Supreme Court of Canada Rules That Text Messages Are Private 143
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that text messages are private communication (Official Ruling) and therefore police are required to get a warrant to gain access to the text messages of private citizens. The CBC reports: '[Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman] Abella said the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process. "This distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled," she wrote.'"
Quite different from the attitude in the U.S.
The Conservatives will be angry! (Score:4, Insightful)
The only question now is how long before we can get the same protection for ALL forms of communication, regardless of the technology used.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Conservatives will be angry! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get why this is hard to understand (Score:4, Insightful)
How can anyone be in favor of both warrantless spying and democratic form of government?
Those that are in favor are those in power or those that "think of the children" without actually pausing to consider what it means when those children become adults.
Re:I don't get why this is hard to understand (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems many people would rather the government give the appearance of trying to stop the terrorist bogeyman than respect people's freedom and privacy.
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, you are quite right. The U.S. telco's are totally complicit in the buggering of our civil rights. All save the late QWest, that is.
Re:This comes just after... (Score:5, Insightful)
uh, he only went through your phone after he asked and you let him. you didn't have to waive your rights.
That's as may be, but it seems to me that the border, on both sides, is a kind of "no man's land", where the usual civil liberties don't apply. When US border agents have the authority to arbitrarily deny you admission to the US for years, it seems to me that refusing a "request" can be a high-risk game for the uninformed.
Re:Good news, but mostly moot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply put: why should the police have access to anything without a reason? are they better than us? do they know better? are they magical?
Nope they're just people like you and me.
Short or long term neither they, or you and I should have access to anybody else's non-public information without a compelling reason.
Re:I don't get why this is hard to understand (Score:4, Insightful)
There are extreme circumstances where obtaining a warrant will take more time than you have
Too bad. Get a warrant.
Yes!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't talking about a sane government, but a more sane country. Sure, every country (and government) has its issues, but the USA is so far gone that it's its own kind of insanity. You'd be forgiven for occasionally mistaking it for a third world country.
Re:I don't get why this is hard to understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a policy has a good chance of saving some lives over the years
I'd much prefer that a few lives be lost than allowing for random exceptions. As I keep saying, I'd be against the TSA even if it was actually effective.
Re:I don't get why this is hard to understand (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the correct response in this situation is that the police break the law, save the girls life, then go to jail with a clear conscience. If it is important enough to not require a warrant then it should also be important enough to accept the consequences of not having a warrant.
But once you give special exemptions that don't require warrants, law enforcement agencies will continue to expand that loop hole until it encompasses anything they want.