- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
Canadian Surpreme Court Rules Police Now Need a Warrant to Get a Person’s IP::undefined
You must log in or register to comment.
The ruling said the privacy interests cannot be limited to what the IP address can reveal on its own “without consideration of what it can reveal in combination with other available information, particularly from third-party websites.”
It went on to say that because an IP address unlocks a user’s identity, it comes with a reasonable expectation of privacy and is therefore protected by the Charter.
Personally I agree with the majority opinion here. “For the safety of children and crime victims” is too often used as an excuse to unleash wide-reaching attacks on privacy.
Police will still be able to obtain the information they need when the cases involving children and victims of crime happen, they just need to get permission from the courts. This ruling seems to prevent law enforcement from doing an internet analogue of “carding”, requesting and obtaining random Canadian IPs in search of something to prosecute.
This is kind of wild to me.
(In the US) When movie companies were trying to force sites to turn over IPs of people discussing piracy? Fuck that shit.
But the actual victim of a crime turning over an IP address they have as a necessary part of the fraudulent transaction not being allowed?
From the article, the cop laments that telecoms are no longer handing over IP addresses when requested. Now police are being forced to obtain search warrants, like they would need to in order to tap your phone or read your mail. This seems like a consistent application of privacy law and a safeguard against law enforcement abuse of power. Seems like an absolute win to me.
This isn’t the police reading your mail. It’s you receiving a package with a dead rat and a threat in it and not being allowed to give it to the police until they get a warrant.
The people they asked for an IP were directly affected by the crime. They were victims. The idea that they need permission from the court to turn over evidence of a fraud against them is completely fucking insane.
Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Read the article.
They weren’t asking some random third party for information. The payment processor is a clear and direct victim of the fraud. Fraud costs them a lot of money every year.
It is impossible for the victim of a crime to ever not be entitled to turn over every bit of information that they have about the crime. There is no scenario where you have an expectation of privacy from the person you’re actively committing a crime against.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The court’s decision is based on the case of Andrei Bykovets, who was convicted of 14 online fraud offences, for purchases made from an Alberta liquor store.
In 2017, the Calgary Police Service investigating the alleged crime discovered that the store’s online sales were managed by Moneris, a third-party payment processing company.
At trial, Bykovets argued that he was the victim of an unreasonable search and seizure, a violation of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because he had an expectation of privacy with respect to his IP address.
“It would be inconsistent with a functional approach to defining the subject matter of the search to effectively hold that any step taken in an investigation engages a reasonable expectation of privacy,” the dissenting opinion said.
“The idea that Canadians wouldn’t have an expectation of privacy in their IP addresses is a very scary proposition for us and we are glad that the court recognized the importance of going the other way on this one,” Jack told CBC News.
Kerry Shima, acting officer in charge of Alert ICE, the internet child exploitation unit for Alberta, told CBC News that “in virtually every case” an IP address “kick-starts” their investigations.
The original article contains 933 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
