had blackberries anymore. It's all lies lies I tell you
The Canadian government should just reach out the NSA. I'm sure they could provide the password. No warrant necessary.
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.
The practice of Israeli border-guards of demanding access to e-mail of some people wishing to cross into the country is rather disliked by /. and others.
But the worst, that a non-cooperation would result in there would be an interrogation and a flight back to whence you came from. To actually be arrested and prosecuted for a crime over such a refusal is new... Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the US, if the cops can convince a judge that they know the evidence is on your device (say, they saw you recording when a murder happened), then they can compel you to testify your knowledge of the crime.
If they want to go looking on your device for information to incriminate you, then that's compelling testimony against yourself, so it's forbidden.
The first case is, of course, subject to lying cops saying, "we saw kiddie porn on his screen when we broke in", which will happen (the way they plant drugs, shoot people and animals and lie about it, etc.). Then it's up to a non-corrupt judge to throw out such evidence based on the cops' lies. But if you're up to something illegal you have to weigh the contempt charge against the danger to yourself of disclosure, and if your password sucks or the judge and cops are corrupt, both.
Frustratingly, the USG claims that the rules for itself don't apply at the border - ostensibly it's operating outside the Law in those scenarios. What could SCOTUS really say about this? - they only judge the Law, not lawlessness.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
After hearing stories like these I'm surprised duress codes aren't being implemented more widely. Especially for a company like Blackberry, it seems this kind of feature might appeal to their demo who often need to cover up communications dealing in gross financial fraud and skeevy political arrangements.
To me, the owner of any electronic device that is password protected should not disclose the password to the device unless the authority has a warrant out for that person.
These are border guards. Technically you haven't entered the country, they don't need warrants to search anything. Now as someone pointed out they should have refused him entry not have him arrested.
The person in question is a Canadian citizen and cannot be denied reentry into Canada or sent back.
"He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
This story points to the clear need for edible phones. Imagine that as you are landing in some country with a lack of respect for civil liberties, you receive a text message warning you that your phone is about to be confiscated. What if you could simply eat your phone? Wouldn't that be ideal. Edible phones could be the next growth market for the tech industry. Message me for details on how to invest.
I work as a consultant for several hospitals. My laptop and my phone are encrypted and *may* contain confidential patient information. It would be a HIPAA violation and therefore against the law for me to unlock my device for ANYONE that has not been cleared under HIPAA guidelines to view such data. I would tell them in Canada or any other country including my own (US) very politely that it would be illegal for me to do so without a congressional court order, or the permission of all the hospitals I work for. They'd be better off asking the NSA to crack it...
You have the right to remain silent.
In which countries? And to what extent in each country? This incident occurred in Canada, and the notice you're alluding to is the "Miranda warning", which is in use in a country other than Canada.
Border guards demanded that she give them her password... They told her it was either not enter the country (and forfeit the deal) or give up her password. Her issue was that she was exposing privileged information to third parties who could, potentially, have illegally profited from the knowledge contained in that laptop.
At present, borders are dangerous legal limbo. This area needs deep oversight and clear paths for travellers to have recourse to constitutional rights.
*** Don't be dull.***
Good American citizens don't use passwords on their phones. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to object to people coming into your house and looking at your stuff. Or even seizing some of your stuff.
Similarly, in America, we do not object to the government monitoring all of our cell phone communications because we know that the government has our best interests in mind. And is it wrong for the US government to censor certain parts of the internet? Why shouldn't they?
Think of the children.
cannot be denied reentry into Canada
Ummm. See summary.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
In the US, if the cops can convince a judge that they know the evidence is on your device (say, they saw you recording when a murder happened), then they can compel you to testify your knowledge of the crime.
If they want to go looking on your device for information to incriminate you, then that's compelling testimony against yourself, so it's forbidden.
The first case is, of course, subject to lying cops saying, "we saw kiddie porn on his screen when we broke in", which will happen (the way they plant drugs, shoot people and animals and lie about it, etc.). Then it's up to a non-corrupt judge to throw out such evidence based on the cops' lies. But if you're up to something illegal you have to weigh the contempt charge against the danger to yourself of disclosure, and if your password sucks or the judge and cops are corrupt, both.
