No need for ISP search warrant, says judge
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- What if you’re one of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians with an unsecured WiFi network?
What if your next-door neighbour is hijacking it so he can download kiddie porn?
“An Ontario Superior Court ruling could open the door to police routinely using Internet Protocol addresses to find out the names of people online, without any need for a search warrant,” says the National Post, going on:
“Justice Lynne Leitch found that there is ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy’ in subscriber information kept by Internet service providers (ISPs), in a decision issued earlier this week.
“The decision is binding on lower courts in Ontario and it is the first time a Superior Court-level judge in Canada has ruled on whether there are privacy rights in this information that are protected by the Charter.”
The story continues »»»
Judge Leitch accepted the arguments of Crown attorney Elizabeth Maguire that the information is similar to what is in a phone book.
“One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state,” Judge Leitch said.
The reasoning of the judge misses the context of what police are seeking, suggested Mr. Stribopoulos, who teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
“It is not just your name, it is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name, it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went,” he said.
This information should require police to obtain a search warrant if there is suspected criminal activity, Mr. Stribopoulos said. Judges are accepting the argument that this is “just your name” because “everyone wants to get at the child abusers,” he said.
If this latest attempt to invade your privacy alarms you, you might want to join Adam Reimer’s new Facebook group, My Information Is Private.
“While judges are put on the bench to follow, and in some cases create, precedent and to enact it in a lawful and ‘helpful’ manner, mistakes are sometimes made,” says Reimer, going on »»»
This is such a case. Recently, Ontario Superior Court Justice Lynne Leitch ruled that we should hold no expectation of privacy when it comes to our internet activities, and that the police can obtain records of what we do, with or without a warrant.
While this is in relation to a Child Pornography case. it opens up a pandora’s box. What will come next? If we make a negative comment anonymously (Covered by our free speech as Canadians), if someone uses an open Wi-Fi connection to commit “e-crimes”, to download and share child porn on your internet connection, we too can be at risk.
While i can understand the Justices ruling in a case about child porn, and applaud Bell Canada (the one and only time i will do that) for handing over the information of a potential child predator, i cannot help but think that all my personal information can be handed over to my local Police/RCMP unit on a whim that i might be committing a crime.
The worst possible scenario i can think of is this:
I walk into the RCMP station to file a complaint against someone. The RCMP, following procedure, will check my identification against their database for outstanding warrants (understandably).Now, i (apparently) come off as a tech-savvy person (sometimes people over-estimate my abilities), so the police decide to obtain my records from Eastlink (my local carrier). While i have not committed any crimes, nor roused any reasonable suspicion, the police went and looked through every detail of my internet usage based on an ASSUMPTION that i may or may not have committed a crime.
So, as far as my understanding goes, this ruling is unconstitutional (Yes, Canada has a constitution, but that’s still not a word you hear often when talking about Canadian law). The reason for this is it shifts the onus (Burden of proof) onto the everyday citizen who commits no crimes, who has a clean record, but must still prove that they are not suspicious enough to have every detail about their life investigated by the police.
Now, using the example above, what if i had a wireless network setup, and allowed others to connect to it? What if my next-door neighbor was committing or commissioning a crime VIA the internet? Downloading child porn? Who do you think the police will investigate? The person next door, or me, the person who merely walked into the RCMP station to file a complaint? Obviously, because it’s my name on the records, it will be me.
I will be the one who has his door knocked open at 6 in the morning with the local police and I.C.E unit, taking all of my electronic equipment, and forcing the onus on me to prove that i committed no such crime.
This is what this judge has opened up. This is what the every-day Canadian can expect.
Let the government know our information is ours, says Reimer, adding:
“The Government does not own it, the ISP does not own it. We do, and we demand our right to privacy.”
National Post – Where you’ve been on Net not private, judge rules, February 13, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Let go on the net behind Tor. Good luck for them to find our IP adresses!
They can search and sieze abusively but search and seize what and who?
Technology is on the side of freedom and the parasites who are technology impared are not goint to make it.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
..and you could always use a proxy =P
February 16th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
@Reader’s Write:
I can, and have used TOR. However, i prefer not to use it for everyday browsing. I don’t use TOR on my xbox, so the RCMP can now tell everytime i rickrolled someone over xbox live. Not fun IMO
February 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
You are all missing the point. The police obtain subscriber info only based on the IP address. Subscriber info is the name and address associated to the Internet account. They are not entitled to your whole web surfing history associated to that IP without an actual IP warrant. Even if they get a subscriber name, ie. the mother of the house pays for the web service, the suspect might not be the mom at all and may be the husband or the son or whoever. The police still have a lot of work to do before they go arresting someone. Sounds like everyone is over reacting to the big brother theory. Subscriber records point to an address only NOT a suspect. Good old fashioned police work finds the suspect. And besides if you are actually using your Internet service to commit crimes, check your service agreement when you sign up because in most cases it clearly states that your information will be shared with authorities if you misuse the service to commit a criminal act.
And the Facebook group…what a joke. Nothing on Facebook is private. I think the judge is taking a step in the right direction when it comes to protecting children.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“They are not entitled to your whole web surfing history associated to that IP without an actual IP warrant.”
I think it is you, RW, that is missing the point.
They’re after the whole package, warrant-free.