back to article Top Canadian court: Cops need warrant to get names from ISPs

Canadian ISPs can no longer simply hand over customer information without a warrant after the country’s Supreme Court ruled that internet users were entitled to a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. The decision means that internet service providers can no longer disclose the names, addresses and phone numbers of their …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. corestore

    No-one is mentioning the elephant in the room here; why do ISPs routinely record the association between IP address and account details in any case?

    If you're privacy-minded, the surest defence against turning over data, with or without a warrant, is to make a point of *not keeping the data in the first place*. Keeping IP address allocation records should be turned off by default.

    My previous, excellent, ISP - bway.net - did that as a matter of policy, and proudly advertised the service as a pro-privacy feature; they called it AnonDSL. Given Snowden etc., it's only a matter of time before more and larger ISPs start doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. The market for privacy IS out there.

    1. CJ 5

      Maybe because they have to? Here in Holland telcos and ISPs are obliged to save meta data for 6-12 months for law enforcement and anti-terrorism purposes.

      1. corestore

        Sounds like telcos and ISPs in Holland should be putting certain strategic bits of infrastructure overseas, out of reach of Dutch law, if they have any interest in protecting privacy of customers.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      why do ISPs routinely record the association between IP address and account details in any case?

      Generally to identify trends and pick up on Advanced Persisten Threats. Secondly, don't forget that such log files can also be used to prove that the ISP was doing things *right*.

    3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      "why do ISPs routinely record the association between IP address and account details in any case?"

      It's tied into the billing and IP provisioning systems for all ISPs. This is a bigger issue as IPv4 becomes exhausted.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        alternative view courtesy of StateWatch...

        the ISPs have previously stated to ACPO that they need to retain data for about 5 minutes in order to complete the billing process, the metadata could then be archived to tape. Instead, ACPO Ltd went about 'suggesting' that stored years of quick-access to near real-time meta-data would be much more state-friendly. Most ISPs immediately complied.

        Eventually, ILETS - we now know from Snowden: led by NSA (under FBI cover of "Law Enforcement" - though Police were *excluded* from Cabinet Office meetings at the time) arranged the European Data Retention Directive, -- weirdly in open ILETS briefings at Standards Development Organisations the member states have been chided for the EU Police not actually seeming to use the Meta-Data -- leading to empty 'tables of use' in the EU reviews, allegedly.

        Germany has never got around to approving the EU Data Retention Directive, bogged down in Constitutional Court proceedings - and now the Court of Justice has ruled that the Directive is non-proportional. [http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf]

        Meanwhile lets look at Austria, referring to the widely publicised use of the ISP retained data for "anti-terrorism" The Austrian press reported (*) that there are plans to use the Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC ‘retained data’ databases not simply for ‘terrorism’ and ‘serious crime’ but also for minor crime and dealings in civil wrongs such as ‘file-sharing’; even allegedly for solving heated arguments in Online Forum Debates. such as here!

        The Austrian press, lawyers and counsellors felt that “Pressefreheit” is endangered, according to (*)[Die Presse, Vienna. article “Vorratsdaten: Raubkopierer statt Terroristen als Ziel”15th January 2010, Christian Pilnacek, Head of Criminal Procedure in the Ministry of Justice confirmed this information to Die Presse:"Die Ministeriumsbeamten sollen in der Sitzung sogar den Wunsch geäußert haben, die Daten zur Ausforschung von Personen einzusetzen, die Dritte über Internetforenbeiträge beleidigt haben." ORF-Redakteursrat und der Österreichische Journalistenclub befürchten, dass das Gesetz die Basis zur Ausforschung unbequemer Informanten sei und damit die Pressefreiheit gefährde. Ähnliche Befürchtungen äußerten Rechtsanwälte und Seelsorger. available at: http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/Internet/sicherheit/533166/Vorratsdaten_Raubkopierer-statt-Terroristen-als-Ziel?offset=75&page=3 ]

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: alternative view courtesy of StateWatch...

          "the ISPs have previously stated to ACPO that they need to retain data for about 5 minutes in order to complete the billing process, the metadata could then be archived to tape."