Frustratingly, the USG claims that the rules for itself don't apply at the border - ostensibly it's operating outside the Law in those scenarios. What could SCOTUS really say about this? - they only judge the Law, not lawlessness.
The case law is different and evolving at the border, but still within the law. The general rule is that search and seizure must be conducted pursuant to a lawful search warrant based upon probable cause.
However, the First Congress, which (more or less) drafted the constitution, also gave customs officers full authority to search ships for contraband without a warrant.
There's a line of cases going back to that which basically means that the sovereign has a right to control what enters the country, and that includes a right to search. There is a little pushback against that today--for example, you need reasonable suspicion in order to do a *destructive* search of a vehicle--but in general border guards are given a great deal of discretion to search you.
OK, that makes sense now. I was wondering who "Quebecker" was. I thought it might have been the name of a famous person.
"Nawtzees, not just in Germany anymore..."
What about the "I don't remember my password" defense?
If prompted to do this, I'd tell the wrong number and insist they're typing it in wrong. After they show me what they are typing, I'll remember that PIN was for something else and "remember" a new one. After 10 attempts, my device will wipe.
I keep a backup online and restoring is trivial once through customs.
I don't have anything criminal on my phone, but it is none of their business.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
s'okay... it kind of threw me off too, as I usually expect to see "Quebeçois" or similar to describe someone from the province... but maybe that's just me.
Stupid summary... :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
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.
If the only destination in Canada, that such a citizen is allowed to go to, is prison, I doubt, many would prefer that to the (hypothetical) alternative of flying back.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not the governments demands per se, but the total lack of resistance. Oh well, I guess the best way to deal with it is travel with a throwaway phone and computer, and email address, and fake facebook account. You gotta have one of those because people without facebook are all hiding something and are clearly terrorists.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's only Quebecois if you're speaking French. En anglais, it's Quebecker.
... smart devices should have two (2) pass codes.
One of the pass codes allows the owner in.
The other pass code BRICKS the goddam phone. That's the one we give the authorities.
Then, it's like, "Hey you bastards, what did you do to my phone? You owe me a phone!!!"
Until probable cause has been established and a search warrant issued, evidence does not exist.
Right now, I can choose to brick my phone. Ir's mine. I am not compelled by any retention laws to maintain an archive for future requests to examine the phone.
The phone will have to be backed up on the cloud, of course, but authorities don't know that's been done; they don't know where it's been done, and they will have to slow things down in order to get a search warrant.
During that window of opportunity, I am at liberty to delete cloud-based stuff until such time I am formally made aware, by warrant, that my junk is evidence by way of probable cause.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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
On my new Blackberry 10 Classic, I can hold down the power button and quickly lock the phone. Further use requires a password.
I've never been asked for a password, but I have been asked to turn on a machine... so I did so, and as soon as the guy saw the thing booting up, he said ok, I can go. He didn't look at anything on the desktop. He just wanted to make sure it was a real laptop I guess, and that there wasn't any "contraband" stuffed inside the case or something...
Why can he not? I'd certainly rather return to Dominican Republic
Unless he's a Dominican citizen, he can't just move to the Dominican Republic.
You're right about about the cedilla, only half right about the acute accents. To the language police it's: Québecois.
With their language use laws the language police in Québec also include the QPP (Quebec Provincial Police).
Interesting factoid: Tim Hortons is Canada's most popular coffee/donut fast food restaurant. It doesn't have an apostrophe. In Québec, an apostrophe would make it English, which would make it illegal (or at least illegal if the name was displayed bigger than the French equivalent). On their signs, they use a maple leaf instead of an apostrophe. The eye sees the apostrophe instead. (I'd call it a trompe l'oeill, which would be àpropos if not entirely accurate)
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
Sure its derogatory. Much the same as New Yorker or Scotsman. WTF?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Did you know that in America they can, and do, the exact same fucking thing?
