Canada's Police Chiefs Want New Law To Compel People To Reveal Passwords (www.cbc.ca) 209
Reader DaveyJJ writes: CBC is reporting that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has passed a resolution calling for a legal measure to unlock digital evidence, saying criminals increasingly use encryption to hide illicit activities. The chiefs are recommending new legislation that would force people to hand over their electronic passwords with a judge's consent. RCMP Assistant Commissioner Joe Oliver is using the usual scare tactics "child-molesters and mobsters live in the 'dark web'" in his statement today to drum up public support in his poorly rationalized privacy-stripping recommendation. A few years ago, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that police must have a judge's order to request subscriber and customer information from ISPs, banks and others who have online data about Canadians. I guess that ruling isn't sitting too well with law enforcement and Canada's domestic spy agencies.
Stupidity to follow: (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal.
But no compensation for throwing a man in jail for the 'crime' of a poor memory.
Re:Stupidity to follow: (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal.
But no compensation for throwing a man in jail for the 'crime' of a poor memory.
Under stressful situations you may actually forget your password. I forgot my bank card PIN when I was getting a passport.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm wondering what happens when you are in possession of the device but claim you never had a passcode/password for the device. Is possession enough to claim the defendant should have full access to the device?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, especially as some forms of encryption use a TPM chip in the computer, in which case, you can say with absolute certainty that you do not know the password to decrypt the drive...it is in the TPM chip.
Re: (Score:2)
Five years later, released from jail
Five years? Go look up the number of people who have be incarcerated for a lifetime based on a false conviction - including all those people saved from death row.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity to follow: (Score:5, Funny)
Mine is "Go to hell motherfucking cop bastard"
Oddly I only get beat up every time I surrender it to the feds.
Re: (Score:3)
Ivan Henry won 8m in 2010: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
Réjean Hinse won 13.1m in 1997: http://www.ctvnews.ca/feds-que... [ctvnews.ca]
Ron and Linda Sterling won 925k in 2004: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
I could go on, there are plenty of other cases where victims of wrongful imprisonment were compensated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Simple "fix", stop looking for the password. Then you're screwed, if you remember/find it later they'll say you knew how to produce it all along and if you never find it everyone will just assume that you took the time to hide something worse. Also remember this won't just apply to whole disks, say you zip some sensitive files for Bob. Since they'll be attached on open email you password protect it and call to tell Bob the key. Two years later the cops think "files_for_bob.zip" is your secret kiddie porn/te
Re: (Score:3)
It would probably work similarly to the UK law that can send you to jail for not handing over a password. It's up to the police to prove that you know it beyond a reasonable doubt, e.g. by showing that you had the files open recently.
It's really dodgy because it relies on the judge or jury understanding how the files are used and under what kind of stress a person might forget their password. For example, you can have encrypted files open for weeks out months while the computer is on or sleeping, plenty of
Re: (Score:3)
It would probably work similarly to the UK law that can send you to jail for not handing over a password. It's up to the police to prove that you know it beyond a reasonable doubt, e.g. by showing that you had the files open recently.
Except that they don't do any of that. They just air their suspicions towards you and say It's your phone, your laptop so give us the PIN/password or else. It's about as bad as civil forfeiture in the US, guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably work similarly to the UK law that can send you to jail for not handing over a password.
That in itself in Canada would be a Charter violation and would be thrown out by any competent court unless the crown could show that there's a pressing need for a charter 1 violation. Up until a few years ago we had "exigent circumstances" codified in law, and it allowed the access to things(house entry, demand phone records/taps, etc) without a warrant as long as they could be fully justified afterwards and a warrant was then created. Had to be severe like abducted child, imminent threat against a perso
Re: (Score:2)
by showing that you had the files open recently.