          Um...no. There's a whole system we use here wherein we log in to the ISP's network to register our devices. We assign devices by MAC address to the system so that we can select between dynamic IPs and static IPs (assigned by DHCP as well). This prevents people from just tossing unlimited numbers of devices naked to the modem and hoovering up IPs. It also allows the ISP to assign combinations of dynamic and static IPs to the same line.

          That's why they need to keep the IP --> device mapping around. It's literally integrated into how the entire infrastructure works.

          1. corestore

            Re: alternative view courtesy of StateWatch...

            Well how did bway.net get their AnonDSL service working?

            (I think they've changed ownership and systems a few times since then, so I have to refer you to archive.org - https://web.archive.org/web/20040321130622/http://www.bway.net/bway/dsl/anondsl.html )

            Obviously it's not very compatible with static IP addressing, but otherwise... yes you need to manage IP address allocation, but you don't need to keep a long-term log of what you've done!

  2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Stop

    No sympathy.

    Spencer had 441 still images and 112 videos on his Livewire shared folder. “What the images were portraying were disgusting, demeaning, depraved activities of child abuse of the worst order,” the Saskatchewan trial judge said in convicting Spencer. I find it very hard to sympathise with Spencer's worry that his 'right to privacy' had been violated, I have far more sympathy for the poor kids he was so happy to see having their childhood violated. That Canadian 'civil liberty' groups got involved in trying to help this paedo get his conviction overturned is truly worrying. They obviously just see setting such people free as the means justifying the end.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: No sympathy.

      There are two separate issues that the court seem to rightly have asserted : firstly that IN GENERAL the police, or anyone else, needs a warrant for such private information. That is the whole point of judicial oversight. The second point you appear to have overlooked is the court also ruled that in spite of this point, the evidence in this case stands.

      Overall this is a triumph of common sense.

      1. Vic

        Re: No sympathy.

        Overall this is a triumph of common sense.

        Yes - a rare gem.

        I am always very uneasy when Civil Liberties are used to protect someone I really don't want protected - but that's why they're liberties; they should be constitutionally protected, even for fuckwits we don't like.

        In this case, I think the Court got it bang on - both enshrinig the principle of needing a warrat in very explicit terms, and also ruling that the evidence was obtained whilst the Police had reason to believe they were acting legally, and so should be admitted. An excellent judgement on both counts.

        Vic.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Paul Crawford Re: No sympathy.

        "....The second point you appear to have overlooked is the court also ruled that in spite of this point, the evidence in this case stands....." Which avoid the fact the so-called 'civil liberties' groups were quite happy to chance Spencer going free, an outcome that was quite likely when they started supporting the case. It was only because the judge ruled the evidence could still stand that Spencer isn't out and enjoying himself courtesy of the handwringers.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Paul Crawford No sympathy.

          Why are they "so-called 'civil liberties' groups" and not just civil liberties groups?

          What is a real civil liberty group?

          Just curious on your take on this.

    2. intrigid

      Re: No sympathy.

      More disturbing in this story is the fact that the supreme court ruled in favor of the defendant while allowing the conviction of the defendant to stand.

      If this were a case of an axe murderer, where the police barged into his home without a warrant and happened to find the axe, the case would have been thrown out.

      The only reason the conviction stands in this case is because it was about child porn. It's a radioactive issue, and the justices simply caved to fears of a backlash against the court. They even implied as much in their statements.

      1. JoshOvki
        FAIL

        Re: No sympathy.

        I think a better analogy would be:

        "If this were a case of an axe murderer, where the police barged into his home without a warrant and happened to find the axe, in his hands, with the victim on the floor, the case would have not been thrown out.

      2. SoaG

        Re: No sympathy.

        The conviction stands because the specifics of the case didn't match what was being argued and the online laws aren't as well written as their equivalent meatspace laws (which have been refined by a couple centuries of Common Law precedents)

        The police thought they didn't need a warrant to search a folder shared publicly on the internet.

        That sounds reasonable to me. To use your analogy, they wouldn't need a warrant if I left an axe embedded in a body on my front lawn.

