posted by
janrinok
on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20PM
from the Canada-and-Scandanavia-sorted-now-for-everyone-else dept.
from the Canada-and-Scandanavia-sorted-now-for-everyone-else dept.
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that Internet providers can't provide customer names and addresses to police without a warrant
Friday's decision concerned the case of Matthew David Spencer, of Saskatchewan, who was charged and convicted of possession of child pornography after a police officer saw illegal files being downloaded to his IP address. His ISP was asked for and provided the subscriber information associated with the IP Address, which lead to his conviction. Spencer appealed the decision, arguing that the search was unconstitutional and his rights were violated.
Although the Supreme Court set limits on when internet providers can disclose customer information, it dismissed Spencer's appeal.
You can read the ruling here.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Canadian Supreme Court Rules ISPs Cannot Disclose Subscriber Information Without a Warrant
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 11 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rts008 on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:50PM
Go Canada!
I will take a shot of maple syrup with a Moosehead chaser in your honor, for this.
All jokes aside, I'm glad to see progress elsewhere...it increases the places to expatriate to when it gets too bad here in the US. :-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:55PM
Yeah, it's nice to see something positive for a change. It was an 8-0 decision as well, so that's a good sign as well, although it's a bit depressing that it had to get to the Supreme Court. As for us compared to the US, as the Arrogant Worms [youtube.com] say, "We won't say that we're better, it's just that we're less worse".
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday June 14 2014, @04:21PM
I am curious:
8-0 decision? Are there 8, and not an odd number? How does 'breaking the tie' work?
And well, 'less worse' is looking pretty good lately as time goes on. :-(
(Score: 4, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 14 2014, @04:55PM
They have nine judges [wikipedia.org] but currently there is one vacancy.
It's Canada, so they obviously use a complex combination of beer pong, curling and hockey shootouts.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:08AM
That sounds like a dandy way to break the ties!
Got it with the 9, with one missing currently.
Thanks.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Appalbarry on Saturday June 14 2014, @06:12PM
Hah! That's a story in itself. There are usually nine judges, but one seat has been vacant for quite some time.
The ruling Harper government tried to stuff the seat with a hand-picked right wing ideologue, but got slapped down fast and hard by the Supreme Court itself, who found the guy not eligible for the job.
(Not the first time that they have had to tell our Prime Minister that stuff like the Constitution and Bill of Rights also apply to him.)
(Why the guy wasn't eligible? The intertwined French and English history of our country has led to some intriguing Constitutional protections. One of which is that in Quebec much of the law is based on French Civil Law, not on the British tradition. As a result of that, the Constitution requires that a certain number of the Supreme Court judges be from Quebec, with experience specific to that legal system.
In a very big nutshell, despite being warned ahead of time that it wouldn't pass the smell test, Harper tried to push though the appointment.
He then had a big old hissy fit, trying to claim that the head of the Court had acted improperly.)
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:20AM
This Harper sounds quite the character.
I have been hearing about his antics for a while now, and have to say "fascinating, Captain."(context: Spock's translation of 'WTF!!, That's NUTS!')
I regret to say that I feel both sorrow for you all, and highly amused by his escapades.(Reminds me of Boris and 'I kill moose and squirrel!')
Thanks for the explaination.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by blackest_k on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:12PM
if i read the ruling right, the police should have got a warrant but because the police thought they were acting lawfully then the evidence still stands, also when a lower court found him not guilty of distributing child porn because he didn't realize he was. They say he doesn't need to have known so he's off back for retrial and probably a longer sentence if he gets convicted of distributing child porn.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @03:35AM
If I understand you right, the situation is that if the police don't know they are breaking the law, then it is OK. But if a citizen doesn't know they are breaking the law, then it is not OK. It is nice to be the ones in charge.
(Score: 0) by aos on Sunday June 15 2014, @04:22AM
They seemed more concerned about letting a guy off the hook on a technicality for a "serious offence" (their words). When both parties commit a wrong, the court will have to make tough choices in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. IANAL but my guess is that if a similar case were to come to them again, they would not come to the same conclusion about the police acting in good faith with respect to their legal powers, because of this ruling indicated what the appropriate course of action is.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:42AM
yup, police can break all the laws they want and get away with it, but if you hack somebody's computer (provided it isnt a cop's because then nothing will happen), upload a bunch of CP, and then call the cops on them, you can guarantee them a lifetime in prison! even better if you set them up an FTP account before ringing the 5-0.
and the beautiful thing about CP cases, just like drug cases, even if all of the "evidence" is obviously and traceably planted by the police and/or prosecutor, the poor sap will still be locked away forever; or if he gets really lucky, he'll avoid prison while just being shunned by the entire world for his entire life, since the accusation is all that matters - nobody ever hears (or cares) when the victim of those kinds of false accusations is declared innocent.