It's really dodgy because it relies on the judge or jury understanding how the files are used and under what kind of stress a person might forget their password. For example, you can have encrypted files open for weeks out months while the computer is on or sleeping, plenty of time to forget the password
Or flat-out stress. I forgot my PIN number once. I used the card most days, because I never like carrying large quantities of cash and had the card for well o
Re: (Score:3)
There must be a physical life example.
Suppose you have a combination wall-safe.
The police want to search that safe.
So they get a warrant.
Now, what happens if you don't give them the combination to the safe? This must have happened numerous times in the past.
I'm no lawyer, but I googled and it looks like they could NOT make you give up a safe combination; at least in the US.
So I don't see how cell phone password are any different. They shouldn't be able to compel you to give up your passwords.
Assuming they h
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of the movement to force people to give up passwords but there isn't a physical real world comparison that is valid. If someone forgets their safe combination and LE wants in, they can use a variety of tools to go at the safe in anything from a quick brutal manner all the way up to an expensive careful opening and they will get in if they want.
With a password and sufficiently capable encryption, LE will never get in, no matter how much time and money they throw at the problem. That's what outra
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK they can demand you open the safe, if you are physically able to do so. That could be with the passcode or some other way. They have to show that you have the ability to open it. It's similar to how they can demand you let them in to your house to search it (or break in themselves if possible) when armed with a warrant.
In other words, the encryption is viewed much like a safe, a space that they can force you to give them access to.
The UK law (RIPA) allows you to give them the decrypted data rather
Re: (Score:3)
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal.
But no compensation for throwing a man in jail for the 'crime' of a poor memory.
Wait till it happens to somebody because they found suspicious files or areas of the hard drive and just think that something is encrypted. Then demand the password to the suspected encrypted devices and there is no password.
Re: (Score:2)
"What's your password or you go to jail?"
"I don't remember what's my password."
"He's lying, throw him in jail!"
Five years later, released from jail because they crack the password, finding embarrassing porn, but nothing illegal..
And it turned out the password was "I don't remember what's my password."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity to follow: (Score:4, Interesting)
Poor memory is no excuse for breaking the law.
Yet insanity is.
Re: (Score:2)
We have one guy who has committed murder. He's never stood trial, because they can't get him sane enough to stand trial. Insanity is an excuse for breaking the law, but it's not just "homeless guy who mumbles a lot" insane, it's "has zero connection to reality and spends his life in a drug- and shock-ind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never seen feminist porn, huh?
Re:Stupidity to follow: (Score:5, Interesting)
What law did he break? The law of not writing his password down? How often have you used a password recovery system because you couldn't remember what passphrase you used with a webpage you used a decade ago and now wanted to reuse only to find out that your email address is already "in use" because you apparently have used it before?
Now imagine you have some ancient data rotting away somewhere on a server which is "obviously" encrypted (read: They can't find a program to read it with so it has to be). Now provide the password for it, you child molesting terrorist!
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between being unwilling to cooperate and being unable to cooperate. If the police tells me to open the door and I refuse to do so, it is well within their rights to consider this obstruction (provided they have a warrant and all that). But it's silly if they do if I sit tied and gagged in my apartment and don't open the door when they knock.
Deceptive at best (Score:5, Insightful)
The Government whining about encryption protecting guilty parties by going dark from scrutiny is flawed. Governments now have more information gathered daily than they could ever have dreamed of in the cold war, and yet they are still baiting and spreading fear and uncertainty that they can't see it all so bad people are getting away with bad things. Did they run around saying in the late 80's that citizens need to carry walking spy devices wherever they roam to make certain their actions can be monitored? The fact is governments have more information available to them about every aspect of life including citizens and non alike, and they are still saying if they had more then they could do their jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Whenever they can't jail the people they want they just cry for more data.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
They must really suck at their jobs since they've collected several encyclopedias worth of lines and they still can't hang people.
Maybe we should show them how to make rope.
Re: (Score:2)
They have more information, but they don't have ALL of the information. Only when they have all of the information can they tighten their grip, crush down on those who oppose them, and serve you better.