        The court decided they should have had got a warrant anyway. I think that's more restrictive than necessary in this specific case where there's clear probable cause and the evidence is public. The current law for online searches is written more broadly than this case, however, so this is far preferable than not having adequate constraints for searches.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No sympathy.

        @intrigid,

        The court viewed it like this:

        1) The police thought they were in the confines of the law. If they knew they needed the search warrant, they would have asked for one and one would have been granted anyway and thus the same search and seizure would have transpired.

        2) Going forward, the police now know they need a search warrant and case precedent has been set.

        If the court overturned the conviction, how long before he would have been picked up for doing the same thing again?

      4. Alan Edwards

        Re: No sympathy.

        > If this were a case of an axe murderer, where the police barged into his home without a

        > warrant and happened to find the axe, the case would have been thrown out.

        And quite rightly, but that's not what happened here.

        The police had evidence of the IP address being used to download child porn and went to the ISP to get a name and address for that IP address. They should have got a (search?) warrant at that point, but it wasn't established in law that they needed to. They would have got one if they had asked.

        That's different from the police forcing their way into a house without a warrant and happening to find the axe that was used to kill someone. Unless someone had reported a bloody axe being carried into the house or something, there would be no search warrant issued so evidence from the search should be excluded.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No sympathy.

      Matt:

      Daily Mail forums that way>>>>>>>

      They are not asking for his conviction to be over turned, but mealy the police can't just rock up and ask for info and the ISP just happily hand it over. You give this over to freely and the potential for a cock up goes through the roof. And when you on about messing up and giving out the wrong information take these as an example of what happens when peoples primitive "what about the children" mentality takes over.

      http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/01/10555914-mother-boy-admit-killing-man-they-thought-was-pedophile?lite

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514945/Vigilante-murderer-killed-Bijan-Ebrahimi-mistaking-paedophile-jailed.html

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Lost all clues Re: No sympathy.

        "......They are not asking for his conviction to be over turned, but mealy the police can't just rock up and ask for info and the ISP just happily hand it over...." Wrong, they were actively helping Spencer appeal against his conviction. Also please note the judge did not say what the Police did was illegal or not the accepted practice.

    4. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: No sympathy.

      So in a nutshell your argument is if someone is in favour of search warrants and the rule of law to obtain evidence then they're in favour of paedos.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Dan 55 Re: No sympathy.

        ".....your argument is if someone is in favour of search warrants and the rule of law...." Firstly, as the judge made clear, what the coppers in this case did WAS completely legal. What I object to is so-called 'civil liberties' helping convicted criminals trying to overturn their convictions on a technicality. They could have raised the issue of warrants by campaigning in many other ways but instead they think it's fine to return someone like Spencer to the streets.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Makes a nice change

          to see commentards spelling 'paedos' properly. One wonders if they're loosing the plot!

          Personally, I prefer the Law to be fair and consistent. Better, in cases of incontrovertible guilt, for the community to 'deal with the problem', than the Law be obviously in the wrong. The Law should be as impartial as mathematics. And the community should be willing to itself be prosecuted. If you don't believe in something enough to do time for it, don't wish corrupt Law to do it for you.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Makes a nice change

            And if you don't - as I don't - believe in objectivity of those who make and enforce the law? If you don't agree with most of the laws on the books or the rationale behind how new ones are made?

            I was never given a choice to follow laws or not. I never swore an oath of allegiance to Canada, nor did I swear to follow her laws or obey her law enforcement. Men with guns threaten me with violence unless I comply. The alternatives are incarceration or death.

            I don't believe in these laws enough to do time for them, or to not do time for them. Where does that put me in your black-and-white view of the universe?

        2. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Dan 55 No sympathy.

          @Bryant: No, as the judge made clear, what "the coppers in this case did" was not legal, however the evidence was admitted because the police honestly thought they were acting legally and their actions did not bring the justice system into disrepute. If the evidence were to have been thrown out then that would bring the justice system into disrepute.

          In the future the police need to ask for a court order to obtain the data because PIPEDA wasn't very clear about this and the court ruling clarified it. Civil liberties organisations were campaigning against the police using PIPEDA as an excuse for not asking for a court order, they weren't campaigning for Spencer's aquittal.

    5. Old Handle

      Re: No sympathy.

