[Technarch]

Let's not get into the whole "nothing to hide" argument. People who use that argument are stupid and apologists and should be ignored.

Fact is, there are tons of reasons why you may desire not to share information:

-confidential business information that has potential for insider trading if it was leaked
-confidential intellectual or trade secrets whether belonging to yourself or a business you are part of that haven't yet been submitted for patenting
-medical information that may affect your insurability
-information that may open you up to discrimination based on religion, sexuality, etc.
-confidential journalist interviews with witnesses which may expose them to persecution if their identities were revealed too soon

(Sarcasm on) After all we know in Canada journalists have never been arrested and whistleblowers have never been retaliated against etc(sarcasm off)

Just use encryption where you can. Unless of course you trust that the police will take comprehensive notes and take pains to only look at very narrow views. The same police who after shooting someone get together to make sure their notes are all in agreement with each other before cooperating with a SIU investigation.

[VictorRight]

That's okay with me personally as I don't have anything on my laptop or phone that would get me in trouble.

Secondly, can't think of any reason I would be getting arrested anyway.

Posted via CB10 - Z10 'Powered by BlackBerry'

You ok with tyranny.

Posted via CB10

[Carjackd]

You ok with tyranny.

Posted via CB10

I'm so glad I re-read that, initially glancing at your response I thought you said " Tranny".

Nevertheless, i knew this would be a heated debate.

"Official International Accountant of the Peevishlicious Crew " via my Canadian Passport!!

[anon(5789608)]

That's okay with me personally as I don't have anything on my laptop or phone that would get me in trouble.

Secondly, can't think of any reason I would be getting arrested anyway.

Posted via CB10 - Z10 'Powered by BlackBerry'

"Mooommmm, look, he raped me!! moooomm"
- by little girl you've never met in life

... and you have pictures of your naked girlfriend on the phone... and some cops will see and share with your coworkers.. and with internet.

[LordCrankypants]

Couple of things to note from the ruling:

1. Cops can only search someone's phone in the event that they can justify there was a danger posed to the public that cannot otherwise be mitigated without searching your phone or if they're worried that evidence which is crucial to an investigation(stuff that could stall an investigation if not known) could be destroyed.

2. There is a requirement for cops to be meticulous in their recording of what they are searching through and what information they take and how they do it.

You're not going to start seeing cops searching the cell phones of everyone and their dog (eg. You get pulled over for speeding). Cops are also limited to searching through communications (eg. Emails, text messages, etc). That doesn't mean you won't have those cops who might look through other apps and stuff illegally, but at least the limitation is written in the law.

That said, I think there's still too much ambiguity and too much power left in the hands of the cops with little recourse on the part of the private citizen to defend themselves against potential corruption.

We'll see how it plays out.

JB

Posted internationally thanks to my Passport

[MLDodier]

That's okay with me personally as I don't have anything on my laptop or phone that would get me in trouble.

Secondly, can't think of any reason I would be getting arrested anyway.

Posted via CB10 - Z10 'Powered by BlackBerry'

I don't agree, if you are a lawyer, doctor, banker, reporter etc.... your customer assume privacy.
A cop shouldn't access customers/professional's email, text, note or even meeting schedule. Confidentiality is a must. I don't agree on a personal basis either.

MLDodier Using BlackBerry PlayBook 2.1.0.1917 and Z 10 STL 100-3 with 10.2.1.3062

[treaker]

As long as the search is relative to the crime, I completely agree.

Posted via CB10

[1Criz]

If you read it correctly, I said it was okay by ME! Apparently I'm not allowed to have my own opinion in the matter.

As for the banking comment... wouldn't have a problem with that. Not saying that I don't believe in the right to privacy, as I said and will stand by by statement that I simply have nothing to hide.

If you don't agree that's fine, but I am entitled to my opinion on the matter and do not expect others to agree.


Posted via CB10 - Z10 'Powered by BlackBerry'

For folks who use "nothing to hide" argument, I always wonder how comfortable they would be with camera in theirs bathroom and bedroom. Or, to be closer to original topic, all of their Google searches made public.

Posted via CB10

[Technarch]

It is already a fact that US border agents are allowed to riffle though your text messages, email, photos and other stuff. If you don't believe me look it up. Border agents and cell phones. They can ask you to unlock it for them and you have to comply or no entry.

