Text messages privacy ruling expected from Supreme Court

[SLM]

Text messages privacy ruling expected from Supreme Court

Telus fighting a warrant from police in Owen Sound, Ont.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...sages-telus-supreme-court.html#socialcomments


























Should police be allowed to seize copies of your private text messages from your wireless provider's servers without a wiretap order? The Supreme Court of Canada is to provide its answer to that question Wednesday in response to an appeal from wireless provider Telus Corp.
Telus had argued that it shouldn't have to comply with a "general warrant" from Owen Sound police in March 2010 to provide copies of all the text messages sent by or addressed to two of its subscribers during the first two weeks of April that year.


Telus argued that seizing the messages would constitute "interception" of the communication and would therefore require a wiretap warrant, which is more difficult to get than a general warrant due to special privacy provisions in the Criminal Code protecting private communications.
For example, wiretap warrants can only be obtained for certain offences, and police usually have to show that other investigative techniques will not provide the information they need.
An Ontario Superior Court judge ruled against Telus in 2011. It agreed with Crown lawyers that handing the messages over to police did not constitute "interception" because the copies of the text messages being handed over to police were not intended to be transmitted and were not created and stored for a purpose related to transmitting the messages.
That's because Telus stores copies of all text messages for 30 days in a special database "for troubleshooting purposes" — whether they are delivered to the recipient or not.


more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/26/technology-text-messages-telus-supreme-court.html

Telus stores copies of all text messages for 30 days in a special database "for troubleshooting purposes" — whether they are delivered to the recipient or not.

That seems like a privacy violation right there, to me. I don't know, but there is a reason why warrants are required before private communications can be obtained by law enforcement, and it's a good reason. It seems to me that methods and means of communication have exceeded the scope of the laws currently on the books that are necessary to balance out privacy concerns with the necessity of law enforcement to protect society as a whole. The argument in this case reads like a giant loophole to me.

 

[DaSleeper]

I think they should also have a warrant for messages stored on your phone if your phone is password locked.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think they should also have a warrant for messages stored on your phone if your phone is password locked.

I would go 1 step further and say they should be required to get a warrant to look at your phone at all, whether it is locked or not.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Agreed. The text of the Fourth Amendment is

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm sure Canada has the same idea, though the wording is undoubtedly different. I can't see any way that text messages could be viewed as anything but "papers." Even if they're in the custody of the phone company.

 

[SLM]

I think they should also have a warrant for messages stored on your phone if your phone is password locked.

I think there is currently another case ongoing regarding that exact issue.

 

[SLM]

And here it is.

Cops need wiretap order to see text messages, Supreme Court rules - Canada - Canoe.ca

 

[PoliticalNick]

And here it is.

Cops need wiretap order to see text messages, Supreme Court rules - Canada - Canoe.ca

:wav::wav::wav:ccasion5:

 

[DaSleeper]

I think there is currently another case ongoing regarding that exact issue.

And here it is.

Cops need wiretap order to see text messages, Supreme Court rules - Canada - Canoe.ca

This is the case and ruling I meant about password protection for messages on the cell phone itself, not on the server so the poster before me can stop jumping up and down :lol:
He's definitely jumping the gun in his glee:roll:
Understand that this is a recent case in the Ontario court of appeals and may be overturned at the Canadian supreme court in the future.........

CanLII - 2013 ONCA 106 (CanLII)

[32] The trial judge held at paras. 49 and 51 of her reasons:
While there is no doubt that cell phones can contain significant amounts of personal information, the evidence in this case does not lead to the conclusion that Mr. Fearon had an extraordinarily high expectation of privacy in this phone. Mr. Fearon did not testify on the voir dire and there was very little evidence as to the device’s capabilities. There is no evidence that the phone was password protected or subject to any security barriers. Nor is there any evidence that it had “mini-computer” capabilities like the Treo in R. v. Little, 2009 O.N.S.C. 41212.

