Canadian ISP On Disclosing Subscriber Info: Come Back With a Warrant 55
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian ISP Rogers has updated
its privacy policy to reflect last month's Supreme
Court of Canada Spencer decision. That decision ruled that
there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber
information. Canada's largest cable ISP will now require a
warrant for law enforcement access to basic subscriber information,
a policy that effectively kills the Canadian government's efforts to
expand the disclosures through voluntary means."
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I'll give you this shiny nickle if you give me that subscriber info. I know, how about a whole dollar, one for each record in your database. Of course, you only get them if you give us all the records...
Good for them (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunate that respecting privacy to the extent the law permits is the exception, not the norm...
Yes. Sadly, that's why it's news. Were it the norm, it would not be news...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err... not to the extent the law permits... to the minimum the law requires
But the two are related closely. In the US, metadata is considered the corporations, which obviously has no privacy right to the data. The idea is that the person has already disclosed that data. Hence, the government has a much lower, well non-existent, burden on law enforcement because they are asking for business records, not for personal information.
In Canada, it seems that just got inverted, so now it's private information v
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian courts think that our right against unreasonable search is actually a right to privacy and it's not just the government that has to respect that right, businesses have to respect rights as well.
Another example is that the courts have ruled that companies can't do drug tests for no reason whereas down the States it seems to be standard procedure even if (off-work) drug use has no bearing on the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read what you are replying to before replying.
YAY US (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck you american corporations
Re: (Score:2)
did so in a completely gentlemanly manner...
with profound politeness and thoughtful adjectives.
Re: (Score:2)
Dearest representatives of the corporate interests of the United States of America:
It behooves me to request that, as we collectively drop the rears of our trousers, would you kindly bend down and kiss our asses? Only if you please, eh?
With tender, gentlemanly affection,
Your friendly neighbour,
Canada
This is excellent timing given the upcoming T.P.P. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the draconian provisions of the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the Canadian government unfortunately signed on to (and just hosted a meeting of in Ottawa) is that ISPs are legally expected to monitor and rat out their customers for accessing verboten content, ie torrents.
I hope that this is the beginning of the end for that idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm disputing the fact that more than a healthy percentage of torrent downloading is copyrighted content where unauthorized copies (ie, copies for which no explicit permission was ever given to make) are being distributed, but not *ALL* of it is... so who does the ISP "rat out" their customers to?
Re: (Score:2)
Canada seems to want the self signed bureaucratic option. Officials will go looking, get isp logs, users full details and then seek a real court for the later stages of an investigation.
ie customer information, no reasonable expectation of privacy, no warrant is required for warrantless "looking" at internet activity
How this new court event will slow down that vision of finding and ip, logging usage and review will be interesting.
Long
Re: (Score:3)
The big difference between Australia and the UK compared to Canada is that Canada's constitution includes a bill of rights and the Supreme Court isn't shy about striking down laws as unconstitutional and the same with lesser courts including throwing out ill gotten evidence so here it's actually the courts requiring warrants and the government can't (actually this one will) just pass unconstitutional laws without ramifications.
Re: (Score:2)
ie rolled back in under the cover of 10's of pages related to cyber bullying laws with legal protections for isp providing support and tacking in a lower “reasonable suspicion” standard.
'Say no to government spying" (March 31, 2014)
http://fullcomment.nationalpos... [nationalpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have already struck down provisions in law regarding both "reasonable suspicion" and "exigent circumstances." Slapping it back into the law, will ensure it ends right back up at the SCC and struck down again.
Re: (Score:3)
Until there are laws that charge politicians with treason every time they knowingly do this, they will continue to follow the following formula,
There *is* a law on treason, this isn't treason going by your narrow view of it. Rather, this is what you want people to be charged with when they pass laws that disagree with you. In turn, governments have it in their interest to pass laws that in general benefit society. Quebecs protest laws are an example of this, especially after the spate of individuals masking their identities and engaging in vandalism, and attempting to riot for the sake of rioting. The courts on the other hand have the right to
Re: (Score:2)
In turn, governments have it in their interest to pass laws that in general benefit society.