Cops don't need to riffle through your phone while you watch they can just plug it into their purpose built machine to mirror the internals and then go through it at their leisure without damaging the original "evidence". Then when they find something somewhere (there is always something, even GPS data showing you exceeded the speed limit in a school zone) they can write a report saying they were looking your whatever but could not help noticing just below it bla bla.

The human race has a long history of those in authority and power always doing the right thing and obeying the rules. (Sarcasm)

Protect yourself if it is easy to do so.

[playboldbook]

And yet people willing post all sorts of private stuff via various social media options and don't even think twice about it. Yet if a cop dares to touch my phone after I get arrested I am now shocked and horrified that this information is now available to the cops to see; because I cared so little about the security of my data in the first place, I did not take the time to password-protect my phone. People are amazing.

[Smply_Rckless]

I have run ins w cops all but too commonly. Over petty stuff, I don't care what my next stop is, but I'll be damed if I let em go thru my phone. I'll gladly take the charge. Its my privacy.

Posted via CrackBerry App

[Smitty13]

And yet people willing post all sorts of private stuff via various social media options and don't even think twice about it. Yet if a cop dares to touch my phone after I get arrested I am now shocked and horrified that this information is now available to the cops to see; because I cared so little about the security of my data in the first place, I did not take the time to password-protect my phone. People are amazing.

The irony doesn't escape me and many others in the tech world, that's for sure.

The only problem is in this situation is that, even if people take all of the easy/necessary safeguards (not using Facebook, encrypting their phone, etc.), they are still subject to having their device searched. What of these people who take their privacy very seriously? Is it fair that after all of these safeguards they are still subject to invasions of their privacy? To boot, the language of this law is highly ambiguous, opening up for abuses of it.

You cannot discern those people from the privacy lax people in this situation, alas. They are all merely being lumped together under this law.

[playboldbook]

The irony doesn't escape me and many others in the tech world, that's for sure.

The only problem is in this situation is that, even if people take all of the easy/necessary safeguards (not using Facebook, encrypting their phone, etc.), they are still subject to having their device searched. What of these people who take their privacy very seriously? Is it fair that after all of these safeguards they are still subject to invasions of their privacy? To boot, the language of this law is highly ambiguous, opening up for abuses of it.

You cannot discern those people from the privacy lax people in this situation, alas. They are all merely being lumped together under this law.

I guess I understood, from the reporting, that if you did have the phone protected by a password a search warrant would be required. I will admit that I could be wrong here, and should not rely on lax journalism to tell the full story.

[cbvinh]

And yet people willing post all sorts of private stuff via various social media options and don't even think twice about it. Yet if a cop dares to touch my phone after I get arrested I am now shocked and horrified that this information is now available to the cops to see; because I cared so little about the security of my data in the first place, I did not take the time to password-protect my phone. People are amazing.

The things people share on social media are things that they /decide/ to share, unless people have been posting bank account info along with passwords?

If someone password protects his/her phone, should the police be allowed to grab the data? That's the question at hand, not whether someone took the time to password protect the phone.

[Technarch]

Here's more related food for thought on this topic that is currently playing out in the US. Police have legislative right to your fingerprint when they arrest you. The legislation does not state "on paper via inkpad". Hello TouchID sensor!

[cbvinh]

Here's more related food for thought on this topic that is currently playing out in the US. Police have legislative right to your fingerprint when they arrest you. The legislation does not state "on paper via inkpad". Hello TouchID sensor!

Doesn't the current implementation of TouchID store the data locally on the device? If so, it isn't exportable and if Apple were to make it exportable, it opens up a huge backdoor, allowing people to scan other people's fingerprints and then re-use that data.

[eddy_berry]

You know, I've said, as a citizen of a free country where you have rights and freedoms, you can keep your mouth shut and your phone locked until you are under the protection of a lawyer. I never said that if you have nothing to hide to just give them everything including bank accounts, sensitive work material, your SO's naked pictures and the kitchen sink. Even if a cop asks you only for email record of a conversation with a some accused individual you don't just give them the phone. That's like allowing them to come in your house. Which, by the way, negates the need for a warrant. Don't just give it to them whether you have something to hide or not. I feel like this thread is just trying to make it look like all our rights and freedoms are being thrown out the door when there are specific requirements of the questioning officers to document everything and even then I would suggest having a lawyer present. Be smart about it. You still have rights.