      That Canadian 'civil liberty' groups got involved in trying to help this paedo get his conviction overturned is truly worrying.

      I'm more worried that the evidence was NOT excluded, even though the court agreed it was obtained unconstitutionally. Since it's unthinkable that the actual police who made this mistake will be punished, letting him go may be the best way to ensure privacy is taken more seriously in the future.

      They obviously just see setting such people free as the means justifying the end.

      Uh, no. Protecting privacy is the end. Appealing cases of privacy violation whether the defendant is likable or not is the means. Setting the precedent is the important thing, not the individual case. CCLA regards this as a victory even though they didn't get the defendant off. Though I would imagine they share some of my concern that this outcome reflects a degree of wishy-washiness on the part of the court.

      Oh, and by the way, Matt, you seem not to even know what the case is about. They are not trying to overturn a conviction. The state is trying to overturn an acquittal.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No sympathy.

        I'm more worried that the evidence was NOT excluded, even though the court agreed it was obtained unconstitutionally. Since it's unthinkable that the actual police who made this mistake will be punished, letting him go may be the best way to ensure privacy is taken more seriously in the future.

        I read this differently. The court appears to have recognised that guidance was not entirely clear, which creates the argument why they let the conviction stand. The rest of their statement amounts to a clarification, which corrects the original problem and will prevent a repeat. Personally, I find that a refreshingly balanced and sensible approach.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Old Handle Re: No sympathy.

        "....you seem not to even know what the case is about...." The evidence was found on Spencer's computer, he was tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of his peers. In your rush to approve the handwringers you may have missed the bit where I posted the details of the evidence found on Spencer's PC. Then again, your moral blinkers probably allowed you to gloss right over that.

        1. Old Handle

          Re: Old Handle No sympathy.

          The evidence was found on Spencer's computer, he was tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of his peers.

          Alright it seems there are two separate charges. He was convicted of possession and acquitted of the more serious distribution charge. Each side wants reverse part of that. Oh, and there was no jury. So you're still wrong. But, I admit, less wrong than I first thought.

    6. Chris Parsons

      Re: No sympathy.

      If you've nothing to hide....

      Yeah, right!

  3. Nigel 11

    As to bullying ...

    With respect to cyber-bullying, what's the problem? The police have a complainant who is being bullied, and an internet service provider who can tell them where the bully is. They'll just have to get a warrant for that disclosure in future. Is it being suggested that a warrant would not be granted in these circumstances?

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: As to bullying ...

      Warrants take to long is the complaint.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: As to bullying ...

        "Warrants take to long is the complaint."

        ...too... ;-)

        There are simple IT-based solutions to solve the administrative inefficiencies. Trivial, plus enabling legislation.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: As to bullying ...

          Nope. Wrong. Canadian judges don't like e-warrants. That's because cops can't be trusted to be on the level. So the judges want to have actual communication with the cops to make sure they aren't trying to pull a fast one.

          Damn, it's a bitch when your judiciary cares more about the people's rights than the swift application of almighty justice, eh? Stupid peasants should know they're all guilty, it's just a matter of finding out what they're guilty of!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: As to bullying ...

            "Nope. Wrong. Canadian judges don't like e-warrants. That's because cops can't be trusted to be on the level. So the judges want to have actual communication with the cops to make sure they aren't trying to pull a fast one."

            Good on them.

            I bet this problem could be alleviated with a swift and hard case of some cop mucking about and having his life ruined as a result. Say losing his job and a 6 month jail sentence. Setting that as a precedent for playing fast and loose with warrants should make e-warrants more trustworthy no?

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: As to bullying ...

              Canadian cops rarely "go to jail" for screwing up. Suspension with pay is more frequent, along with retraining. It's very - very - hard to get a Canadian cop canned.

  4. Uncle Ron

    Huh?

    Does Canada have a "constitution?"

    1. Irony Deficient

      Re: Huh?

      Uncle Ron, yes, Canada has a constitution. Some of it exists in unwritten form.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Huh?

      Yes it got one in 1867 and then got updated in 1982 and now has a charter of rights and freedoms.