(Anyone remember the Dinosaurs TV show? Fran convinces a store to accept returns and the owner remarks: "This is just the policy that will enable us to crush our competition, become a monopoly, and serve you better!" Basically this only with the government.)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. I do wish that the media would ask these sorts of questions, but it doesn't seem they get time for adversarial questions.
As a Canadian, I can only say (Score:1)
Yes, yes! (Score:1)
Let's make everyone reveal their passwords.
Let's make backdoor passwords THE LAW.
Let's trust that only the government will have those secret backdoor passwords.
Let's watch as the government gets hacked [slashdot.org] and everyone's information is owned by Russians, or Iranians, or whoever is the highest bidder...
Really, these idiots need to be called out. Every time they propose crap like this, it needs to be pointed out VERY LOUDLY IN THE NEWS MEDIA that these stupid plans will never work.
Canadians Want New Law (Score:1)
Canadians Want New Law To Compel Police Chiefs To Reveal Their IQ.
Never mind, we already cracked that one.
Give up your freedom because... (Score:2)
>> "child-molesters and mobsters live in the 'dark web'"
OMG! Think of THE CHILDREN!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The only people constantly thinking of the children are pedos. So maybe that police chief... Not accusing, just wondering...
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm just in itsec 'cause I secretly want to run a botnet?
what about this? (Score:3)
Just have 2 passwords, one that deletes a private folder on login and one that doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Rest assured that they will not try this against the original data. Any work in forensics is done on copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Rest assured, not all police dept are that smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Then your country does it wrong. In mine there is a whole department that has the ONLY reason to exist to make certain forensic evidence is usable in court. I was working for them for a while in the IT area, and NOBODY as much as touched anything containing data who didn't know exactly what he was doing.
There are ways to tamper with data in such a way that it cannot be used by forensics but relying on them being idiots isn't really a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to work goal oriented. You don't want the data. You want a conviction. Whether you can throw him into the slammer for having data that he shouldn't have or you throw him in for not allowing you to see the data is, in the end, not relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Just have 2 passwords, one that deletes a private folder on login and one that doesn't.
2 passwords. One decrypts one file, presumably deserving of encryption but innocent, such as your tax information. The other decrypts to the things you don't want found out.
Re: (Score:2)
They will image your drives first, and then charge you with destroying evidence or at least use it as evidence you are hiding something.
Veracrypt plausible deniability is a better solution.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not work in reality. You have seen too many bad movies.
It's empty. (Score:3)
All that is needed is one number to unlock it, another to wipe it.
Re: (Score:2)
All that is needed is one number to unlock it, another to wipe it.
You don't need to wipe it. It's encrypted that's all you need to prevent unauthorized access. That's why LE is asking/demanding your password in the first place.
Do you have a "right to remain silent" in Canada? That would be the best course of action. Let your lawyer do all the talking for you.
Re: (Score:3)
They will probably image the drive first, and then use the wipe code as evidence that you are hiding something.
A better option is to keep a load of broken disks around. Hard drives with read errors, failed SSDs, broken flash drives. Tell them that they keyfile that is required to unlock is on one of those drives. The cops must have broken it when they collected it or imaged it. There is now no way to ever decrypt the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have had that happen in the Netherlands with another law: one that makes carrying an ID mandatory. Officials said it was no big deal; the police were only to ask for ID if they had a good
Re: (Score:2)
Been out of the Netherlands for some time; when did 'ausweiss bitte?' become the norm?
It's clear that the generation that actually witnessed the second world war first-hand and have experienced where these things can lead to are almost gone.
What happened to you Netherlands, you used to be cool
Common sense... isn't common (Score:3)
This isn't any kind of a magic bullet against crime: it's just another example of people failing to follow a rational chain of events to its conclusion. If you tell an even moderately intelligent person that he will be forced to give up the password to his cell phone if he's ever arrested, then he will simply add one more layer of obfuscation between his phone and his secrets... and you still won't be able to prosecute the worst offenders. The only people who will get caught up in this new dragnet are those in the first round of arrests who don't pay attention to the latest changes in their local laws, and therefore fail to take precautions. Most others (intelligent and otherwise) will quickly learn about those prosecutions from the media frenzy that follows, and will lock down their crap soon thereafter.
