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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
The article is implying that this still might be open for discussion in Canada.
Surprisingly enough, you don't have to give up your passwords to USA customs. Upon entering or returning to the USA, they can search your device and they can even confiscate it for a period of days or weeks. However, they can't yet force you to give up a password or encryption key at the border.
https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...
"If a border agent asks you to provide an account password or encryption passphrase ... you donâ(TM)t have to comply. Only a judge can force you to reveal information to the government"