      But since it is generally America's bitch and currently ruled by a facist junta there it doesn't get a lot of use.

      1. Kumar2012

        Re: Huh?

        'Facist junta'? Did I miss the memo on where to get my brown shirt and goosestepping lessons? You whiny leftists in your momma's basements sure do get all melodramatic when things don't go your way huh? Why don't you come to Ontario its a leftist paradise, we have corrupt leftist politicians spending and stealing us into Detroit status, and a populace who are too stupid to know better and so keep voting them back in to power, you will love it here.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Huh?

          "Why don't you come to Ontario its a leftist paradise"

          What the fuck are you on about? Next to south buttfuck Alberta, Ontario is the most conservative place in Canada. They've had conservative Premiers for bloody ages and elect a heck of a lot of conservative MPs.

          Maybe you should move to America. It sounds more your style...or, are they to "leftist" for you? Maybe you prefer Australia? Or do you need an out-and-out Christian Theocracy?

          Why the hell are you even in my country? You're screwing up the place for actual humans.

          1. Kumar2012
            Facepalm

            Re: Huh?

            My mistake Ontario must be a bastion of conservatism, since I must have just been dreaming when I saw the wonderfully well informed citizens of this province last week returned to power one of the most corrupt and ineffective left-wing governments we have ever had for at least another 4 years, that is after they spent the last 10 stealing and squandering our money. BTW if all us producers were to leave who would you bilk to pay for all that spending I wonder…

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: Huh?

              The Tories are the ones who have consistently fucked that province. Everyone else has to spend a great deal of time cleaning up their mess.

              As for you leaving, please, do go. You aren't needed, or wanted. There are plenty of sane Canadians making good money who actually don't have a problem paying taxes because we appreciate what we get in return. There's a nation just south of you that is far more conservative than Canada will ever be. Go live there. If you're such a "producer", they'll welcome you with open arms.

              Oddly enough, I find most conservatives aren't much in the way of "producers" anyways. They're typically either outrageously wealthy (and that ain't that many people) or they are outrageously poor. (Lack of education makes it impossible for them to realize how screwed up the party they vote for is.) There aren't a hell of a lot of mid-wage conservatives, at least not in this country.

              The "producers" in Canada tend to be very centrist. The country more or less runs fine, we want it to keep running as it is. We'd really like it if the Tories didn't spend all their time trying to destroy our civil liberties, and we'd like it if the NDP would wake the fuck up and build some goddamned nuke plants.

              Here's a deal for you: let's go get proportional representation passed in this country. That way each vote counts equally. Then, if our country really is made up of a bunch of overburdened conservative "producers" being taken advantage of by a vast leftist conspiracy you can turn the tables on us nefarious no goodniks and banish us into the ocean.

              Oh, suddenly you're not so interested? You're afraid of proportional representation? Whyever would that be? Hmm?

    3. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Huh?

      Canada has not just a Constitution, but also a very lovely Her Majesty the Queen; the ultimate back-up plan to the risks of mass insanity inherent in a democracy. If we didn't have a monarchy, then we'd have to invent it.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Huh?

        Actually, Canada may be ruled by a fascist junta - and yes, we really are - but the judiciary takes no end of pleasure in striking down pretty much everything the junta gets up to. You might even call it glee.

        The powers that be in this country are under the microscope for some very serious corruption and other no-no abuses of power. The mounties are eager to make arrests and the judges would like nothing better than the be known as the judge who put the Prime Minister in jail.

        That's entirely understandable, because most of our country (I.E. those who are not the 30% of absolutely stalwart, slanted-forehead, would-vote-for-a-pig-if-it-was-painted-blue conservatives,) would pay absolutely incomprehensible amounts of money to be able to pop the sonofabitch right in the nose.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Huh?

          A national lottery with the prize the chance to Hunt Harper - could clear the national debt!

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Huh?

            I'm in!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just an administrative task

    Yes the cops will need to get a warrant and with probable cause they should and will get it. It just means more administrative work to convict perps - which all of society ends up paying for. As long as the crims go to prison, it doesn't matter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just an administrative task

      It just means more administrative work to convict perps - which all of society ends up paying for.