You want to fix this? Take it up with the governments and corporations who make up the New World Order. The rest of society apparently doesn't get a vote on the topic.
Your rank and file Canadian has no more ability to do anything about this than your average American or Israeli.
But if your government is one of the ones doing this crap ... then shout about that first. And if you're cheering when your government does it to people from other countries .. then STFU and stop pretending to be superior.
Sadly, I fear governments, security, and borders are increasingly becoming more and more draconian and acting like police states. Which means most governments are being ran by assholes and shortsighted morons.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"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:
Well, in the US you do... if you are under arrest.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's only Quebecois if you're speaking French. En anglais, it's Quebecker.
Ah voilà un rosbif.
En français c'est Québécois. Ne pas oublier les accents svp.
it doesn't appear that he was actually charged with any crime prior to be asked to divulge his phone password. It seems to me that there needs to be some sort of "probable cause" here and it doesn't appear that there is. There could be a very dangerous precedent set if police officers or boarder patrol or whomever are allowed to conduct an unlawful search for no apparent reason.Papers, comrade.
" I'd certainly rather return to Dominican Republic, then go to Canadian prison (in winter!). "
Then you don't know very much about the DR. Once you leave the hotel compound, it's quite violent and corrupt.
Mostly random stuff.
Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?
If it were up to the University of California, we'd be boycotting ourselves!
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Maybe you just need a nice quiet place with no distractions (like an outside window) where you can remember.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
They are not trying to get physical evidence from him. They're trying to make him tell them the password. You have the right to remain silent.
Uh, you do realize you usually only hear these words right before handcuffs are being put on, right?
Enjoy your vacation. And legal fees.
They always say Freedom comes at a price. What they don't tell you is it will cost an innocent citizen thousands to keep it if you are ever put in a position to defend it.
Of course, you tend to get pissed when forced to defend your Freedom in situations where you are not legally required, or have been illegally pressured to do so.
Someone is still using a Blackberry phone?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
How can they force you to give information you don't have?
By confiscating your phone until your memory returns.
Yeah, that guy crying in the corner sucking his thumb mumbling about his social feeds...he's only been here eleven minutes.
Clearly it's pretty effective. Don't even need a jail cell.
"Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations"
You should've been anyways, the Canadian economy is tanking like mad> Correction, if you weren't an idiot, you'd be buying heavy in Canada right now, since the exchange rate and relative weakness in the Canadian economy makes for some sweet low hanging fruit.
Bye!
While it is written specifically for the US, the EFF article Defending Privacy at the U.S. Border: A Guide for Travelers Carrying Digital Devices nonetheless provides a good discussion of your options in cases like this. It also discusses the various ways you can prepare your devices and data for the situation.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Why would you rather return to the DR before going to a Canadian prison?
It's amazing to read articles like this and nobody on the government side is named, just agencies and some "spokesperson". Name them. Somebody arrested this guy, and somebody is trying to prosecute him. Everybody involved in this needs to be named and publicly shamed. They need to be in a situation where they go home at night and their wife says "hey, why is everybody we know calling and asking why you're prosecuting some guy for not turning over a password? Is that even illegal? Why is this so important?"
Quit letting scum bags hide behind anonymity.
Do you have ESP?
This. Rights are granted from "god" and exist in all people, unless a specific law allows the government to take them away in specific circumstances. The right to silence starts at conception/birth (depending where you live) and ends when you die. As a citizen you are not constrained in anything unless the law specifically says you are. On the other hand, the government starts with no rights and requires specific laws to give it specific rights and powers. It can do nothing without previous legal authority. Anyway that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. The US has perverted this beyond all recognition.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I just checked around the Internet, and I couldn't find a single example of this maple leaf apostrophe in the Tim Hortons logo. Every example I saw had no apostrophe, no maple leaf, just plain old Tim Hortons. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I've never seen this Tim Hortons sign you're referring to.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No one can compel you to talk. Oh they might throw you in jail anyway for "obstruction", etc, but you still don't have to talk. And if they claim obstruction they're going to have a hard time convincing a judge/jury that you are actually committing a crime. "We think he might have pornography on his phone" won't stand up in any sane court. Fishing expeditions are not allowed otherwise the entire population can (and will) be dragged in front of a judge in the name of job creation for law enforcement.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You: I maintain my right to be silent and will not unlock my iphone.