...​

In my view, an ordinary cell phone objectively commands a measure of privacy in its contents. However, the expectation of privacy in the information contained in the cell phone is more akin to what might be disclosed by searching a purse, a wallet, a notebook or briefcase found in the same circumstances. The evidence in this case is that the LG cell phone appears to have had the functions of cell phone operation, text messaging, photographs and contact lists. While certainly private, the information stored is not so connected to the dignity of the person that this court should create an exception to the police ability to search for evidence when truly incidental to arrest and carried out in a reasonable manner

 

[Goober]

This is the case and ruling I meant about password protection for messages on the cell phone itself, not on the server so the poster before me can stop jumping up and down :lol:
He's definitely jumping the gun in his glee:roll:
Understand that this is a recent case in the Ontario court of appeals and may be overturned at the Canadian supreme court in the future.........

CanLII - 2013 ONCA 106 (CanLII)

My opinion - this will be upheld by the SCoC- many use cell phones in the same way they use computers. If you were walking down the street and the police stopped and arrested you and searched your laptop without permission or a warrant,anything illegal would be thrown out. Technology has evolved and the Police should as well.
There is a case ongoing in AB reference this where school officials searched a students cell phone.

 

[SLM]

This is the case and ruling I meant about password protection for messages on the cell phone itself, not on the server so the poster before me can stop jumping up and down :lol:
He's definitely jumping the gun in his glee:roll:
Understand that this is a recent case in the Ontario court of appeals and may be overturned at the Canadian supreme court in the future.........

CanLII - 2013 ONCA 106 (CanLII)

Yes, I remember seeing something about that one too. Separate case from this one definitely, but I have to say I'm not exactly excited to hear that Telus, and I presume the others as well, keep text messages for any period of time. That in and of itself seems like a violation of privacy to me.

Of course the searches of either messages on a server or on the phone itself can be done with a warrant. That's important, it balances things appropriately.

 

[DaSleeper]

Yes, I remember seeing something about that one too. Separate case from this one definitely, but I have to say I'm not exactly excited to hear that Telus, and I presume the others as well, keep text messages for any period of time. That in and of itself seems like a violation of privacy to me.

Of course the searches of either messages on a server or on the phone itself can be done with a warrant. That's important, it balances things appropriately.

Yes, but a special warrant is needed for the server but a simple search of the cell phone does not need a warrant.....only when extra material is found to extend the case in a different direction.

But not for that reason my cell phone is password protected all the time plus after ten unsuccessful tries at it the info on the phone is wiped clean........That phone has just about everything on it except my last will and testament :lol:

 

[Goober]

Yes, but a special warrant is needed for the server but a simple search of the cell phone does not need a warrant.....only when extra material is found to extend the case in a different direction.

But not for that reason my cell phone is password protected all the time plus after ten unsuccessful tries at it the info on the phone is wiped clean........That phone has just about everything on it except my last will and testament :lol:

That is the basis of the case in AB - Not password protected. As it was not the School Officials believed they had the right to search it. I disagree as stated earlier.

 

[SLM]

Yes, but a special warrant is needed for the server but a simple search of the cell phone does not need a warrant.....only when extra material is found to extend the case in a different direction.

I thought that was being appealed though. Maybe I'm mixing up my cell phone legal case stories that I read on the web. Wouldn't be the first time, lol.

In my opinion, it should require a warrant. I get the analogy to an open bag or purse, if something is in plain view. But even without a password, you have to surf on the phone to get to where you're going, be it email or text messages. So it's not really in plain view. That's my take on it.

But not for that reason my cell phone is password protected all the time plus after ten unsuccessful tries at it the info on the phone is wiped clean........That phone has just about everything on it except my last will and testament :lol:

I do too but I turn off the lock when I'm at home or at the office, someplace "safe". Otherwise it's a pain in the *** if you're texting. If you leave the sleep option set to too long a period it's hard on the battery, if you have it set normally you have to keep unlocking it.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yes, but a special warrant is needed for the server but a simple search of the cell phone does not need a warrant.....only when extra material is found to extend the case in a different direction.