      You clearly have no idea why checks and balances were developed in the system, but it may be educational to see what is happening in the US where they have been all but eroded. The idea is that your rights only get affected if there is really a reason for it, not because an official happens to be mates with a journalist looking for a juicy story (look up "News of the World scandal" and "Leveson enquiry", and that's in comparison with the rest of the world almost benign).

    2. Old Handle
      Stop

      Re: Just an administrative task

      Yes the prosecutors will need to get a conviction and with proof beyond a reasonable doubt they should and will get it. It just means more administrative work to imprison perps - which all of society ends up paying for. As long as the crims go to prison, it doesn't matter.

      Trials are such a waste of time, right?

  6. mIRCat
    Big Brother

    It's for your own good.

    "We will keep Canadians safe,” he said.

    Whether they want it or not. Sounds like a proper Big Brother.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: mIRCat Re: It's for your own good.

      "....Whether they want it or not. Sounds like a proper Big Brother." So you would prefer paedos don't get caught?

      1. Nigel 11

        Re: mIRCat It's for your own good.

        So you would prefer paedos don't get caught

        If that is the price of maintaining one's right to privacy, of not living in a goldfish bowl where the powerful can find out everything about the rest of us without us knowing until they use what they know against us ... then YES.

        In practice once they know that an illegal image has been downloaded, that'll be all the justification they need for a warrant to find out who downloaded it. So what you are arguing, is that they should have warrantless acess to a massive database of everything that everyone has ever browsed, so (official reason) they can go trawling for criminals. Do you really believe that is all they will ever go looking for?

        Oh yes, the security services already have this access. (Snowdon disclosures). Today, they have to keep that access secret and can't use it except within a fairly narrow "state security" remit. They're well down the slippery slope, though. I fear that Orwell's 1984 is coming true, just 30-40 years later than he thought. (To say nothing of the Vingean nightmare of a society pushed over the edge of chaos by omnipresent surveillance, crashing back to the dark ages if not the stone age).

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Nigel aged 11 Re: mIRCat It's for your own good.

          ".....once they know that an illegal image has been downloaded...." And how will they know that when handwringing sheeple like you won't even let them look?

          ".....they should have warrantless acess to a massive database of everything that everyone has ever browsed...." Of course, because they have unlimited storage space, right? It is very obvious you haven't a clue as to the practical issues of trying to even store a fraction of the Internet traffic for few weeks, let a lone 'forever'.

          Your post can be summarised as 'baaaah, baaaah, I want to baaaah-lieve'.

      2. Old Handle

        Re: mIRCat It's for your own good.

        So you would prefer paedos don't get caught?

        Oh quit it with that politically correct BS, you know that's not what this is about, and you aren't fooling anyone.

        1. JustWondering

          Re: mIRCat It's for your own good.

          Our government's last effort on this file, "The Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act", mentioned neither children nor internet predators anywhere but in the title.

          And just for the record, the Justice Minister behind that one who was embarrassed by Anonymous and VikiLeaks because of his inability to keep his pants on has just been appointed a judge by the PM he served.

      3. mIRCat
        Facepalm

        Re: mIRCat It's for your own good.

        "So you would prefer paedos don't get caught?" - Matt Bryant

        Where the bloody hell did you read that? My fear would be that in their zeal to catch predators like this and other criminals the police would cut administrative corners that could result in a miscarriage of justice. Luckily these judges, as others have stated, showed common sense and upheld the verdict against this man while saying the police need to request a warrant. Which seems like a small inconvenience if it means that the case doesn't get thrown out on a technicality.

        My original comment was only referring to when Mr Dechert started with “we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals who work against and make our children and all Canadians unsafe." Which I hope we can all agree with. Then went just a little bit further saying, "We will keep Canadians safe”.

        I guess it all is a matter of context, Matt.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now they need to have a good case

    before asking the court for warrants. That way less miscarriage of justice will happen. Fewer unnecessary arrests. Fewer payouts from the government to people who was put in jail due to miscarriage of justice. Better privacy. Everyone wins.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    E-Warrants and such

    I don't quite understand why the government hasn't passed the enabling legislation and then hired a teenager to bang out an online e-Warrant app. Constable Bloggins fills out a form on his smartphone, hits Submit. Server looks up the next Judge on standby, and forwards it along. Judge Beak extracts his buzzing smartphone, opens the form, reviews it, maybe makes a quick call, and then enters his or her password, and clicks Approved or Rejected. Ten minutes tops.