If you consider the very wealthy and corporations to be society then what you write is true for most governments. But if you consider the majority of the electorate being society, then not so. For an example of what I mean look at the recent study from Princeton University and Northwestern University that reached the conclusion that the USA is an oligarchy.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider the very wealthy and corporations to be society then what you write is true for most governments. But if you consider the majority of the electorate being society, then not so. For an example of what I mean look at the recent study from Princeton University and Northwestern University that reached the conclusion that the USA is an oligarchy.
Sorry, did I miss something when Canada became the US; or are you just happier posting something that doesn't apply to every country.
Then again, a study out of two heavily left wing universities saying the US is an oligarchy has about as much weight as the taliban saying Europe is a christian fundamentalist state, and Japan is ruled by hindu's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I did. Otherwise Asia became the US going by your logic as well. And i we did become a part of the US, can you tell me where the cheap electronics are, and when I can find the prices for 1/4 to 1/2 of that compared up here in Canada.
CDN courts usually always side with the Charter (Score:2)
Thats one things we got one our side. The courts most of the time will side with the citizen when it come to Charter of Rights, for now they have our backs. Now is even a better time since Harper has been pissing them off and even the Con judges are going agaist the party line.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily Harper has been having a hard time even finding qualified judges as extreme as his government.
Canada can not legally give away TPP privacy (Score:1)
The TPP can not sell Canadian Citizens Constitutional Right to privacy.
It's not a bill.
It's in the Constitution.
In writing.
No government can sell that right to another country.
PERIOD.
(yes, I did take Canadian Law in grade 10, it was the best thing I ever did, other than Canadian Business Law later on, and, yes, my brother passed the BC bar and got his LLD from UBC)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Telecom giants worried about ‘antagonizing’ feds on lawful access: documents" (May 21 2014)
http://www.thestar.com/news/ca... [thestar.com]
It won't last. (Score:2)
When the ISP is forcibly shown who their real customers are, they will tow the line. Nice marketing play, though.
Re:It won't last. (Score:4, Informative)
Darn it! Toe the line. Toe the line. HOLD THE LINE!!!!!!!
Me do speak English.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the current government has already done things like threaten to bring Verizon into the country and limit their access to spectrum auctions to make sure these companies do what our glorious leaders wants, I mean to promote competition.
All Canadian Citizens have this Right (Score:1)
Including those residing in countries with International Data Treaties with Canada.
Yes, that means the USA and the EU.
Privacy. It's what's for Breakfast, Lunch, and Supper.
Would you like some Poutine with that back bacon, American Privacy Ignorers?
Getting a warrant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficulty will be on a scale of one to ten how reasonable it is.
"In 2011, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association reported to Canada's privacy commissioner its members received 1.2 million requests for customer information in one year and disclosed information about 780,000 customers. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news... [www.cbc.ca]"
I'm betting on a sizable dent in those numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Over time a nice international network layer will fall out that is peered to lower domestic interconnect fees? International sounds like fair game?
Re: (Score:2)
Not in my understanding.
The recent supreme court decision [lexum.com] related to this announcement and several others recently indicate that according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org], we're guaranteed the right to privacy, and our actions online have a reasonable expectation of privacy and annonymity. Constitutionally speaking, we're safe online from unreasonable (unwarranted) search, it's not an issue of *a* law, it's an issue of the supreme law of the land. The government could try to amend our Charter to remov
About time (Score:1)
Give Rogers credit (Score:2)
I have to applaud Rogers for doing the right thing.
This may even be a first for them, seeing as they are one of the most evil corporations ever created.
Re: (Score:2)
Rogers... one of the most evil corporations ever created.
I'm a Canadian, and I used to be a Rogers customer. Yes, they are evil, but they're nowhere near the top of the evilness ladder. Monsanto, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma make companies like Rogers look positively saintly by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really that big... in Canada.
Teksavvy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)