Seriously... just follow the pieces around the board, and you should be able to tell who's going to ultimately win in this kind of game. (Doesn't anyone play chess, anymore?)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news for expatriots (Score:2)
I guess that's bad news for all the grumblers out there threatening to "move to Canada" when their candidate doesn't get elected. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
You just have to move a bit further away. Europe is quite welcoming right now I heard.
So cops are at least as dumb as politicians? (Score:2)
Let's turn it around... (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of "criminals increasingly use encryption to hide illicit activities", we have "government officials increasingly use secrecy classifications to hide illicit activities". Let's have a law that says if governments want to be able to force people to give up passwords then governments can't delay or deny open records requests. Any effort by government officials to hide information should be punished at a personal level exactly the same as how they want to punish citizens for denying their passwords.
Wouldn't hand it over. (Score:2)
I have nothing on my computer that I'd need to hide. Well, I'm sure that there's probably some way that they would find to prosecute me or anyone else given enough personal data and the breadth of the criminal code.
And that's why warrants with scope should always be used for such searches.
But, with or without a warrant, I'm not handing over my password.
As a Canadian... (Score:2)
Fuck'em, hard. Just because everyone else is asking for this nonsense does not make it right.
Everyone else: Run as much encryption, and Tor nodes, as you can. Drives them bonkers when they can't just fish through plaintext.
Oh, the almighty... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What's my password? Shoot!!" Uhm, don't say that in the US, the police might oblige...
Haha, you're right, i better don't forget my password then...
Not hidden (Score:2)
Encrypted key value store (Score:2)
I wrote a toy example of an end to end encrypted messaging service, which also functions as a data store, in about 300 lines of php, js, HTML, using only cryptojs.
Basic idea is to generate two separate strings ( e.g. pinkSecretBunny and fluffySecretBunny ), run both through a hash, use one output as an index in a table (e.g. mysql), the other is the encryption key for the data. Given just the key+encrypted data, you need to invert the hash to have any idea of how to generate the encryption key.
It is quite f
He wants my passwords? (Score:2)
Sigh... (Score:2)
FUCK YOU CANADA!
Really hard, with moose antlers
Why? (Score:2)
Why don't they just compel people to admit all their crimes to the police?
It would make their work still simpler than just giving up passwords.
Hahahaha (Score:2)
Hahahaha
No
Nothing to see here ... (Score:2)
Since this particular wish-list involves some fairly serious legal issues, not the least of which is the likelihood of any enabling legislation almost certainly ending up in the Supreme Court of Canada for what will at b
Re:BY THE POWER OF CHRIST I COMPEL YOU!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to not self-incriminate should be absolute.
Re:BY THE POWER OF CHRIST I COMPEL YOU!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the next thing they'll want is the ability to compel people to hand over the password without even the nicety of a court giving them the nod.
I'm still not sure why such a law is required. In general judge has the power to compel evidence to be turned over, and refusal to do so can lead to a finding of contempt, which could, if the accused did not comply, could lead to rather serious sanctions. This smells more like a trojan horse.
Re: (Score:2)
In general judge has the power to compel evidence to be turned over, and refusal to do so can lead to a finding of contempt, which could, if the accused did not comply, could lead to rather serious sanctions
And this, I would argue, definitely infringes on the right to avoid self-incrimination.
If this would apply to providing access to electronic media, why would it not apply to disclosing the location of the body?
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing, the police took your phone - it is reasonable to assume you know how to turn it on.
On the other hand, the police SUSPECT you killed someone and hid the body - yet without proof that you did it is not reasonable to assume you know where the body is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing, the police took your phone - it is reasonable to assume you know how to turn it on.