But not for that reason my cell phone is password protected all the time plus after ten unsuccessful tries at it the info on the phone is wiped clean........

Mine is also password protected and locks immediately after use. I don't know if I could do the 'wipe' with mine but I do know that not even a court order would get me to give the password to anyone.

That phone has just about everything on it except my last will and testament :lol:

Which is why the info on our phones should be protected by law these days. They are mini computers (mine has many documents and spreadsheets with sensitive info including from my lawyer) and should require a specific warrant whether locked or not. I am glad for this ruling though I fear the govt may use the anti-terrorism legislation to circumvent the requirement for a warrant as they do with internet usage. It may only be a small victory for individual rights and privacy but in this day and age any victory should be celebrated.

 

[DaSleeper]

That is the basis of the case in AB - Not password protected. As it was not the School Officials believed they had the right to search it. I disagree as stated earlier.

That's what the SOC is for........Make those final decisions I can find good reasons for both sides....

I thought that was being appealed though. Maybe I'm mixing up my cell phone legal case stories that I read on the web. Wouldn't be the first time, lol.

In my opinion, it should require a warrant. I get the analogy to an open bag or purse, if something is in plain view. But even without a password, you have to surf on the phone to get to where you're going, be it email or text messages. So it's not really in plain view. That's my take on it.

I do too but I turn off the lock when I'm at home or at the office, someplace "safe". Otherwise it's a pain in the *** if you're texting. If you leave the sleep option set to too long a period it's hard on the battery, if you have it set normally you have to keep unlocking it.

Again a matter of personal opinion on the need for a warrant.
But on the matter of the lock,.....it's the same as locking your car.....It's a pain but do you really dare leave it unlocked....consider the hassle of all the information your phone contains......in the case of an Iphone you always have the option of wiping the memory online through ITunes........ I think???

 

[Goober]

Mine is also password protected and locks immediately after use. I don't know if I could do the 'wipe' with mine but I do know that not even a court order would get me to give the password to anyone.



Which is why the info on our phones should be protected by law these days. They are mini computers (mine has many documents and spreadsheets with sensitive info including from my lawyer) and should require a specific warrant whether locked or not. I am glad for this ruling though I fear the govt may use the anti-terrorism legislation to circumvent the requirement for a warrant as they do with internet usage. It may only be a small victory for individual rights and privacy but in this day and age any victory should be celebrated.

The SCoC recently ruled that a workplace computer, sole user, employee, the Police needed a warrant to view the computer files.
It was deemed that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the ownership was not relevant.
This was a child porn case.

 

[DaSleeper]

The SCoC recently ruled that a workplace computer, sole user, employee, the Police needed a warrant to view the computer files.
It was deemed that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the ownership was not relevant.
This was a child porn case.

Something I'm not familiar with..........Does the employer have the right to monitor incoming and outgoing data or messages going through their central office server?????

 

[SLM]

That's what the SOC is for........Make those final decisions I can find good reasons for both sides....


Again a matter of personal opinion on the need for a warrant.
But on the matter of the lock,.....it's the same as locking your car.....It's a pain but do you really dare leave it unlocked....consider the hassle of all the information your phone contains......in the case of an Iphone you always have the option of wiping the memory online through ITunes........ I think???

Yes, it's part of the iCloud feature I believe. And all my really personal info are on an app with a password.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Something I'm not familiar with..........Does the employer have the right to monitor incoming and outgoing data or messages going through their central office server?????

If they have one they can monitor your internet usage and email and look at any files you may have as long as that policy is made clear to you up front.

 

[Goober]

Something I'm not familiar with..........Does the employer have the right to monitor incoming and outgoing data or messages going through their central office server?????

Not sure but I doubt it they would need a very good reason for that. Same as counting keystrokes, same as CCTV highly regulated.