[noise]
Customer officer: Opps, I think you accidentally unlocked your iphone with your finger print.
You: .....
So, basically, you're proposing an elaborate technological version of mailing a key to your destination which will still ultimately result in the customs agent entering 'Suspect refused to surrender password' in the file.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
For our Canadian brothers and sisters up north this will be a very important case (hopefully the guy gets some serious lawyers for him as this will be precedent setting - i.e. whether you have privacy rights to the data on your phone).
At this point, internationally, seems like you really want a burner phone with the bare minimum of what you'll need only on that trip.
Yeah pretty sure even in Canada, there's some degree of due process. Now if the cop decided to be an ass, and say "I have a hunch there's anti-US Al Qaeda propaganda on this phone", you can kiss it goodbye. :X
Due process...hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...oh yeah, I remember now. We used to do that in the US too. Read about it in history class once. Supposedly we even have laws that guarantee it.
I wonder if anyone remembers that as we deal with the onslaught of law enforcement running around using a "hunch" as their justification for illegal search and seizure.
If Canada sent him back, it's a deportation. Deporting your own citizen is called "exile" and is illegal under modern treaties and international law. He'd be deported again to Canada when he got back to DR, as he likely wouldn't have the right to stay there permanently.
Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.
And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.
Learn to love Alaska
Just tell people in advance "if you don't assist us in inspecting your possessions, your possessions will be denied entry."
Whether that means confiscation or merely holding them for you until you leave the country is left as an exercise to the Canadian Parliament.
Because, as much as our current government wants to think so, there is no legal basis to deny a citizen re-entry.
Certainly not on a whim. Certainly not at the discretion of a border guard.
I suspect this is true in a lot of places, because the UN has rules about making people effectively stateless.
Governments would typically have to demonstrate a lot of things in order to say "this citizen can no longer come here" ... and they'd probably be stripping of you of citizenship to send you back to your country of birth.
A natural born Canadian citizen? Good luck trying to deny them entry to Canada.
The fact is, there is no legal precedent in Canada for this, and it comes from increasing government overreach and redefining policy without any court backing.
Border agents should require some level of suspicion or proof to do this, not arbitrary whim of an asshole with nothing better to do.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
They must suspect everyone, because every suitcase gets X-Rayed.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
What KIND of evidence are they looking for on the phones?
Suppose I unlock my phone so they can browse through my boring and completely legal photographs. Then, the customs officer comes across KeePass on my phone and asks me to unlock it. Since it contains passwords to EVERYTHING about my life, I would say "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!"
There should be no need for them to discover my passwords to other services.
Wendy's and McDonald's still do it:
http://i.imgur.com/XrHObuG.jpg
Tim Hortons used to.
Some older locations retain signage with the company's name including a possessive apostrophe, despite the fact that the official styling of the company's name has been Tim Hortons, without an apostrophe, for at least a decade.[16] The company had removed the apostrophe after signs using the apostrophe were interpreted by some to be breaking the language sign laws of the Province of Quebec in 1993. The removal of the apostrophe allowed the company to have one common sign image across Canada.
cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
No one can compel you to talk. Oh they might throw you in jail anyway for "obstruction", etc, but you still don't have to talk. And if they claim obstruction they're going to have a hard time convincing a judge/jury that you are actually committing a crime. "We think he might have pornography on his phone" won't stand up in any sane court. Fishing expeditions are not allowed otherwise the entire population can (and will) be dragged in front of a judge in the name of job creation for law enforcement.
Yes, and your silence will only cost you $10,000 in legal fees. To start.
This isn't really a matter of having the right to stay silent. It's more a matter of questioning whether you can afford to, and how confident your attorney feels those legal vehicles to do so will be upheld in a court of law.