On the other hand, the police SUSPECT you killed someone and hid the body - yet without proof that you did it is not reasonable to assume you know where the body is.
Suppose you admitted you know where the body is. There are many reasons you may know this that don't involve you being a killer. Maybe you witnessed someone else dispose of the body, maybe you ran across the body after it was deceased, maybe the killer told you where the body was buried, etc. Now, supposing you actually DID happen to kill the person and you know there is evidence on the body (DNA, fingernail marks, ballistics that match your gun, etc.) that would lead to you most likely being convicted i
Re: (Score:2)
In the US? Of course not.
In Canada? I don't know, but I'd seriously doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume for a moment you are stupid enough to first tell the police you know where there's a dead body, then refuse to tell them where it is.
You are now facing charges including but not limited to hindering an investigation, contempt of court, (accomplice to) murder ...
Not new - safe combos.Have to prove that you know. (Score:3)
Assume here we're talking about a criminal court case, with a court order; not random cop wanting to look in your phone for no reason. Obviously random cop can't demand your password of their own accord without a court order.
In the context of a court order, this isn't a new thing, people have long stored documents in safes, hidden documents, etc. You can be compelled to disclose such evidence - after they prove that you have it. If it can be proven that you possess any relevant evidence, a body or anything
Re: (Score:2)
But, there was no law made forcing people to give up their passwords when asked for it by police. Instead, it required a judge to determine that the police should be able to ask for the password in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not illegal to park your car at home at 7 AM in the morning either, but if the court asks you if you did that you have the right not to answer.
Your reasoning is a red herring. The point isn't admission of crime. The point is giving testimony. And answering questions about what you did at a certain time, or what password you set on your computer, is testimony.
You might be right, but "what is your name?" (Score:2)
In court, do you think you have a legal right to refuse to answer the question "what is your name?"
Please note the following discusses what the law *is*, not what I think it *should* be. I didn't write the law, I read it.
> It is not illegal to park your car at home at 7 AM in the morning either, but if the court asks you if you did that you have the right not to answer.
In general, no you don't, not under the law. See "subpoena". You have a right to not answer IF the answer is testimony (evidence given b
Re: (Score:2)
The law makes no such distinction. If you are a suspect of a crime, and the testimony is in pursuit of the case, you are allowed to refuse to answer any question at all, with a few well defined exceptions.
And yes, one of those well defined exceptions is you may not refuse to give your name.
You distinguish between questions by them being either one of the well defined questions you must answer, or any other question, in which case you do not have to answer.
That is the law. And it doesn't care if the testimon
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, the right to not self-incriminate is not as strong as in the US. We can't excuse ourselves from testifying by pleading the 5th, or actually the 13th here. Testimony can't be used in other proceedings.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no legal right to hide *evidence*.
I don't care what the legal right is in your jurisdiction. What I'm saying is that the right to not contribute to your own conviction should be universal and immutable.
By providing a password, dead body or any other type of evidence, you are contributing to your own conviction.
Once you make one exception to the general rule, you'll get more. It's a very slippery slope. Now they can only put you in jail, but in 10 years they are allowed to deprive you off sleep. And 10 years later deprive you of food and
Re: (Score:2)
"Heavens no! It could get subpoenaed!" (Score:2)
> if I have [any] evidence, can I be ordered by the court
Yes.
> if I have hidden evidence that ties me to a crime, can I be ordered by the court
Still yes, plus the concealing is an additional crime:
Prosecution of Destroying or Concealing Evidence (Penal Code 135 PC)
A person knowing that any ... thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon a trial, inquiry, or investigation, authorized by law, willfully ...
destroys, erases, or CONCEALS the same
(quoting California law as an example of law in a typica
Re: (Score:2)
> definitely infringes on the right to avoid self-incrimination.
The Canadian section 13 is not the same American right you're, ostensibly, citing.