Posted via CB10

[playboldbook]

The things people share on social media are things that they /decide/ to share, unless people have been posting bank account info along with passwords?

If someone password protects his/her phone, should the police be allowed to grab the data? That's the question at hand, not whether someone took the time to password protect the phone.

So what happens when you leave your phone unprotected and you lose it? Or you lose your wallet with bank statements or naked photos of your sig. other? Whose fault is it that you decided to leave that info unprotected to begin with?

[silversmith75]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Thomas Jefferson

Posted via CB10

[Dave Bourque]

Unfortunately, I'm not in Canada. :P

PasaportePilipinasSQW100-1/10.3.1.1154

You are on earth... nobody escapes these intrusions.

Posted via CB10

[Dave Bourque]

So what happens when you leave your phone unprotected and you lose it? Or you lose your wallet with bank statements or naked photos of your sig. other? Whose fault is it that you decided to leave that info unprotected to begin with?

If it's password protected and a good password it will wipe in 10 tries. For that other stuff well. You just call your bank as soon as you can.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

Even if a cop asks you only for email record of a conversation with a some accused individual you don't just give them the phone.

I am afraid you do not understand the weight of yesterday's Supreme Court of Canada ruling then, if you still believe that. Up until yesterday, that was a possibility one had while under arrest, but that "luxury" is no longer afforded to Canadians who are placed under arrest. While your example merely focused on an individual (whom I am presuming in your example) is not under arrest for an offence, the broader implications of this new law means that you are no longer afforded an opportunity to deny law enforcement access to your phone and it's contents.

An individual's agency and autonomy are clearly being infringed upon with this new law as you are not able to dictate to law enforcement what they may or may not look at on your phone once in their possession. This is where the ambiguity of this law is dangerous; you are essentially leaving what is "relevant" up to an arresting officer. Where is the discretion derived from? What standards? This is not discussed anywhere.

The presumption of innocence still reigns supreme in Canada (until you are decided guilty), so that begs the question, if one is considered innocent, why should they forfeit privacy rights while under arrest but pre-guilty verdict?

I feel like this thread is just trying to make it look like all our rights and freedoms are being thrown out the door when there are specific requirements of the questioning officers to document everything and even then I would suggest having a lawyer present.

You really are not seeing the broader picture, are you? This is the proverbial slippery slope privacy rights activists have been referring to for quite some time. You do not have any rights under this new law to have your legal counsel sit and essentially watch law enforcement go through your phone's contents. I am unsure if you even have the right to review the "detailed notes" the officer takes after searching through your phone. You as a person may have zero knowledge of this entire process; this is something you feel isn't a problem? Wow.

Be smart about it. You still have rights.

For even the smartest of individuals, their rights are being intruded upon little by little. This is exactly how draconian policies get put into place. They just need to move at a glacial pace so like minded people to yourself pipe up and say, "Come on! It's only XYZ that they are doing! It's no big deal." The problem is, they build upon XYZ to formulate ABC's law; ABC leads to DEF and so on. Eventually people will look back and say, "What happened to get us here?" You needn't look any further than laws like these.

[ArcPlug]

For folks who use "nothing to hide" argument, I always wonder how comfortable they would be with camera in theirs bathroom and bedroom. Or, to be closer to original topic, all of their Google searches made public.

Posted via CB10

Obviously anyone who says they have nothing to hide knows they have things to hide in their bathroom and bedroom. And most honest men would have to admit they have things to hide in their hearts. Its an expression, your argument is ridiculous. Its like when people ask me if I'm going on vacation this year, and I say no, I have no money. Well actually, I do have money in my savings, what I mean is I don't have an extra 5 thousand big ones kicking around. As for your second argument, Google knows your search history, they don't make it public. The same expectations would apply to the police.

[Lebussle]

VP

Posted via CB10

[ArcPlug]

I don't think that the police should have free access to your phone and other private things, but I also think they should have the best tools at their disposal to fight crime. Where the balance is in that, I'm not sure. My biggest problem with this, and many other rulings, is that it got decided by a panel of unelected judges. I thought this was a democracy. Let the government decide stuff like this. If we don't like their decisions, don't vote them in again.