    There is no Earthly reason why this could not be implemented. Except incompetence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: E-Warrants and such

      then hired a teenager to bang out an online e-Warrant app

      Given the quality standards you appear to apply, your answered your question yourself. Computer enabling judicial processes is happening in practically every country, but you may want to consider the fact that such facilities must be protected to prevent unauthorised use.

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: E-Warrants and such

      Actually, there are standards. I.E. that our judges actually give a bent fuck about Canadians, our constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They do, in fact, want to look a cop in the eye and see if he's full of shit, or at least hear the voice on the phone and make sure they're on the level.

      It isn't just "fill out the form, receive bacon." That's not how it works. If you want a warrant you have to convince a judge to give you one. That is done on balance of the evidence and whether or not the judge believes you're on a fishing expedition. In a lot of cases, you can get a warrant even on really thin evidence if you know the judge and he trusts you not be fishing.

      As a cop, you have sources, you know the guy is guilty...you just can't reveal everything because you have to protect a source, would have to spend hours explaining several years of circumstantial evidence, etc.

      In some cases, you have mountains of evidence, but you actually are fishing, because it's all circumstantial and kinda flimsy...and the judge isn't sure that you're on the level (or the right trail) with it all.

      Americans would just automate away, because they give no fucks about the rights of their citizens. I think Canadian judges would have a huge problem with that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: E-Warrants and such

        There's not actually a great deal of 'Added Value' in having a cumbersome administrative process for such small scale processes. Perhaps it should be clarified that such near-instant e-Warrants would only apply to minor e-searches of e-data. If the police (for example) wish to bash down the gates of a monastery and surgically remove everyone's kidneys for inspection, then they'd have to fill out a different form and appear in person before the Beak to explain themselves.

        Also, there could be a monthly review meeting, after the fact, to make sure that the Beaks are happy with the way the e-Warrant system is being used. If they have a few complaints against the police, based on what was, or was not, found during the subsequent search, or complaints, then the Beaks could impose corrective measures.

        It's a process. It can do whatever you want. If there's a requirement that it be f-fast, then it shall be f-fast. If it shall be fair and balanced, then it can be that too; simultaneously with f-fast. There's no likely any inherent reason why a newly defined process cannot meet all requirements. Slow .NE. fair and balanced.

        If I were King, heads would roll if this wasn't sorted out by next Thursday. Including judicial approval of the entire system.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: E-Warrants and such

          If you were king, and that was your approach to privacy, I'd seize your throne by right of combat. You're fucking loony tunes.

          Privacy doesn't end because computers are involved. That you seem to think a lower standard should apply "because internet" is fucking appalling. End of.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: E-Warrants and such

            Trevor Pott calling AC "loony tunes"? That's a ROTFLMAO.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: E-Warrants and such

        fill out the form, receive bacon

        You need a form for bacon?

        /confused :)

  9. DanceMan

    There have been calls long before this judgement for the Conservatives to split the bill before Parliament and remove the privacy evisceration from the cyberbullying provisions. However these have come not only from the opposition but from experts. Harper's Conservatives are contemptuous of experts, since they already know everything via belief.

  10. velocomputer

    Isn't this in line with the recent ECHR ruling, deprecating the existing data retention regime in Europe and also the lack of oversight of access to the retained data?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    e-Warrants and naivity

    Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is emailing scanned pdf files around. So the step to an online database system is tiny and INEVITABLE.

    All possible objections can be listed on the Requirements document and fully addressed by the coder drone. Read that again and again until it sinks in.

    Objecting to present or future e-Warrants is like objecting to gravity. Flap your gums all you want; pointless noise.

  12. JustWondering
    Facepalm

    Lucky I guess

    In Canada we are fortunate that our current government is so inept or we would be in serious trouble. 2500 lawyers on the public dime and our PM can hardly get a bill past the courts. Good thing too!!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like