Re: (Score:2)
> definitely infringes on the right to avoid self-incrimination.
The Canadian section 13 is not the same American right you're, ostensibly, citing.
Basically limits incriminating yourself to one proceeding.
The Right not to self-incriminate (Score:2)
The next thing they want is the ability to torture in extra-ordinary circumstances. Then it turns out that someone stealing a car is an extra-ordinary circumstance.
The right to not self-incriminate should be absolute.
At least in the states, it's been true for a long time (Boyd v. United States, maybe?) that the right against self-incrimination does not extend to your documents. Police can search your house and use your diary or papers against you. Logically, under existing precedent, it is not at all obvious that the right against self-incrimination can or should protect you from a search of your laptop or other electronics.
The much more readily justifiable argument is that you should be allowed to keep your phone locke
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I was mentioning in previous recent comment [slashdot.org] that it would be most interesting if wetware became a thing that you could tie your password to, so that you literally *cannot* give out your password, nor unlock your device for any other agent that you do not actually want to cooperate with... and even if you are being artificially induced into wanting to cooperate, such as being under the influence of drugs, etc... because of the duress you are under, you would not be able to unlock it for them.
O
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That says it all. Nothing unreasonable here.
Ah, the authoritarian assholes chime in right on schedule. Although we are talking about Canadians here, there is something I find very un-American about forcing a suspect to answer any question when he is under threat of prosecution, regardless of a judge's warrant.
The oppressor classes always seem to forget that once a warrant is served, there is no guarantee that any search may be fruitful. Looking for something does not mean that you will find what you seek. Collecting that cell phone does not guaran
Re: (Score:2)
I've been there. "A judges consent" means that some sleepy judge gets dragged out of bed at 2am to rubber stamp something he didn't even read.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they just arrest a guy because he didn't provide it?
Are you thinking of Alain Philippon?
If so, the difference in that case is that it was at a border during customs inspection and he was charged with hindering a border agent in their duties. It's set to go to trial this month. Although, since it's essentially Charter of Rights and Freedoms v Customs Act, I wouldn't be surprised to see it dragged all the way to the Canadian supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, no thumbscrews?
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses Luddite thumbscrews!?!?
Modern Inquisition inquirers use Greek scientific methods using water-displacement, density vs volume, and buoyancy experimentation!
Tie rocks to the bound suspect and toss him in deep water. If he floats he's obviously guilty, if he drowns then he *was* innocent!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
If you do it right, they cannot. But a) many people mess this up and b) what does it help you if you get released from prison after a few years as innocent after all and get some shitty non-compensation for the life-time they stole from you?
This is a fascist idea, plain and simple.
Re:You Stupid Commenters (Score:2)
They sure can try and do a lot of damage to you in the process. And since they will not be able to prove that you have that password (as they cannot), you will have to prove you do not have it instead (which you cannot) or be presumed guilty. It is the old authoritarian idea that anybody they do not like is to be regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Yes, that is as immoral and repulsive as it sounds.
Re:Well .... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that if you let the police make the law, you get a police-state. By their very mind-set, most police-persons cannot help it and will place individual rights and freedoms second to law enforcement. In a free society, the police must _not_ be able to deal with all crime. Instead they must be limited to the minimum necessary to keep society functioning reasonably well. That idea is alien to most members of the police (if all you have is the law, everybody looks like a criminal...), yet it is critical to keep society free.
Hence while I understand why they are asking for this, it must not be granted to them and they must be put into their place forcefully. Anything else will result in a catastrophe.
Remember that all enforcement (including law enforcement) is evil by its very nature and unless it is necessary to fight a significantly larger (!) evil, it must not be done.
Re: (Score:2)
The RCMP (who btw are not entitled to the "Royal TItle" in any way whatsoever)
How do you figure? Canada is still a part of the British Commonwealth, and it was given the Royal title by King Edward VII. It doesn't really get any more entitled to being called Royal than the fucking King calling it Royal.