We may have a Constitution and Amendments, but I wouldn't trust them to be enforced worth a shit today, putting a fine point in the real issue.
I guess I just can't draw a parallel between demanding that you open your trunk so that they can search your car for weapons or contraband and demanding that you give up a password for an electronic device so that they can search through your data ... for what exactly?
Hopefully the Canadian courts will see the light and put a stop to this insanity. Unless they are going to search all of the internet traffic coming across their border and inspect any package or shipment containing phones, tablets, computers, CDs, hard drives and USB drives, what possible reason could they have for examining an electronic device or any physical media being carried by a person?
It's time to start hacking our phone to have two accounts, one that you use, and one that is pretty much blank. When they ask you to unlock, it shows them the blank one. No information there, sorry. Same thing with laptops. Make sure that you're logged into the guest account when you pass security.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
More importantly to a Canadian, it's section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Of course, section 8 is the part about being secure from unreasonable search and seizure, which should prevent being asked to give up passwords at the border....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
Effectively they can by revoking citizenship, which they can do for security reasons. There has to be a hearing, of course; a customs officer can't do that unilaterally, but the end result can be Canadian citizens being denied entry into Canada.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
well.
I just checked around the Internet, and I couldn't find a single example of this maple leaf apostrophe in the Tim Hortons logo. Every example I saw had no apostrophe, no maple leaf, just plain old Tim Hortons. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I've never seen this Tim Hortons sign you're referring to.
My bad, It's Wendy's that uses the maple leaf not Tim Hortons. I confused the two as a result of their wedding and then divorce.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
yes, because it's in something the UN puts out, it's obviously legal and enforced in all member nations. The UN is not feckless at all.
Question: are you legally obliged to potentially incriminate yourself under Canadian law?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
There is no way to distinguish binary data from encrypted terrorism. A entire encrypted disk that asks for a password is clearly encrypted and the lawyers can have much fun deciding what this means but what if I have a few Gb of data from some obscure program on a dedicated logger partition. In this case there is no immediate way to prove that this is not encrypted (commie propaganda/terrorism/insider trading/worry of the day) data, this is not hypothetical - I am sure that it is done today. Does this mean that people are guilty until someone produces a app that can read a binary file? Even this is not the end of if because if I was a halfway cunning terrorist I would write a app that happily decodes my nefarious data as something innocuous. It will not be long before it is possible to have 2 or more passwords that decrypt into entirely different results - it might already happen but what will happen when this is common? It is the kind of thing that the legal system needs to be able to deal with.
1. You have the right to face your accuser.
2. A criminal complaint must be filed personally. A corporation does NOT have the right to file a criminal complaint. It may file on behalf of an individual, but for itself? No.
3. Ergo, the accuser MUST be named and willing to be PUBLICLY identified.
4. Criminal proceedings in a lawfully convened Court of Record MUST be held in Public. Justice not seen is justice not done. It must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. - William Blackstone.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
under international law, it is illegal for a country to render a person stateless.
i.e. it is (or can be) legal to revoke citizenship of someone with dual citizenship, but not to revoke it for someone who is a citizen of only one country.
(this is the loophole that the australian government is currently considering exploiting in order to punish australian citizens with dual citizenship who go to, e.g., syria to fight.)
I've never seen anyone write Québecois without the accent on the second e. It's Québécois in my dictionary, on Wikipedia, on the name of the Parti Québécois, you name it. Even typing Québecois in Google only shows stuff with Québécois instead, except for one site, written in English. I'd wager the anon poster is 100% right instead of half right...
It appears in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. Should a member state not abide by it, they can (amongst other things) be pressured by other states or kicked out of the UN, meaning they have far less clout when it comes to dealing with other countries, possibly massively hurting their economy. But you are free to complain about the UN as much as you want, seeing as you know so much about it.
what i got, is that
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp...
from what i understand, they've been condemning israel for like, 2 decades with very little to show for it, and their human rights council is partially composed of hypocrisy. ... they had a moment of silence for kim jong-il after his passing... wtf?